Episode 6: The Unmarked Path

Previous episodes explored how Canada's obsolete Constitution makes it hard to run an efficient and effective government, especially in the face of American aggression. The Unmarked Path ties these issues together, and argues that constitutional renovation may be the best tool to unite Canadians in a new Confederation. 

Transcript

6  The Unmarked Path 

I’m Patrick Esmonde-White. Welcome to Canada Re-imagined, season three. After the Cataclysm

In my previous podcasts, I discussed how our obsolete Constitution makes it hard for Canada to run an efficient and effective government. I looked at health care, education, green mining, Indigenous rights, Québec and Alberta discontent, and other topics that impact Canada’s well-being.

Ahead… tying these together... why and how constitution renovation may be the tool to bring Canadians together.

This episode: The Unmarked Path.  

--

What do we wish the future Canada to look like?  

That question was asked at Confederation, and the answer from in 1867 seems to be valid today. Peace, order and good government became Canada’s trilogy of aspirations. 

It is embedded in the constitution, there as a goal that is always beyond our grasp. In the real world, problems arise in the form of health care, housing, climate policy, poverty, inequality, foreign threats, and the insanity of Donald Trump. Real world events make that ideal of peace, order and good government to somehow always slip into the future.  Yet it is there, and worthy.

Our constitution is the document that defines who in Canada is responsible for solving each of our problems. In previous podcasts I have argued that renovation of the constitution is one way to help us deal with issues like health care and higher education. I have argued that the Third Solitude, the First Nations, be treated as equal partners.

Today, as 2026 gets underway, we also see Alberta limping towards a secession referendum. We see Quebec drafting its separatist constitution. These ideas terrify Canada’s ruling elite. Yet they also provide clear evidence that the status quo is not working at a time when threats from outside Canada, such as Trump, demand solidarity.

Perhaps it is time to look at all this from a different perspective. Consider the situation over the past few decades.

The last referendum on Quebec independence took place in the 1990’s. Federal leaders worried about what might follow. With the best of intentions, Liberal minister of the day, Stéphane Dion, steered the Clarity Act through parliament in 2000.  It was supposed to provide clarity on how a future vote on Québec separation would take place. It in fact solved nothing. 

The Supreme Court weighed in on the issue, and basically said that separatism was a political issue, not a legal one. The Court noted the need for Canada to act fairly with Indigenous peoples.  It also said that: “Nobody seriously suggests that our national existence, seamless in so many aspects, could be effortlessly separated along what are now the provincial boundaries of Quebec.”  

Today, we have separatist movements in both Alberta and Quebec, though neither have much momentum.  In response to Alberta, Dion said: “I have no patience for separatist blackmail.” But nor he does not offer any solutions to the very real discontent in either province.

The Prime Minister says it is time for nation-building, but his focus on this was the external threats from our south. Yet, dealing with Trump is only the start of our woes. The list of issues that need to be addressed is long.

Alberta, Quebec, Indigenous rights, the health care crisis, youth unemployment, climate change, and a host of other issues all need to be fixed. In almost every instance, they are hard to fix because they demand a level of cooperation that the constitution does not facilitate.  This should force us to raise the option of constitutional renovation. This is heresy to the ruling elite. Perhaps it is time to rethink.

Understand that constitutional renovation would be a slow process. It would include heated debate, blunt discussion, and a careful analysis of the options and implications. The law of unintended consequences would apply. Compromises would be difficult. The goal would be a new Confederation, a re-structuring of how Canada is governed so it can achieve the goals of peace, order and good government. 

The truth is, constitutional change is a high risk, high return option. It should not be undertaken lightly.  But Canada is now heading in a dangerous direction: politically, economically and socially. Proceeding with the political structure as it has been been in the past is also high risk, with low prospects for improvement. Major change is inevitable, for better or worse.

 In the short term, during the current American bedlam, the best Canada can hope for that our government is well managed. We are sailing in the midst of a global political tempest. We therefore need leaders who can steer the ship of state through the storm. Prime Minister Carney fits the bill. He was elected for that purpose. He is a small “c” conservative, but he knows how to keep the ship afloat.  

But the geopolitical storm is chaotic. It will threaten to sink Canada. American invasion, economic recession, a collapse of the CUSMA trade agreement, a new pandemic, climate catastrophes… any of these is possible in the short term, the coming three years while Trump or Vance occupy the White House.

Let me however proceed on the basis of a hope: that however battered Canada is from the storm, we will survive. The tattered ship of state will be afloat, and Canada will then need major repairs. 

