Why did Meech fail?

[jdobbin]

That's both simplistic, and ignorant of the facts.

Clyde Wells put the sword into Meech but Trudeau gave it to him. Manitoba was a sideshow.

But as I say, I think we should start another thread.

The vote in Manitoba had to be unanimous. The deal was dead in Manitoba because Elijah Harper was never going to vote for it.

Do you believe somehow that the situation in Manitoba was likely to change?

Wells pulled the vote in Newfoundland because of what happened in Manitoba. That made the deal good and dead.

[geoffrey]

My ignorance and youth prevails (I was likely barely walking at the time), why did the vote have to be unanimous? Is this just Manitoba's way of doing things?

I'm familiar with Elijah, but was he trying to get Indians into the deal or was he unwilling to negoiate with the framework? Did it go to vote knowing that it would fail? What concessions were the Indians asking for?

Other outstanding issues seemed to be Bourassa's use of the notwithstanding clause. Why do such an inflamatory thing when trying to settle a deal?

Mulroney was giving powers to the provinces that they should have been getting anyways. Trudeau was out of line. I know the political left in Canada has generally been for massive centralisation of power, but Meech was just recognising provincial jurisdiction in my opinion.

[jdobbin]

My ignorance and youth prevails (I was likely barely walking at the time), why did the vote have to be unanimous? Is this just Manitoba's way of doing things?

I'm familiar with Elijah, but was he trying to get Indians into the deal or was he unwilling to negoiate with the framework? Did it go to vote knowing that it would fail? What concessions were the Indians asking for?

Other outstanding issues seemed to be Bourassa's use of the notwithstanding clause. Why do such an inflamatory thing when trying to settle a deal?

Mulroney was giving powers to the provinces that they should have been getting anyways. Trudeau was out of line. I know the political left in Canada has generally been for massive centralisation of power, but Meech was just recognising provincial jurisdiction in my opinion.

It was the way it was set up in the Manitoba Legislature. It had to be a unanimous vote or it would not pass. Elijah Harper received calls from nearly every chief in Canada asking him to vote against the deal because of the collapse of the constitutional talks regarding Aboriginals in Canada. Mulroney and others promised that once Meech Lake was approved, they would deal with Aboriginal decisions.

First Nations, first and foremost, wanted to deal with land claims but they had a long list of items they wanted recognized in the Constitution. There was a belief that Meech approval would give the provinces the right to shut the door on First Nations forever.

Edited September 7, 2007 by jdobbin

[jbg]

Mulroney and others promised that once Meech Lake was approved, they would deal with Aboriginal decisions.

From what I know Mulroney always kept his promises. They should have taken the deal.

[jdobbin]

From what I know Mulroney always kept his promises. They should have taken the deal.

Mulroney had promised to break the logjam of two past failures in constitutional talks and to get a constitutional settlement for First Nations in Canada.

What was presented instead was a provincial encroachment into First Nation affairs.

The talks failed for a third time in 1985. The promise of ending the logjam was not met. Mulroney went on to concentrate on bringing Quebec into the constitution and left Aboriginals out of the talks. Subsequently, when Manitoba required a unanimous vote to move forward on Meech, Elijah Harper representing all natives in Canada, voted no.

As for Mulroney keeping his promises, he promised that bidders on contracts would go to the lowest bidder with the highest technical merits. He failed on both accounts with the awarding of the CF-18 contract and the seeds of the Reform party were formed with the founding convention of the party taking place in Winnipeg a few years later.

Edited September 9, 2007 by jdobbin

[jbg]

I was being facetious. Even a Yank like me knows of the nickname "lyin' Brian".

[August1991]

It was the way it was set up in the Manitoba Legislature. It had to be a unanimous vote or it would not pass.

The unanimous vote was to fast track the decision, otherwise it would have had to go to public consultation. It was also possible to delay the decision by three months and still respect the three year time period for ratification. Filmon was on side. IOW, Manitoba was not a major stumbling block despite the superficial histrionics of the guy with the feather.

It was Clyde Wells' decision not to put the Accord to a vote that killed Meech. (In fact, Newfoundland had already ratified it and then Wells rescinded the ratification. Wells had promised to put an amended Accord to another vote but then failed to do so.) IOW, Wells had no intention of ever letting Meech through.

Behind all of this was the hand of Pierre Trudeau. Trudeau and Wells worked in concert. Trudeau wrote several articles and gave interviews strongly critical of the Accord and personally insulting to Brian Mulroney. Some (English) Canadians, even today, put Trudeau on a pedestal as Canada's Augustus.

If Trudeau were alive now, I wonder what he'd say about Harper and his decision to recognize the Québécois as a nation within Canada. Trudeau was a clear thinker but on this specific issue, he was an irritating pedant.

Incidentally, Maple Leaf Web has a nice little primer on Meech Lake. This is the page about its failure.

