CANADA

Communists reply to PQ Constitutional proposals

Self-determination key to stronger unity

For more than 35 years the Communist Party of
Canada has proposed that the right to self-determination
and to economic, social and language equality for
Quebec be entrenched in a Canadian constitution. That
Temains Party policy and indeed constitutes an Im-
portant part of the Party’s program The Road to Socialism
in Canada.

The Communist Party has taken note of the proposals
made by the Parti Québécois government of Quebec for
amendments to the Canadian constitution proposals
which do not go as far as those proposed by our party.
The PQ government hopes its proposals will be accepted
in principle by the Mulroney government and the neces-
sary number of provincial governments, so that the
Québec Government can sign the amended Canada Act.

It is obvious that the Québec government knows that it

would be totally disastrous for them to go into the forth-

coming general provincial elections with only their neo-
conservative economic, social and anti-labor record.
They hope their efforts to give Québec a dignified place
in the Canadian Constitution will cut their inevitable
losses to some extent. ;

_ Nevertheless their constitutional proposals should be
Judged on their merits.

Their most important proposal is that the people of
Québec should be recognized in the constitution as a
distinct people. This was categorically rejected by
former prime minister Trudeau. The PQ government has
Stated they will not accept the constitution if this specific
recognition is not included.

The Communist Party considers this a legitimate de-
mand, but it does not go as far as recognition of the right
to self-determination of Québec — the precondition for
the solution of the national question. Both the opponents
and the supporters of the PQ government’s demand real-
ize that it could be a step in the direction of full rights for
Québec. The United Nations has proclaimed the right of
all nations and peoples to self-determination, which is a
strong argument for a further amendment of the Cana-
dian constitution once recognition as a distinct people is
included.

Some of the other proposals are declared by the
Québée*Government to’be negotiable But these pro-
posals have not been specified.

It seems to us that Québec’s demand to have a de-
cisive say in determining what regions of Québec should

benefit from federal grants for regional development is
reasonable.

Traditionally three Québec judges have sat on the
Supreme Court (this was always considered necessary
because Québec has a civil code distinct from common
law in English-speaking Canada). Now the PQ govern-
ment is requesting this tradition be embodied in the
constitution and that Québec have the right to veto on
the naming of the three judges. :

They are also requesting the right to veto on reform of
the Senate. This request is extremely limited compared
with the position of the Communist Party on this ques-
tion. The Communist Party of Canada proposes that the
Senate be abolished. It should be replaced by an elected
chamber composed of an equal number of representa-
tives from Québec and from English-speaking Canada
and with guaranteed adequate representation of the Na-
tive peoples. For legislation to become law it must be
adopted both by the House of Commons and the pro-
posed new chamber.

However, since the rather feeble proposal of the PQ.

government on the Senate and their proposal on the
appointment of Québec judges to the Supreme Court are
designed to defend at least the present status of Québec,

they merit support.

But their request to have the right to veto the estab-
lishment of new provinces does not merit support. It
would amount to gross interference in the status of
people outside of Québec, which is not acceptable.

The PQ government is asking for the right to opt out,
with full financial compensation, of any amendments to
the constitution which transfer to the federal govern-
ment matters presently under provincial jurisdiction.
They do not ask for the right to veto such amendments.
This would prevent other provinces from participating in
whatever advantages the amendments might provide.
Our party has vivid recollections of the resistance by the
late premier Maurice Duplessis to important federal so-
cial programs, such as family allowances, without pro-
posing any similar programs for Quebec, and this always
under the banner of provincial rights. The fact that the
PQ government is more and more identifying itself with
the policies and example of Mr. Duplessis only adds to

our uneasiness about this proposal. Therefore, we would

support this proposal only on condition that the
Government of Québec accepts that such financial com-

pensation must be used for provincial programs of the
same size as those in the provinces that do not opt out, to
provide social or other benefits to the people of Québec.

We do not support the proposal that Québec’s Charter
of Rights take legal precedence over the Charter of
Rights and Liberties that is now part of the Canadian
constitution.

It is true that Québec’s charter contains rights that go
beyond those in the Canadian constitution’s charter,
such as the right of political opinion-without discrimina-
tion. This right should be guaranteed in the Canadian
Charter of Rights.

However, the rights and liberties inscribed in the
Canadian constitution are those of all Canadians.
Furthermore, we proposed the abolition of the infamous
‘‘notwithstanding .. .’’ clause that gives the right to the
federal government or any provincial government under
certain circumstances very vaguely defined to set aside a
very large number of the most fundamental rights in-
scribed in the Charter. Until the ‘notwithstanding ...”
provision is removed these rights are not really en-
trenched in the constitution.

The Québec Charter of Rights is not part of a constitu-
tion which can only be amended by a special procedure.
It is simply a legislative Act of the National Assembly
and can be amended or abolished by majority vote of the
National Assembly. In fact the Québec Law 111 speci-
fically set aside the most fundamental rights of freedom
of speech and assembly that are inscribed in Québec’s
charter.

Finally, we repeat: the Communist Party of Canada
considers it essential that the Canadian Constitution
recognize the right to. self-determination and” to
economic, social and language equality for Québec: This
is of decisive importance for strengthening the unity of
Canada. It would curb the increasing tendency of
monopoly interests to use the provinces in order to seek
further dependence of Canada on the nuclear and Star
Wars-oriented U.S. economy against the wishes of the
peoples of Canada.

