The Myths and Symbols of the Constitutional Debate in Canada

H. Graham Rawlinson teaches history at York University in Toronto.

This is a brief but valuable essay on the current dialogue on Canada’s
Constitution. The recent heated discussion on the Meech Lake Accord is
the test case for the author’s thesis—namely, that the symbols that
every Canadian debate on the Constitution conjures up are far more
important than what our Constitution actually says or does. Franks
suggests that perceptions, based on a variety of national myths, are
more important than reality each time Canadians debate their
constitutional future. Ultimately, the tension created by opposing myths
leads to the “processes of exaggeration and polarization.”

The author’s argument is effective. Political scientists have known
for a long time that every national political culture is highly
dependent on ideas rooted in symbols. Franks takes this abstract
proposition and proves it by neatly summarizing the recent
constitutional debate in Canada. Symbols like “Clyde Wells,”
“Elijah Harper,” and Quebec’s “unsigned” Constitution loomed
large in the national discussion. But these symbols quickly became
detached from the realities they represented, and the result was a
debate about constitutional myths. Popular conceptions of the Meech saga
prove Franks’s point: the notion that English Canada “rejected”
Quebec when the Meech Lake deal went unratified, for example, is of
course false; it is an assumption, however, that is widely held.

Historians will be disappointed that the author does not explore the
evolution of Canada’s constitutional symbols. But by keeping his essay
short and to the point, Franks makes it a highly readable introduction
to the topic. Canada’s recent constitutional debate has no doubt
spawned too many books; but, for its skilful consideration of this
issue, Franks’s essay is worthy of attention.