The problem at that point is that those repairs may be entangled in constitutional red tape. The dilemma Captain Carney will face is that Canada’s antiquated constitution will get in the way of good government. Whether it is in Indigenous restitution, mining, health, education, or housing, the decentralised nature of our federation makes efficient government nearly impossible.

In an effort to anticipate the threats facing Canada over the long run, Mr. Carney made plans for nation-building projects. Most of these will take years to bear fruit, even if they create jobs in the short term. Of course, they also create deficits.  Yet already, on his big projects, the Prime Minister is running into a wall. More accurately, two walls. 

First, the projects promise to be climate friendly. Many of the proposed ideas fail the environmental sniff test.  But let’s put this aside for a moment.

The bigger obstacle is that they will need support from the First Nations. Some have it. Many do not. The projects without Indigenous support will end up court, and be bogged down. It always comes back to the constitution.

Every Canadian schoolchild has been taught that Canada is defined in part by the struggle between federal and provincial responsibilities. The division of responsibilities has been debated ever since Confederation in 1867. In the end, it seems that everyone has a role, but nobody is accountable. We throw up our hands in disgust.

Canadians do have a sense of the problem. In 2025, several silly interprovincial trade barriers were exposed to the sunshine of scrutiny. What do you mean we cannot carry our beer across a border? Exposed to the sunshine, the stupidest barriers melted. It was a start. But it is still estimated that our GDP is about 5% lower than it would be if these barriers did not exist.

To remove the barriers would require two sections of the constitution be amended. Our serious and responsible political leaders will not take this on. They steer well clear of constitutional issues, fearful that something might lead to the break-up of Canada. It is up to the provinces to cooperate on solutions, we are told.  

How likely is this cooperation? 

Québec is quietly writing it’s their own constitution without ever considering Indigenous rights. Alberta malcontents plan to hold a referendum on independence, and met secretly with Trump officials to discuss it.  Like Ontario’s Doug Ford, these provincial leaders demand to be treated as national leaders. 

This provincial self-importance is rising from the graveyard of bad ideas, threatening Canada at a moment of peril. 

But the law of unintended consequences applies here, too. The provinces are provoking an opposite reaction.

As Donald Trump threatens to make Canada the 51st state, Canadians respond. If Trump continues his antagonistic policies, Canadian patriotism will grow, and undermine provincial princelings.  

But even so, it will not fix the problem that Canada’s decentralised federalism is incapable of delivering good government. That inability is the problem that plagues us.

So where do we stand?

In the short term, to counter weather the storm, Canada needs a strong national economy. Good government is the foundation on which we must build. Since nation-building projects will take years to produce results, Canada cannot wait. 

There need to be faster ways to improve government, cut costs, and grow the DGP. If the Canadian constitution then gets in the way of this, constitutional renovation may be needed sooner rather than later.

Some ideas may be floated that the public could get behind.

For example:  perhaps Canada could make health care a federal responsibility. 

Or, perhaps Sections 91 and 92 of the constitution could be amended to give Ottawa control over trade, commerce, property and civil rights.  

Both would arguably boost the economy and improve services. But wait, you say: constitutions cannot be changed.

Other countries in fact do make constitutional changes.  France, Italy, Germany and other G20 countries have all made constitutional changes this century alone. They modernise.

By contrast, a constitution that cannot or will not change is dangerous. As a cautionary tale, look to our south. The United States is a dysfunctional, putrefied democracy. The American Supreme Court is corrupt, its Congress is cowardly, and the President is demented. The American Constitution has failed to evolve. 

Canada, of course, is not the United States. Our parliaments function, even if they are creaky. Our courts are honest. Generally, corruption is petty. The problem in Canada is that on many bread and butter issues, the overall system is not delivering great results. For better government, a modern approach is needed that reflects the world as it is. 

The elimination of all interprovincial trade barriers would be low hanging fruit. So too would nationalisation of health care. The Prime Minister has pushed nation-building projects, and some of these will also be low-hanging fruit. Progress on high-speed rail will be a sign of progress. Action on all these may help, and buy time.

The fruit that is highest in the tree involves Indigenous restitution, a guaranteed living income, a national education strategy, and other priorities that are constitutional quagmires. Worse, whatever solutions most of Canada might agree on, Quebec will not. 

As it turns out, the Quebec Question may come to a head soon. The separatist Parti Quebecois is likely to win the next Quebec election this year. The province is passing legislation to create its own constitution. All this will absolutely run head on into the 1982 Constitution. 

Quebec will have to address the constitution that states: “existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”  The Supreme Court warns Quebec it would not get all the land it claims.  This zombie issue, which has never died, will rise once again. 