This statement of the Communist Party of Canada has
the fulksupport of the 'Pantrcomministé dui Québec? _

(The statement is signed by William Kashtan, Leader, ==

Communist Party of Canada, and Samuel Walsh,
Leader, Parti communiste du Québec.)

Ottawa turning equality into a‘contest’

capacitation or age.

By KERRY McCUAIG

A Commons Committee wrap-
ped up three weeks of hearings on
the Charter of Rights’ Equality
Section in Toronto on June 18, to
Some heavy criticism from wo-
men, minority and human rights
group.

At the core of their fire was a

65-page Justice Department |

consultation paper — Equality Is-
sues in Federal Law — which is to
Serve as a _ guideline for
implementing the section’s provi-
sions. The paper places its
emphasis on reaching a consen-
Sus On equality — a tact the
groups say turns the principle into
& popularity contest.

‘It is dangerous to rely on
Majority rule when it disadvan-

tages groups’’, Vancouver lawyer

ancy Greenwood told the com-
mittee. Speaking on behalf of the
National Association of Women
and the Law, Greenwood pointed
Out that Canadian history and
laws had sufficiently demon-
Strated that “there is a tradition of
scrimination in this country
Which has been actively pursued
and shows up readily in our
laws’,

Section 15, which came into
force April 17, is to provide equal
nights under the law without
discrimination based on “‘race,
Rational or ethnic origin, color,
religion, sex, age or mental or
Physical disability.’? When the
harter of Rights was enacted in

1982, the provincial ministers
who helped draft it gave them-
selves a three-year reprieve on
the equality section.

Greenwood expressed
disappointment that government
had not used this time to prepare
its own statute audit, but had
placed the onus on voluntary
groups to pinpoint legal and social
shortcomings.

A number of groups expressed
dismay at government inaction in
changing discriminatory legisla-
tion. Speaking on behalf of the
Canadian Bar Association, Lynn
Smith said the responsibility rests
with the federal government to
change discriminatory laws with-
out waiting for disadvantaged
groups to resort to the courts.

‘Persons who are greatly at
risk of having their rights abused
are those persons who are not ina
position to defend their rights or
speak for themselves’, she said.

Groups trying to. redress
discrimination are finding them-
selves in drawn-out court battles
with the federal government, she
said. See

Several submissions sug-
gested that government funding

be made available to individuals

or groups wishing to use the legal .

avenues, or that an independent
public trustee be given power to
act on behalf of groups excluded
from acting independently be-
cause of mental or physical in-

When Justice Minister Crosbie
announced the committee’s for-
mation in May, he gave interested
groups only three weeks to get
their names on the list. The invita-

tion was met by a flood of over
1,000 requests. Yet the commit-
tee was limited to seven short
stops in major centres, and heard
from fewer than one-quarter of
the delegations.

Meet international
agreements says CP

The federal government should
amend the Charter of Rights“and
Freedoms to bring it in line with
international agreements Canada
has endorsed at the United Na-
tions, the Communist Party of
Canada told a parliamentary jus-
tice committee on equality rights,
June 18.

In a summation to the seven-
member committee the party said
the Charter did not fully deal with
the rights of working people as
covered by international human
rights agreements. These include
the right to work, equal pay for
work of equal value, the right to
join a trade union, equal oppor-
tunity inemployment training and
advancement, access to quality
education, affordable housing,
the right to political beliefs and
the right to peace, among others.

Speaking on behalf of the par-
ty’s women’s commission, Nan
McDonald said government fund-
ing should be extended to guaran-
tee these rights; rather she noted

there had been massive cuts in
social spending.

‘Instead of giving handouts to
multi-national corporations,
governments should be applying
these funds, which are taxpayers’
funds, to the services of the
population,’ she charged.

McDonald’s citing of a long his-
tory of discrimination against the
Communist Party and call for
freedom in political beliefs was
met favorably by committee
head, Patrick Boyer, who used
the opportunity to push a book he
had authored on the subject.

However most of the commit-
tee’s questioning of the party rep-
resentative centred on human
rights issues in the Soviet Union.
McDonald ably answered the
questions ranging from rights of
gays and lesbians in the Soviet
Union to Soviet involvement in
Afghanistan but cautioned the
committee against going beyond
their mandate which was to
examine the rights of Canadians.

Michelle Swenarchuk » of, the
National Action Committee on
the Status of Women criticized
the hearings for avoiding input
from northern, Maritime and Na-
tive women who “‘have their own
real concerns and would like to
speak with you’’. She also hit the
committee for failing to extend
the ‘‘courtesy of a phone call or a
letter’. to organizations which
were by-passed.

Like many others, the NAC
brief viewed the equality section
as a “recognition and repudiation
of inequality’ and called for its
broadest interpretation which
would prohibit discrimination on
grounds not specifically listed in
the Charter. These could include
marital status, sexual orientation,
political belief or income.

Its presentation equated equal-
ity for women with the right to
equal opportunity in employ-
ment, open family planning, safe
universal child care and, added
Swenarchuk, ‘‘we fundamentally
need peace’’.

Regarding women’s right to a
job, she attacked the justice
department paper for its “‘most
unfortunate and indefensible fai-
lure to address employment dis-
crimination,’ and linked child
care, affirmative action, equal pay
for work of equal value and the
situation facing part-time workers
to economic equality.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JUNE 26, 1985 e 5