New Perspectives on the Canadian Constitutional Debate

Graeme S. Mount is a professor of history at Laurentian University, the
author of Canada’s Enemies: Spies and Spying in the Peaceable Kingdom,
and the co-author of The Border at Sault Ste. Marie.

After the 1995 Quebec referendum, Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow—who
wrote the foreword of this book—wondered how Canadians could maintain
a meaningful common identity while respecting each other’s
differences. Decentralization, he warned, is not a panacea, for it may
inhibit “our ability to make good public policy that contributes to
national unity.” These days, it is refreshing to see somebody willing
to defend the federal government as a potential force for good.
Romanow’s submission, like all others in this book, appears in both
English and French. Editor James M. Pitsula’s brief review of events
leading to the 1995 referendum is followed by two lectures: the first by
the University of Toronto’s Peter Russell, the second by Roger Gibbins
of the University of Calgary.

Canadian leaders, says Russell, should not go overboard in placating
Quebec nationalists. They would be contemptuous—not grateful—and
many other Canadians would become resentful. Nor would it be wise to
preserve Canada by “dismantling all that has been built up since World
War II.” It would be irresponsible not to develop a Plan B before the
next referendum, even if Quebec nationalists are offended. Quebec’s
departure will require a constitutional amendment, even after a vote for
secession, and protection for minorities and assumption of a fair share
of the national debt must be prerequisites for that amendment. There
must be no doubt next time that the votes were counted fairly.

Roger Gibbins warns against decentralization as a panacea. Rather than
strengthen Canada, it may render the federal government next to
irrelevant and threaten the country’s unity. Given the strength of
other nations and international associations in Europe and Asia, a
decentralized Canada may be less capable of protecting Canadian
interests. This argument makes good sense, although one wonders how
Gibbins reconciles these views with his defence of the Reform Party
expressed elsewhere.