Trudeau’S Bad Boy

When the Mulroney conservatives were putting together their winning coalition, one of the major challenges was to break the Liberal stranglehold on the province of Quebec. It was the key to victory. In order to do this they had to go into coalition with known separatists, notably one Lucien Bouchard. The pay back would be constitutional accommodations for Quebec in the form of The Meech Lake Accord. But when it was apparent the MLA was not going to pass Lucien Bouchard stormed out of Parliament, his Quebec caucus in tow, and they became the Bloc Quebecois- our official federal separatist party. Since then the Bloc has dominated Quebec pre-empting the Liberals and putting a permanent warp in our electoral politics. Mulroney had lost one flank of his coalition and he would lose the other for the same reason. Where Pierre Trudeau could be accused of fomenting Western alienation Brian Mulroney drove it through the roof- largely because of his constitutional tampering. In focusing obsessively on Quebec he was sarcastically referred to as “the prime minister of Quebec” and the other nine provinces and territories came to be known as ROC- the Rest of Canada. The constitutional wars sewed deep divisions in the country. Western alienation/separatism came to be expressed in the Reform Party under Preston Manning, subsequently the Alliance under Stephen Harper, and the rest is history. After losing his Eastern flank to the Bloc, Mulroney lost his Western flank to the Reform, and the Progressive Conservative Party, in large part a victim of the constitutional wars was decimated at the polls by a wrathful electorate in 1993. The PCP was a pale shadow of its former self. The right was split, giving the Liberals a free ride with successive victories under Jean Chretien. The death of the Progressive Conservative Party came when it was sold out by the renowned Peter MacKay (most likely on instructions from Brian Mulroney) and Canada was thus blessed with a new form of conservatism- hard-ass Republican with a unionist/Christian evangelical agenda. The constitutional wars left the Canadian political landscape drastically altered, our political structures teetering and Ignatieff suggests that only the “timid” will shrink from the “difficult” task of bringing Quebec into the constitution. Likewise Brian Mulroney stood in the House of Commons and accused those who opposed his free trade initiative of being timid. Though Mulroney got his free trade agreement, now NAFTA, it never achieved its stated purposes of overcoming US protectionism and exemption from their trade laws. Our political elites are unwilling to admit it has made us a subservient and captive trading partner. Both men flaunt the word “timid” where “wisdom” should prevail. Both are willing to play the wicked and reckless game of using constitutional measures to gain partisan advantage. Had the Meech Lake Accord passed Mulroney’s conservatives would have won tenure in the province of Quebec-but at what cost to the country? Similarly, Ignatieff, would love to lead the Liberal party into an election promising Quebec further accommodations when it already has a well defined de facto separation and all the powers it needs to protect and advance its distinct culture. During the constitutional wars the prime minister and ten premiers were the agents of constitutional change. This came to be known as “executive federalism.” The question arose: Should partisan politicians be entrusted with constitutional change? Based on the constitutional wars the resounding answer is No! A much better approach would be a non-partisan constituent assembly. Even though there was a slavish unanimity to The Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords among Canada’s political elites the wars ended when a national referendum soundly repudiated The Charlottetown Accord. Canadians expressed their collective wisdom and contempt for executive federalism in a very conclusive way. Journalist Mordecai Richler characterized The Meech Lake and Charlottetwon Accords as “convenience store federalism”- the provinces could walk in and pick off federal powers as they wished. What applied to Quebec would apply to other provinces. The dangers were apparent as Canada is already a highly decentralized federal state, and a highly asymmetrical one where huge disparities exist between provinces in size, wealth and political clout. To further empower the dominant regions is an invitation to balkanization. At the Quebec city debate Ignatieff wanted to give hope to those who say “Quebec is my nation, but Canada is my country.” This is mere jabberwocky. “Nation” and “country” are highly synonymous and this hackneyed subterfuge should be laughed out of existence. It is the trickery of sly separatists and overly ambitious neophyte politicians. Candidate, Stephane Dion, adroitly called Canada “a country that works better in practice than theory,” and he is right! One of the great lessons of the constitutional wars was that if we become obsessed with constitutional nitpicking we run the risk of destroying the country. Dion also correctly pointed out that Ignatieff is out of touch, “It proves that Ignatieff does not have the necessary experience of Canada and of politics, because we have got over our constitutional obsession.” The constitutional wars were part of our maturing as a nation. We learned it is better to celebrate what unites us rather than what divides us. Hopefully we have reached a constitutional equilibrium where it is recognized by all factions “the theory” does not have to be revisited on a cyclical basis and that to do so is potentially ruinous for all. Even now though, as Ignatieff, Trudeau’s bad boy, tries to instigate another meaningless constitutional war we are on the eve of the ultimate constitutional war. Canada's elites are determined to sell out the country through North American union. It is the subject Liberals, Conservatives, and our national media do not have the courage or decency to address openly. It is going to be up to Canada's civil society to force the issue into the open. Given Ignatieff’s fawning love affair with the American empire he is not exactly a worthy custodian of Canadian sovereignty, the constitution or any other issue. The Harper conservatives are a provincial supremacist party(Read the Alberta firewall letter signed by the current prime minister!)and given a majority will eviscerate our federalism. Part of the much touted Liberal renewal must be a rededication to federalist values. Stephan Dion is the only candidate in this race with proven federalist convictions and with a exemplary legislative track record. Ignatieff is the only one to disqualify himself when the race is only half over. In 1987 when Pierre Trudeau came out of retirement to denounce The Meech Lake Accord he spoke not so much as partisan politician but as an elder statesman practicing statecraft. He recognized the accord for what it was; a mere power grab by the provinces, and in the case of Quebec a huge step down the road of incremental separation. His authority was considerable as not only was he a long-serving prime minister with an intimate knowledge of our constitution, he was also a constitutional lawyer by vocation. When leaders retire from office there is always the risk some future generation will erase part or all of their legacy. To tamper with the Trudeau legacy on constitutional matters approaches heresy and cannot be left to precocious dilettantes and mere seekers of partisan advantage. In the meantime, this miracle called “Canada” survives in spite of its apathetic and false-hearted elites.