Constitutional Predicament: Canada After the Referendum of 1992

David E. Smith is a political science professor at the University of
Saskatchewan and the author of Building a Province: A History of
Saskatchewan in Documents.

The seven essays in this book were originally presented in November 1992
at a conference sponsored by the North American Studies Program at
Colorado College in Colorado Springs. Uniformly thoughtful and original,
the essays are by all appearances to date unknown in Canada. Why the
book’s publisher has not done more to publicize this intelligent
collection is a mystery. Certainly it is not because the contributors
are unknown. On the contrary, they are among the luminaries of Canadian
political science: Janet Ajzenstat, Alan Cairns, Barry Cooper, Peter
Emberley, F.L. Morton, Alain Noлl, and James Tully.

While written in the knowledge that the 1992 referendum had failed, the
papers are no exercise in pathology. All are theoretical (three
strikingly so) in their evaluation of Canada’s condition. As usual,
Cairns is particularly insightful: for instance, of Canada’s four
nationalisms (Canadian, Québécois, ROC [the “Rest of Canada”], and
Aboriginal), only the first conforms to “the constitutional
assumptions of federalism”; or, again, the principle of provincial
equality constricts Quebec’s distinctiveness at the same time as it
strengthens “the original separateness [of] Aboriginals.”

In her piece on “The Myth of the People,” Ajzenstat explores the
corroding effect of popular participation on governance that
dichotomizes politicians and the people, depreciating the first and
elevating the second. As a result, she argues, leadership declines,
intolerance rises, and agreement disappears. Canada a victim of
democratic excess? Never—but then again....

“Globalism and Localism,” by Peter Emberley, extends the
theoretical inquiry beyond Canada’s shores. It suggests that the
Charlottetown Accord combined remnants of the past with “future

possibilities, localized grievances, and global pressures.” In so
doing, Canada was not unique but was in fact only replicating “the
contemporary quandary of constitutionalism in a new “world
‘order.’” Without a doubt, this is the best book yet on our
present discontents.