My dear American neighbours: Neil Macdonald

My dear American neighbours,

It may just be politeness, but several of you have used pauses indiscussions about what in heavens name is going on in Syria to ask mewhat in heavens name is going on in Canada.

Well, yes. My country has been in the news a lot here lately. To put itmildly, we arent used to this sort of attention.

Lets start with Quebec, where the provincial government wants toban the wearing of ostentatious religious symbols most notablyheadscarves and turbans on all government employees, which inCanada includes university professors and doctors.

Its a huge story back home, and it actually rated a piece in the NewYork Times last week.

Most of you probably have a hard time understanding how a Westerndemocracy, which Quebec is, could even consider a law like that. Surelyit would be unconstitutional.

Well, the short answer is that Canada doesnt really have a constitution,in the American sense of the word.

Your constitution is supreme here; it trumps all other law, and explicitlyguarantees both freedom of expression and the free exercise of religion.

Canadas Constitution contains the same guarantees, but with a bigdifference: In Canada, governments can ignore it.

Notwithstanding clause

Our Constitution contains something called the notwithstandingclause, which allows Quebec, or any other province, to exempt any law.

And some of them, including Quebec, have done just that.

Where governments are concerned, our Constitution is more of avoluntary guide. Brian Mulroney, when he was our prime minister, saidit isnt worth the paper its written on.

As to why Quebec would want to ban religious expression in thefirst place, think Arizona and Oklahoma and a handful of your moreconservative states.

The Republicans run those states, and they have a few things in commonwith the Parti Qubcois, the nationalists who run Quebec at themoment.

Neither the Republicans nor the Parti Qubcois are very popularamong ethnic groups and new immigrants. Both parties are alarmed atthe erosion of their bases, both of which historically comprise white,traditional-minded Christians. And both parties are trying to rally thosebases.

In Oklahoma, three years ago, Republicans championed the Save ourState amendment to state law, which was designed to combat the ratherdubious menace of Shariah, or Muslim religious law, in America.

Just as the authors of the proposed Quebec law are claiming now,Republicans in Oklahoma and other states clothed their laws in languageabout protecting the state from any and all religious influences.

And when the Oklahoma measure was put to state voters in the 2010election, they approved of it overwhelmingly.

This being America, though, none of that made any difference in court.

Federal judges quickly ruled it unconstitutional. The measure, one judgewrote, deliberately targeted Muslims.

Back to Quebec, though. The governments rhetoric there is even moretortuous.

Quebecs equivalent of Oklahomas state legislature toils under aprominent crucifix, which the Parti Qubcois has no intention ofremoving, on the grounds that crucifixes and crosses are part ofQuebecs cultural history.

Furthermore, the party that has with great gusto gone about changingstreet and city names that smack of English (thats another story, letsstick with this one), presides over a province where thousands of streets,and often entire towns, are named for this or that Catholic saint. Crosseson public property are common, including the giant illuminated steel onethat dominates the skyline of Montreal.

None of which Quebecs government, in its determination to purgereligious symbols, intends to change. Cultural history, and all that.Conservative Republicans here in the U.S., of course, passionately wantto maintain Christian iconography on public property here, but that landsthem in court, too.

Because as everyone here learns in school, that same First Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution, the one that protects religious personalexpression, also forbids the state to promote one religion over the other,or, for that matter, any religion at all.

Certainly, a big crucifix wouldnt last very long in the U.S. Congress.

In the pipeline

But Quebec isnt the only story in the news here. Canadas proposed oilpipeline across America is making headlines constantly, too.

Canadians once portrayed themselves, somewhat hypocritically, asterribly green and environmentally concerned, at least compared to youAmericans.

Nowadays, one of our governments biggest priorities is extendinga pipeline that will transport heavy, viscous bitumen from Albertasoilsands, which you Americans still annoyingly call tarsands, torefineries on your Gulf Coast.

Republicans love the idea. But Democrats (except for pipeline-buildingunion members) dont, and their environmentalist constituency despisesit, because of the much greater carbon emissions involved in extractingthe tar-like oil from those sands. Huge protests are planned acrossAmerica on Saturday.

President Obama, meanwhile, has stalled. He says he wont approve thepipeline if it significantly exacerbates carbon emissions.

The thing is, his own State Department has already said it wont. Canadais going to extract and sell that oil. Somebodyll buy it. Killing thepipeline, says the State Department, wont make any difference.

Lets face it, my friends: were all big energy hogs. The averagehousehold here consumes enough energy to power a Third Worldvillage. Same thing in Canada. All this sudden altruism is a little much,no?

About our free health care

Last item: Our health-care system. Ill keep this one short.

Congressional Republicans are obsessed with repealing Obamas health-care law, which they say is Canadian-style socialism. Theyve tried torepeal it more than 40 times.

Democrats and boosters of the new law cite Canada, too, but kindly.

A lot of them want universal free health care, which they say exists inCanada, where they think money doesnt get you to the front of the line.

Well, it may once have been that way, but cash is increasingly king backhome, just like it is here.

Friends and acquaintances back home are buying into private schemesthat ensure regular, prompt care. My elderly relatives live in fear oflosing their regular doctor, because, they say, a new one is hard to findwithout connections or money.

Yes, health care is still cheaper and more universal in Canada, but itspretty clear where the system is going.

Anyway, my dear friends, I hope all this helps. And on behalf of myfellow Canadians, thanks for your interest.