All this is to say, Mark Carney has his work cut out. There are a half dozen issues that could pop up to trigger the crisis.  Delivering safe, good government may at that point simply not be good enough. It may be time to think outside the box.

The heretical, radical solution to many of these issues is to go to back to basics. One way to do this is to acknowledge that the constitution itself is based on an original sin, and absolution is essential.  I speak of Indigenous restitution.

In the 1940’s, novelist Hugh MacLennan described Canada as “two solitudes”, English and French. He and virtually everyone else paid no notice to the third solitude, the almost two million Indigenous and Métis that now live in Canada. They make up 5% of the population, 8% of Canadians under the age of fourteen. They speak a dozen distinct languages, each in danger of disappearing, none are official.

Five major organizations represent 634 different First Nations. The one tool that for First Nations have to seek compensation is the legal system. Governments have lost in the courts, paid out tens of billions in compensation, and may be on the hook for another $50 billion. 

Yes, Canada owes a ton of money to the Indigenous. The Carney government knows this, and is counting on resources from the north to re-build the nation. The Indigenous likely have the power to put the brakes on a number of the big mining projects, but they really do prefer a win-win solution. 

The simple answer is that the third solitude must be made fully welcome in Canada. It is the fatal flaw in Confederation that can be fixed: the omission of First Nations. If Canadians embrace restitution and Indigenous self-government within Canada, it would set in motion a series of events that has the potential to tear Canada apart… or to set the foundation for generations to thrive. 

I have been told frequently, by people who know much better than me, that this concept of Indigenous self-government is doomed. That the First Nations are divided, defeated, and unprepared to govern themselves.  That the animosity between neighbouring tribes runs as deep as the divisions in the Middle East. 

My only response is to say that Canada’s First Nations are now losing, and they deserve a chance to prove their doubters wrong. There can only be once chance, one kick at this can. 

Think of a Grand Bargain.  All Crown Land, federal and provincial, and all reserves, could unite into a single new non-contiguous province. Each First Nation would nest inside this province, to borrow a metaphor from several Mohawk writers. The Indigenous Confederacy, in turn, would nest within Canada. This bargain would fulfill the promise made to Tecumseh over two centuries ago. 

The new province would own and manage all the natural resources, collecting royalties and provincial taxes. They would build their own democracy within the province. They would deliver all the social services, education, health, justice, and the other responsibilities that fall to provinces. Their languages and nationhood would be official.

The First Nations would urgently need income to fund these services for their people. The new Indigenous province would quickly establish one-window service to attract investors. The patchwork of overlapping jurisdictions and stakeholders would be replaced. A clear set of regulations would ensure that mining is both green, and profitable. The province would simplify royalties, and hold partial ownership of projects. 

This is similar to what Québec achieved half a century ago. Canadians who lived through the Quiet Revolution of Québec will recognize that many First Nations are now experiencing their own quiet revolution. There is a slow rebirth of Indigenous language, culture and tradition.  Unlike the Québec movement, which was based on a single national identity, there are a multitude of First Nations. The question to the Indigenous is, are they ready for self-government within Canada? This is a question only they can answer.

Setting that aside, how would an Indigenous province impact the southern provinces? 

The provinces would lose land and royalties, but retain taxes and jobs from the mining industries based in the south. Existing contracts would be honoured. The mineral supply chain would always pass through the southern provinces, with value added at every step. The mining industry would grow, because the First Nations would do everything they could to make it happen.

Any negotiation on constitutional renovation would also open the door to a revision of federal and provincial responsibilities. Canada today is arguably the most decentralised of all western democracies. Those issues of good government would be on the table. Health, education, and financial regulation might be transferred to the federal government.  Culture and national parks might go the other way. Provinces might finally have the financial means to invest in infrastructure and economic development. The voting system might be reformed to eliminate the first past-the-post elections. There is a lot to discuss.

Any discussion of constitutional renovation, of course, brings us back to Québec and Alberta. 

There are as I say clear similarities between Québec sixty years ago and the Indigenous nations today. Québec, in 1950, was a nation by classic definition. It had a unique culture, but was dominated by English Canada in business, education, science, and politics. Under the Parti Québécois, the province fought for respect and sovereignty. Leaders like René Lévesque identified the requirements of a strong independent country, and set out to build what was missing. They strengthened the economy, and demanded that their endangered language and culture be protected.

Today, Indigenous Canadians are similar. They are clearly nations. They are behind in business, education, science, and politics. They are powerless politically and economically.  Their languages and cultures are endangered.   

Consider, then, the implications of a proposed Grand Bargain? 

Right off the bat, Québec would demand sovereignty. 

