The PM's curious promise of constitutional change

Here we go.  Prime Minister Harper has said there will be “constitutional changes”.  Break out the painkillers. 

Do you remember the last rounds of attempts at constitutional change:  The Meech Lake (non)Accord and Charlottetown?

Why does the constitution cause such consternation?

A constitution is the first set of rules on how we govern ourselves.  The provinces agreed to be in the federation we call Canada on the basis of the division of powers.  Certain responsibilities belong to the federal government and the rest belong to the provinces. 

Traditionally, the federal powers were those that transcended provincial boundaries.  For example, things like rail and air travel are federal responsibilities.  Other areas of federal responsibility are areas where consistent standards across the country are desirable.  For example, health and criminal law are federal responsibilities.

So what’s the problem? 

Well, the division of powers originally happened in 1867.  Things like the Internet, highways and satellite TV were not on the horizon.  If looked at the division of powers now and tried to adapt it to today’s world, you would have a challenge. 

Of course, the idealists among us would just say:   “Why don’t you folks just sit down and create a new division of powers, based on today’s world?”

If only it were so simple. 

First of all, we are talking about POWER.  They politicians live and breathe on power.  They want as much of it they can get. 

Secondly, every province has different priorities and wants the powers divided a certain way.  Alberta wants private health care and as little federal involvement as possible.  Given that Alberta is rolling in the cash these days on oil royalties, what else would you expect?

Quebec, depending on which party is in power, either wants to be out of the federation entirely (and be its own country) or to have as much autonomy as possible (all the while getting as much federal cash as possible).

The poor provinces and territories want redistribution of wealth while the wealthy provinces want to keep as much of their cash as possible.

In the end, it is a battle royal to get everyone to agree to anything. 

So what is Harper thinking when he says there “will have to be constitutional changes”?  How does he think he is going to strong-arm that?   Even a majority government can’t force constitutional change.  We all have to agree.  We can’t even agree who the “we” is, as the Native population claims a seat at the bargaining table as well.

Every time there is a round of constitutional talks, all we get is a hyped-up media circus, inevitably doomed to failure. 

I am curious as to what PM Harper has planned for “constitutional change”.  I am even more curious as to how he can get everyone to agree to anything.