----

If we speak of Constittional reform in Canada, I must say that I regret that the Victoria Charter never passed. It seems to me that the first step is a clear mechanism for constitutional amendment and Victoria did that, enshrining a Quebec veto which must be a cornerstone of a viable Canadian federal state. Victoria also contained a simpler and more sensible Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately for the federation, Bourassa alone rejected Victoria while all the nine other provinces accepted it. (There has been much debate about this. Officially, Bourassa justified his rejection of Victoria since it didn't give special status to Quebec. At the time, Claude Morin was an advisor to Bourassa. For myself, I have always felt that Bourassa was too young to take such a major decision in Quebec history. He chose the safety of the status quo.)

Canada's attempts and failures to reform the Constitution over the past 40 years or so are a sympton of a profound malaise. Given the chance, Harper might be able to break this Gordian knot. Looking back on past failures, it appears that personality and chance played a role. Trudeau made any attempts at compromise impossible.

If Harper tries and can't do it, then Canada will truly be a failure as a federal state.

Edited September 9, 2007 by August1991

[jbg]

If Harper tries and can't do it, then Canada will truly be a failure as a federal state.

Not really. As Harper himself has said, Canada is a country that works in practice, though not in theory.

Frankly, the US Constitution is a bloody mess, and we're a great country as well. I think the quality and caliber of the people, and to a lesser extent resources, determine if a country succeeds or fails. Nigeria's constitution happens to be excellent. But to what end?

[Visionseeker]

While Elijah Harper is often seen as the fatal blow, Wells was (willfully or not) committed to kill it in Newfoundland.

Opposition to Meech was growing everywhere in the land (even in Quebec, though a substantial majority stood staunchly in support). The "distinct society" clause afforded to Quebec was viewed by detractors as creating an inherently unequal federation (i.e. all provinces are equal except for Quebec). The lightning rod that killed public approval for the deal came when, following a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the province's language laws, the Premier of Quebec (Bourassa) invoked the Notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to shield itself from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The ensuing public backlash in the rest of Canada precipitated a new round of negotiations and Lucien Bouchard's defection from the Conservatives to form the Bloc Québécois. With these developments came Trudeau's arguments calling Mulroney a "weakling", mistaking the Constitution with "tinker toys" with the premiers. The public mood for 11 men deciding the constitutional fate of the country behind closed doors suddenly ran cool. Trudeau made compelling arguments against the asymmetry that Meech would create and (outside Quebec) the public had become largely opposed to the whole mess.

As for Wells, while he played ball in these negotiations, he did so with the caveat the he would have to consult with the people of Newfoundland. Wells was buying time to see which vision (Trudeau or Mulroney's) would win the day. When the time came, he would side with Trudeau. When Elijah Harper presented a procedural roadblock in Manitoba's ratification of the accord, Wells cancelled the planned free vote in the Newfoundland House of Assembly (knowing that the outcome was to be a refusal).

Meech became Mulroney's ill-conceived attempt to reward Quebec nationalists for their electoral support rather than a nation building entreprise. Its hybrid, the Charlottetown Accord, produced an incoherent babble of rights demanded from various interests that stood little chance of consensus. In the end, the whole entreprise had so deeply shaken the federation that it produced two regionally centered political parties that won substantial representation in the House of Commons.

[bush_cheney2004]

Frankly, the US Constitution is a bloody mess, and we're a great country as well. I think the quality and caliber of the people, and to a lesser extent resources, determine if a country succeeds or fails. Nigeria's constitution happens to be excellent. But to what end?

Canada never really had the practical experience of forging a constitution or amendments under fire. Meech failed because it could, just as unanimous consent had failed in 1982 (Quebec veto).

BTW, the current Nigerian Constitution is all of eight years old.

Edited September 9, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[jdobbin]

The unanimous vote was to fast track the decision, otherwise it would have had to go to public consultation. It was also possible to delay the decision by three months and still respect the three year time period for ratification. Filmon was on side. IOW, Manitoba was not a major stumbling block despite the superficial histrionics of the guy with the feather.

It was Clyde Wells' decision not to put the Accord to a vote that killed Meech. (In fact, Newfoundland had already ratified it and then Wells rescinded the ratification. Wells had promised to put an amended Accord to another vote but then failed to do so.) IOW, Wells had no intention of ever letting Meech through.

While you dismiss native claims as histrionic, they were gaining some notice in Manitoba. And while Filmon may have supported Meech, he had been in opposition to it prior to 1988. Support was extremely shaky. You seem supremely confident of Manitoba politics. I certainly wasn't and I was working in the legislature at the time. It was a minority government and had Elijah Harper not voted against moving ahead, I think there would have been a collapse in the government over the issue in any event.

Blame Trudeau all you want and blame Wells if you want but don't say you know with utmost confidence that Manitoba was going to vote for the deal. It was not that cut and dry by any stretch.

[jdobbin]

While Elijah Harper is often seen as the fatal blow, Wells was (willfully or not) committed to kill it in Newfoundland.

I believe that Carstairs and the Liberals in Manitoba would have brought the government down rather than vote for Meech.

Someone in Quebec might see Trudeau as being totally responsible for the defeat and dismiss Elijah Harper and native claims as being histrionic but they were gaining support from NDP and Liberals for a vote to bring down the minority Conservatives.

