the premise is ridiculous (that's why we have a constitution), but you have to acknowledge a basic point - quebec never signed or ratified the constitution, and quebeckers really don't see it as their constitution.
previous courts...you know, i'm not even sure that the mclaughlin court would have even heard an argument that a province has a unilateral ability to modify the constitution. that's just utterly ridiculous. but, this guy they've got in there now is a loose cannon, and his rulings to this point have been atrocious. there's a good chance he might see the constitution as a liberal conspiracy to wipe out the right or something. and, he may be more likely to cite the nineteenth century version - which is essentially a relic of british colonialism, rather than an actual constitution.
so, the law says that there is a complicated legal process to open and amend the constitution and i would expect a functioning court system to uphold that, but i'm not sure the court system is currently functioning, so it gets blurry.
but, what quebec might do is ignore the constitution, as it has done before, and how it is that the rest of the country goes about enforcing rules on them is something we've largely avoided, to this point...
so, you'd imagine something like the following working itself out:
- quebec can certainly legislate rules for itself, as it sees fit. it can try to pass a rule that "alters the constitution" in quebec, but what it's actually legally doing is defying the constitution and challenging the legal system to stop it.
- it would then be up to some groups in quebec to launch a constitutional challenge. now, quebec may claim it is no longer subject to such a challenge, but that would be equivalent to a statement of sovereignty, and the courts couldn't take such a thing seriously.
- by definition, any attempt by quebec to alter the constitution would necessarily be unconstitutional, and necessarily be declared ultra vires - if the court is correctly functioning, which does not appear to be the case.
but, then what?
if the court declares the change unconstitutional, and quebec just ignores it...the next step is a civil war, which nobody wants. and, as mentioned, there are confusing questions about jurisdiction and democracy, given the linguistic and cultural differences. what right do we really have to enforce a constitution on a province that won't sign it, then demand they uphold the rules they won't agree to?
so, to put it another way....
if quebec were to try to unilaterally alter the constitution, it would instantly throw the country into a potentially existential constitutional crisis that could lead to a partition of the country because, no, it can't actually do that. and, it's not clear that this federal government would choose to fight that battle - it may just concede the point without a fight. but, it would still be illegal, and we'd just be left with a pariah province that refuses to follow the rules.
historically, the main tool at the disposal of the federal government would be to threaten to withhold transfer payments - including health care payments. but, that would instantly destroy the liberals in quebec for a generation.
the truth is that this is probably just cyber-rattling and empty electioneering by a provincial government that wants the tories back in power, but it's potentially an exceedingly messy situation, and the likelihood of violence is not trivial.
now, what would i do?
well, it depends. what is the change? and the answer is a triviality:
“Quebecers form a nation” and “French shall be the only official language of Quebec. It is also the common language of the Quebec nation.”
those statements are not currently in the constitution, but would anybody care if they were? i mean, who cares, ultimately? see, and that's where the calculation that this is battle not worth fighting (likely, given that the pmo is currently staffed by slackers and potheads) comes in....
....but it's wrong because it would entirely dissolve the authority of the state, and undo the premise of federalism. you'd get alberta inserting language about oil revenues, bc inserting language about the environment and ontario inserting language about doug ford's god given right to eat barbeque, no mattter what, ever, always. you get the point - if the rational analysis is that this is trivial, what's stopping anybody else from trivial amendments? and, then the constitution no longer exists - it's death by a thousand amendments.
what trudeau should say is this:
i am not a lawyer, i am a politician, and this is not a political debate, this is a matter for the courts.
in time, perhaps it won't be. but, the court needs to shape the bounds of debate, for better or worse, and the feds should completely step away from it until it does.
if the court rules that the legislation is ultra vires - as it no doubt will - then the next step is to offer quebec a choice - if they feel that strongly about the situation, let us have a constitutional convention and amend the document in the legal manner set out within it. if they do not, let them drop their concern.
and, once the process has played itself out, quebec always has the right to hold another referendum.
but, two points are important here as major take-aways:
1) big cock authoritarian tactics (like withholding funding) should be a last resort. there is a lengthy legal process, here. allow that to work itself out, first.
2) because the process is so lengthy, very few of the people involved in the process when it launches will still be around to see it complete, and the logic of the situation may very well change.
there is no reason to create a crisis around something that may very well burn itself out with the next election in quebec.
so, that's my advice to trudeau - defer to the courts.