How should Canada respond?  It is time for Canada to wish Québec goodbye… and to suggest a new alliance.  

Québec, a Francophone nation comparable to many European countries, could thrive culturally. It would be not just a nation, but a country. As a small French speaking country, it would need to build new relationships to thrive. A newly negotiated alliance with Canada would look for as many areas of cooperation and collaboration as possible. Membership in the European Union would appeal to both countries. 

Until now, English speaking Canadians have done everything possible to keep Québec within the fold. Québec has made no compromises.  It has allowed the relationship that was unfair to Québec seventy-five years ago, to become unfair to Canada today, and to Anglo-Québecers in particular.

Should Canada accept sovereignty of Québec as a starting point, the negotiations would become very difficult.  

From the English Canada perspective, official bilingualism has failed. Eighty-five per cent of Canadians speak English, the global language of diplomacy, science, and industry. Bilingualism directly costs Canada between $2-3 billion a year. In a Canada without Québec, English would be the official language.

A treaty between Canada and Québec would be a companion to a renovated constitution. Québec would likely keep the Canadian dollar. Québec would ensure its cultural and economic interests are protected. The two countries could cooperate on trade, food and drug safety, fiscal policy, security and a host of other issues. There should be no hard borders, or restrictions over where people live or work. Common sense could prevail.

Europe offers an example. Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are free trade partners, but outside the political union. Membership in NATO is a separate issue. Both Canada and Québec might seek a closer relationship with Europe, a step towards the alliance of middle powers that The Prime Minister spoke of.

Québec would complain, but could never keep all the land currently within the provincial borders. Canada’s Supreme Court has spoken on this.

Crown land would revert to the Indigenous. Some English speaking regions of Québec might vote to stay within Canada. Some Francophone communities outside Québec might join Québec.  If the negotiations and compromises succeed, a new and stronger alliance might emerge.

And then, there is Alberta. The west would also play a major role in all the negotiations. Some polling shows almost 30% of Albertan see independence as worthy of consideration. 

Secession by Alberta seems unlikely, but the discontent cannot be ignored. It has deep roots. Pierre Trudeau famously shrugged and told western farmers it was not his job to sell their grain. He brought in a national energy plan that was too late to help after the OPEC crisis, but simply angered the oil patch. Those memories are still raw. 

Some of the grievances that drive western discontent might be addressed through constitutional renovation. Alberta, like all provinces west of the Atlantic, would lose land and royalties. But on balance, for the renovation to succeed, the benefits would have to outweigh the compromises.

Is all this change necessary? It it worth the risk?

The hard truth is that Donald Trump has threatened Canada. The United States cannot be trusted. To survive, Canada must do everything it can to be stronger, to provide peace, order and good government. Externally, Canada must find new alliances in trade, security and other areas. Change is inevitable, whether you lead or follow.

It is political heresy to suggest a Grand Bargain, or to propose that Québec leave Canada. Yet both make sense. They make economic sense. They make democratic sense, and they make moral sense. 

Try another metaphor. Canadian provinces are like eggs, sitting apart in a federal carton. A number of shells are cracked, and the carton is fraying. It may be time to make an omelet. Eggs must be broken.  But the result can sustain future generations.

No Canadian political party today flirts with the concept of constitutional renovation. But the option is there if Canada is forced by events, and needs to make good government a reality.

Québec or Alberta might demand a referendum. The First Nations might demand restitution. Mark Carney might discover that good, honest government simply cannot achieve what he sees is needed. Donald Trump might dramatically increase tariffs as the CUSMA trade agreement expires. 

Any events such as these might force a Prime Minister to consider drastic action, such as constitutional renovation. The first, hesitant step might be something as simple as a national referendum asking whether a Royal Commission should explore the concept, and report back.  If the study came back with ideas the public likes, further referendums could clarity the results. A referendum might allow voters to show their support for different options.  

As things stand, the idea of renovating the constitution has no political home. I am a party of one. 

Ultimately, constitutional renovation would require Canadians embrace a new vision of what the future can be, and what is needed to thrive. They must see a path to nation-building, to peace, order, good government, and a sustainable planet. It is a difficult path, strewn with obstacles, not marked at all, and with no certainty of exactly where it will emerge. But the path to a Canada Re-Imagined is there. It may be the only way to escape from the quagmire of the 1867 constitution that holds us back.

--

You have been listening to Canada Re-imagined, season three: After the Cataclysm

I’m Patrick Esmonde-White, totally responsible for this podcast. My theme music is by Tom Plant. My thanks to the Harbinger Media Network for their support.

If you enjoyed this, please spread the word.  Tune in again.