John Robson proposes an act of profound madness:
Canada’s Constitution is a mess. It doesn’t provide good government, doesn’t unite us, doesn’t inspire us, and cannot be amended. We can, and should, do better. It might seem unwise to revisit the question after the two previous attempts to fix it destroyed the party that led those efforts and shook the country to its foundations. Ever since we’ve subscribed to Robert Stanfield’s “bicycle” doctrine that Canada will keep going as long as we don’t stop and think about it. There is relative peace and prosperity in the land today, but the misguided 1982 reforms are like termites in our constitutional rafters, and we really need to fix the roof while the sun is shining.
Of course the Canadian constitution is a mess. But look I didn't vote for Pierre Trudeau and I suspect neither did most of the people who read this blog. The logical thing is to fix the constitution, toss in something about property rights, reform the Senate and come up with a nicer name for the Governor-General. Personally I'm thinking of Lord Viceroy of All The Canadas but that might strike some people as dated.
What's logical is rarely what makes political sense. Any attempt to tinker with the constitution is a suicide pact amongst the witless participants. If someone offered Stephen Harper the option of re-opening the constitution or high diving into the Rideau Canal, I suspect he'd go get his swim trunks. This is crazy and John Robson must know this. What are they putting in this man's corn flakes?
Whatever it is please stop.
In a normal country, like say Botswana or Mongolia, modernizing a constitution is just one of those things that politicians get around to doing once in a generation or so. It's no big deal. But then again in these countries, not run by crazy people, updating your basic legal instrument isn't seen as a threat to national unity. Imagine sitting down with an American or Frenchman and saying, with a straight face, that if they were to attempt to amend their constitutions it would provoke a national unity crisis. They'd think you were nuts or the country in question was some third rate third world banana republic.
Our constitution complex is one of those weird quirks of the national psyche. A nation of accountants who, on the weekends, like to play Russian roulette just to take the edge off. We are a boring country, boring as a matter of principle really, but we decided that when it comes to arcane legal questions we're willing to blow the whole place up. Just because.
It has been a tenant of this blog since its inception that everything in Canada, from the complexities of our monetary policies to the subtle dawn light turning the wheat of Saskatchewan into that magical golden hue, depends on Quebec. No other country is founded on the premise that one quarter of the country may indefinitely hold hostage the other three quarters. Only a nation with our obsessively absurd desire to please would agree to such terms.
We cannot amend our constitution because while nine provinces, eventually, will get around to striking some kind of vaguely sensible deal, that one stubborn province will never go along. Short of Alberta promising on bended knee to underwrite the entire Quebec budget from now until doomsday, which ain't happening, Quebec will never sign the constitution. It's too useful a political prop for both the pseudo-federalist Liberals and the pseudo-separatist PQ to give up on. They need to play the victim. In the passion play of constitutional politics they're always the hapless habitants and Lord Durham is coming around to snatch their dog eared copies of Moliere.
Our constitution, it must be noted, is living proof to the inherent uselessness of written constitutions. Don't believe me? If having a well written document was essential to the success of a nation then why are we still around? Even the original BNA was just something Macdonald and Mowatt threw together in the back of a hotel room in Quebec City between bickering and drinking. John A, of course, was doing most of the drinking. It was never intended to be, like the American constitution, some kind of holy writ to lead the chosen people to the promised land. It was a preliminary document that few expected to last.
The genius of our Founding Fathers was that they understood that nations aren't built by constitutions, they're built by people actually doing useful things. Building railways, canals, schools, hospitals, factories and offices. Building things that enhance human life. From John A to Lester Pearson no one gave two hoots about the BNA except the half-dozen constitutional lawyers we had in Canada at the time.
Guess what? It worked brilliantly until Pierre Trudeau decided he was going to save Canada from its boring old self. The vanity of a vain man imperilled the unity of the nation and wasted the attention of the electorate. Instead of modernizing our economy and keeping our fiscal house in order we spent a quarter century on this useless constitutional merry go around.
If I had my way we'd repeal the dog's breakfast of 1982 and hand the constitution back to the British. Honestly what damn difference would it make? It's not like we were paying them to keep the thing stored or something. Failing that we could replace the whole constitution with the lyrics to Anne Murray's version of Snowbird. It would at least have the advantage of making it slightly more difficult for the Supreme Court to play philosopher kings.
Comments