"It's two, two, two countries in one!"
Meech Lake - just the mention of it is enough to send Canadian nationalists screaming into the night. "Founding Fathers forgive them for they know not what they do!" one can almost hear them cry. But, was the Accord reached at Meech Lake really so bad?"
It took 10 provinces and the federal government over five years of often painful negotiations to conclude what anybody who has ever spent time in La Belle Province knows: Quebec is not like any other province. This was a revolutionary breakthrough?
As far as I can tell, the Meech Lake Accord probably didn't go far enough: it should have recognized that every province is a "distinct society" within Canada, with its own history, local culture and political concerns. Not only would this jibe with Canadian reality in the latter half of the 20th century, but it would have had the delightfully perverse effect of granting Quebec the special status it provincial government craved while, at the same time, making it the same as every other province.
Unfortunately, given the trouble a single province had gaining such status, this idea isn't likely to be realized before the year 2032. Still, it has yet to be shown to my satisfaction that elevating provinces necessary diminishes Canada (even if, as I will freely stipulate, most of the provincial Premiers have shifty eyes).
A more serious problem might arise from the clause which allows a province to opt out of federally funded programmes if it agrees to use the money to create a programme "compatible with national objectives." How might this affect, for example, day care?
One province, (let us call it Province X) might use its federal funds to directly subsidize non-profit daycare centres. A second province (which we will refer to as Province Y) might use the funds to directly subsidize for-profit daycare. A third province (say, Province Z) might give the money to eligible couples and allow them to choose which kind of daycare they wish to send their children to.
Fair enough. But, what if a Province (let us call it Province...umm, AA - no, Province One - better yet, Province Four; so, that would make Province X Province One, Province Y Province Two and Province Z Province Three) decides to give the money directly to the children and tells them to stay in a hotel? Can a province (Province Five, now: remember, we've changed from letter to numbers) choose to create a programme that pays for dance lessons for eligible children 12 and under?
If a provincial government decides young children should not be left unprotected, can Province Six buy handguns for children of working parents? If the problem is the development of an emotionally healthy child, can Province Seven get away with funding psychiatric sessions for children to help them adjust to being alone? If it's just a matter of keeping the children occupied, would Province Eight be within its rights to buy them cable television until they were 16?
Perhaps the answer, as arrived at by Province Nine, would be to pay couple not to have children. Or, could a province (Province 10) decide that daycare wasn't a high priority and use the money to create more potholes in public roads?
If the Accord is interpreted to allow such shenanigans, it could make a patchwork of Canada's national social programmes (with my apologies to seamstresses everywhere, women and men who do an honest day's work, for the unseemly analogy). But, an interpretation which gave the federal government the power to determine national objectives would nip that in the bud (ditto for horticulturalists).
If I have a problem with the Meech Lake Accord, it has to do with the process by which it was reached. The Prime Ministers and the Premiers spent 19 1/2 hours in a room arguing about the details (a just punishment for a life in politics, some might say). This gave the whole negotiating process a Let's Make a Deal atmosphere: "Premier Bourassa, will you accept a consulting role in the appointment of judges and Senators, or would you like to take a chance and see what's behind Curtain Number Two?"
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney took on the role of mediator between the provinces, prompting the question: Who spoke for Canada? (Actually, it fell to the janitorial staff at Meech Lake to speak for Canada, but none of the Premiers thought they'd make a good photo opportunity, so they were ignored at the signing.)
It is the abrogation of federal responsibility in order to cut a deal to make Canada's Constitutional reality fall in line with its political reality (ie - that Quebec is a part of the nation) that keeps me up nights. Could a future Supreme Court of Canada interpret the Accord to mean that Quebec actually controls the rest of Canada?
That fine print will get you every time.
