Michael Valpy and Deborah Coyne tackle one of Canada’s most daunting subjects – the Constitution – in To Match a Dream. It’s an ambitious project, filled with plenty of potential narrative peril. On one side is the confusing morass of legalese and arcana that has so often defined Canadian constitutional issues. And on the other is the pitfall of public ambivalence, the reality that many Canadians are long past caring about issues that have too often been the domain of the elites.

Canada’s constitutional woes aren’t going to disappear anytime soon, despite the fact that they sometimes appear to plague us for no apparent reason. Here’s a book that shows how the past impinges on the future, how constitutional issues and past battles can serve as valuable lessons for today’s federalist warriors. It explores the importance of tradition by illustrating how many of Canada’s most important constitutional decisions were the product of short-term expedience, such as efforts to contain and assimilate Quebec society and British colonial efforts to limit the spread of democracy in the New World. It serves as a cautionary tale for those who advocate legal, constitutional means to solve fundamental cultural, regional, and social differences. And it’s a valuable lesson for those devolutionists who favour decreased federal powers (and, arguably, weakened health, education, and social standards) as a way to placate Quebec separatism and provincial demands for more power.

To Match a Dream brings Canada’s constitutional wranglings into the realm of plain language – no small achievement. But it moves quickly through various battles, negotiations, and political meltdowns. Its encyclopedic style can test the reader’s patience, but that’s probably to be expected, given the subject matter.

Sometimes, constitutional questions are really just ill-formed political questions. To their credit, the authors note the dire need for political vision and a strong federalist stance within government. But you have to wonder: at what point does a lack of “vision” become a democratic crisis? Could it be that Canada’s constitutional morass persists partly because it provides a convenient make-work project for federal and regional elites?