Canada's fifth effort at "mega-constitutional politics" was a period of
popular discussion and leadership negotiation, that ran from the defeat
in 1990 of the Meech Lake Accord through the Charlottetown Accord and
the referendum of 26 October 1992. Constitutional Predicament explores
the referendum in relation to the democratic process; nationalism
(Canadian, Aboriginal, Québécois) and pluralism; principles of
constitutionalism, constitution-making, and popular participation in
constitution-making; the role of the Charter and Supreme Court; future
constitutional efforts; and worldwide trends. The contributors agree
that Canadian voters rejected the Charlottetown proposals because they
disapproved of both their content and the procedure by which they were
drawn up. They conclude that, while Quebec remains the chief problem for
the Canadian constitution, Quebec was not the sole constitutional issue
or the sole issue which determined how Canadians voted. The
constitutional process did help make it apparent that Canada is
multinational and that each of the three major nations has valid claims
on the political system. The contributors offer contrasting views on how
the Charlottetown Accord came to read as it does, why negotiators at
Charlottetown so misjudged public opinion, and the prognosis for further
constitution-making. Readers may also see the referendum vote as a
preview of the vote in the general election of October 1993, which
unseated the Tories one year later, almost to the day. Taken together
with the accompanying provocative commentaries, the essays will be of
specific interest to students of Canadian politics and constitutional
affairs. The complete text of the Charlottetown Accord is included in an
appendix. The contributors and commentators are Janet Ajzenstat, Alan C.
Cairns, Curtis Cook, Barry Cooper, Peter Emberley, David Hendrickson,
Robert J. Jackson, Juan Lindau, F.L. Morton, Alain Noël, and James
Tully.