Edited September 9, 2007 by jdobbin

[August1991]

Meech became Mulroney's ill-conceived attempt to reward Quebec nationalists for their electoral support rather than a nation building entreprise.

That's just plain wrong.

Meech arose from Bourassa's initial five requirements for Quebec to sign on to Trudeau's unilateral constitutional amendments.

If Trudeau had been around in 1867, we would never have had Confederation because Trudeau would have called Macdonald a drunken fool for compromising. And knowing Trudeau's style, he would have reserved a more vulgar term for Cartier.

Edited September 9, 2007 by August1991

[jbg]

The ensuing public backlash in the rest of Canada precipitated a new round of negotiations and Lucien Bouchard's defection from the Conservatives to form the Bloc Québécois. With these developments came Trudeau's arguments calling Mulroney a "weakling", mistaking the Constitution with "tinker toys" with the premiers. The public mood for 11 men deciding the constitutional fate of the country behind closed doors suddenly ran cool. Trudeau made compelling arguments against the asymmetry that Meech would create and (outside Quebec) the public had become largely opposed to the whole mess.

Wasn't it that the PM would become a "headwaiter to the provinces" or was that another occasion?

Meech became Mulroney's ill-conceived attempt to reward Quebec nationalists for their electoral support rather than a nation building entreprise. Its hybrid, the Charlottetown Accord, produced an incoherent babble of rights demanded from various interests that stood little chance of consensus. In the end, the whole entreprise had so deeply shaken the federation that it produced two regionally centered political parties that won substantial representation in the House of Commons.

Great analysis and explanation, particularly helpful to an American like me who knows nothing about Canada and can barely find it on a map.

[jbg]

BTW, the current Nigerian Constitution is all of eight years old.

My point is that a constitution does not make a country. Measured by its constitution, Iraq is also a smoothly functioning society operating by consensus and democracy. While I think it's moving in the right direction I hardly think it's there yet.

[bush_cheney2004]

My point is that a constitution does not make a country. Measured by its constitution, Iraq is also a smoothly functioning society operating by consensus and democracy. While I think it's moving in the right direction I hardly think it's there yet.

And my point is that Canada existed as a sovereign (more or less) even without a re-patriated constitution. Unlike the US, it had no collective history or experience in such matters with skin in the game. Meech Lake failed because it could...no consequences. Canada still struggles with such political parochialism.

[jdobbin]

That's just plain wrong.

Meech arose from Bourassa's initial five requirements for Quebec to sign on to Trudeau's unilateral constitutional amendments.

If Trudeau had been around in 1867, we would never have had Confederation because Trudeau would have called Macdonald a drunken fool for compromising. And knowing Trudeau's style, he would have reserved a more vulgar term for Cartier.

Here is what Andrew Coyne thinks of the whole thing.

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=ce93c8...ab-25956393e0d4

What prompted this extraordinary about-face? Certainly it was not for any rising tide of discontent in Quebec. On the contrary, patriation and the Charter of Rights, supported by a majority of Quebecers in the opinion polls and by 74 out of 75 Quebec MPs, had receded as an issue. Support for separation had fallen to historic lows. But Mr. Mulroney had promised the Conservatives he would "deliver" Quebec, the electoral prize that had eluded the party since Sir John's day. If a little constitutional sweetener helped seal the deal, what harm was there in that?

As it turned out, a world of harm. The primary effect of Mr. Mulroney's constitutional gambit was to spread the belief among Quebecers, until then the private grudge of the nationalists, that a great wrong had been done them in 1982. As the sense of grievance escalated, so did the remedies required. The Quebec Liberal party, as an example, had originally proposed that the recognition of Quebec's "distinct society" be confined to the preamble of the Constitution, where it would have no interpretive weight. Under pressure from the separatist opposition, that became insufficient. Now the clause would have to be in the body of the constitution. Anything less would be an insult.

The rest of the story is wearisomely familiar: the marathon meetings among the "First Ministers" at Meech Lake, at the Langevin Block, the whole process later to be repeated in the Charlotteown round; the insistence that their handiwork be passed intact by their respective legislatures, without so much as a syllable capable of being amended; the obedient lockstep of Canada's elites in support; the enormous pressure brought to bear on dissenters, notably Newfoundland's Clyde Wells. And of course, the rejection of the whole lot in the Charlotteown referendum, a popular revolution unparalleled in the history of this country.

Mr. Mulroney's objective, it became clear, was simply to get a deal, any deal, and the greater the resistance he encountered, the more desperate he became. The leader who had once warned against federal authority being diluted or transferred had to be prompted to defend the federal prerogative in negotiations with the premiers, by the premiers -- though not before he had given them control of the Senate, the Supreme Court, most constitutional amendments, the federal spending power, and so on. At the lowest point, campaigning for passage of the Meech Lake accord, Mr. Mulroney ripped up a sheaf of paper, mid-speech, as if to dramatize what would happen to the country if it did not pass.