The Calgary based Canada West Foundation released "Looking West 2003" last week, a survey which revealed 71% of westerners feel alienated from the federal government. On Monday, angry fish workers in Newfoundland burned a Canadian flag in protest of Ottawa's fishing policies. Canada has such an inferiority complex that Jean Charest's election in Quebec is viewed as the be-all-and-end-all for relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada rather than the Band-Aid it is. Remember, Canada is alone among nations in its possession of legislation that spells out exactly how a disillusioned region can legally separate from Confederation. "The 20th century belongs to Canada," proclaimed Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1900. The 20th century did not belong to Canada. In fact, Canada was lucky to get through the century in one piece. Are the odds any better in the new millennium? One fears Canada is destined to chug along like it has a flat tire until it finally just chokes to a stop. Or, one province or region actually makes good on its threats and separates from Canada. The system of government Canada developed over the past couple of hundred years is not serving its purpose. Too many Canadians are alienated within Canada's current constitutional structure. Canada must re-confederate. Any other piecemeal solution like reforming the Senate, electing a different government, or conjuring up more government programs to buy off the happiness of Canadians is a sham. Another Meech Lake or Charlottetown Accord where Canada's constitutional structure is buffed a little here and polished a little there will not suffice. Here are a few constructive ideas Canadians may ponder as possible solutions to our broken Confederation: * Each province could have its own criminal system. * Instead of a prime minister, Canada could put in place a council of say, seven members. Each member would serve a term as president on a rotating basis. These members could be chosen by a joint session of the Commons and the Senate and need not be members of the same party. * Judges could be appointed for long terms, but not life. One would not be required to have a law degree to be considered for a position on the court. Best of all, judges would be limited from pronouncing that laws were unconstitutional, leaving the making and amending of laws to elected officials and ultimately the people. You may think these proposals impractical in the real world. Indeed, some appear to have more holes than Swiss cheese. Actually, I was amazed to find out in Gregory A. Fossedal's book Direct Democracy in Switzerland, that they are all part of Switzerland's democratic system. The most distinguishing element of the Swiss system is their commitment to direct democracy. The Swiss' constant consultation with their citizens results in a sense of ownership in the decisions being made. The proposals above seem truly ridiculous in some ways and yet they work in Switzerland. They may not be appropriate for Canada, but offer ideas for creative solutions. Canada's evolution from the British parliamentary system has not provided an institutional structure which recognizes Canada's unique challenges. People will criticize the idea of re-opening the constitutional can of worms, but what other option does Canada really have? Most Canadians do not feel the country is achieving its potential. On the other hand, it would be a shame if a great country like Canada, which has even more potential than it has ever fully demonstrated, withered away as disenchanted Canadians left, whether personally or in regional or provincial chunks. It is time Canada move out of the Dark Ages into a Canadian renaissance. |