Canada

~

Accord perpetuates
historical division

Continued from page 1 =

There is considerable support across the
country for Quebec’s entrance into the con-
stitution, but there is no unity around the
Meech Lake “amendment.” The architects
of the Accord now accuse it’s detractors of
“throwing up roadblocks” to Quebec join-
ing the constitutional family. “Interest
groups” are reproached for “putting them-
selves before the country.”

But who are these so-called interest
groups? They are women, aboriginal peo-
ples, ethnic communities, Francophones
living outside Quebec, organized labour,
social welfare groups and many Quebeckers.
They are the majority of Canadians and
have more right to speak on behalf of Can-
ada than the 11 conservative, wealthy men
who drafted Meech Lake.

It is precisely this scenario which has
plagued Canadian constitutional develop-
ment since its inception. Constitutions are a
relatively new phenomena, marking the
passage of rule from one social class to
another. But such transformations take
place only with intense struggle. When the
merchant class needed allies to overthrow
the aristocracy they reached out to the pea-
santry and workers, promising rewards in
exchange for their support.

This explains the relatively enlightened
sections of the American and French
constitutions — they were the results of
revolutions. :

However Canada’s bourgeois-democratic
revolution of 1837 was crushed. The effects
of this defeat are felt to this day, and
embody all that is wrong with Meech Lake.

It is symbolic that the first “constitution”
governing European Canadians was the
Hudson Bay Charter of 1670, by which
Charles II handed over the “governing” of
vast tracts of land to a consortium of
wealthy merchants. “a

The question of which two colonizing
nations, England or France, would have
control over Canada was settled at the end
of the Seven Years War in 1760. However
there was still the existence ofa large French
population to contend _with. Repeated
attempts to enforce assimilation on French
Canada resulted in storms of protest and
were defeated.

The Constitution Act of 1867, drafted by
leading Anglo-businessmen and more con-
servative representatives from Quebec, was
a purely legislative union. It met the eco-
nomic desires for free trade between the
provinces and facilitated the development
of the railway which was impossible with-
out the co-operation of Lower Canada

eC).
ent Canada was deeply divided on
the new plan. Certain business elements felt
they could gain from economic union des-
pite the dominance of Anglo-Canadian cap-
italists. For the Catholic Church the
proposed guarantees on religious and edu-
cation institutions provided in the act meant
the possibility of autonomy. Less radical
French Canadians, saw it offering some
limited guarantees of legislative powers.

Many of these elements can be found in
the discussions around Meech Lake. As
with today many Canadians viewed the
1867 pact as fundamentally flawed. Mass
meetings and rallies were held demanding
popular consultation before federation was
established.

A petition published in a radical demo-
cratic newspaper Le Pays in February 1865,
bears a striking similarity to the demands of
1989. The petition noted that “extremely
important changes (were being made to) the
Constitution, and this without the people
having asked for them or being given any
opportunity to express its opinion or
wishes.”

As today, Quebec was enticed through
limited guarantees to its language, educa-
tion and civil law, while the economic lev-
ers were still in the control of Anglo-
Canadian capitalists. Natives, immigrants
or women were neither consulted or consi-
dered.

Similarly, the struggle of Francophones
outside Quebec was quashed. The Manit-

ENSHRINING INEQUALITY ... the Meech Lake compound (top), former prime

minister Pierre Trudeau; Robert
Signing.

oba Act of 1870 represented the efforts of
the “children of the fur trade” to join con-
federation on an equal footing. The Metis
tabled 19 demands for responsible govern-
ment, including the equality of French and
English in the legislature and the courts,
English and French language education, a
health care system, a tax sharing formula
and respect for existing property rights.

But the thirst of the railway for land
resulted in the forced expulsion of the Metis
from their lands. An emissary sent to
Ottawa to petition on behalf of their behalf
was told “the only answer they would get
would be bullets.”

__ The Metis quest for constitutional equal-
ity was drowned in blood at the Battle of
Batoche in 1885.

Political and economic developments
precipitated the Liberal government of Pie-
tre Trudeau moving to repatriate the consti-
tution from Britain. The Canadian bour-
geoisie wasn’t much interested in con-
stitutional change but it wanted to see the
defeat of the Quebec independence move-
ment. Trudeau was tolerated as prime min-
ister because he could “deal” with Quebec.

The Quiet Revolution followed by the
War Measures Act and the election of the
Parti Quebecois in 1976 with its separatist
agenda raised the need once again to
accommodate Quebec.

It was with considerable irony that on
Nov. 5, 1981, apparently in a late night
kitchen session, the prime minister and all
the provincial premiers — except Rene
Levesque — approved a new Constitu-
tion. But again more than just Quebec was
left out of this new attempt at “nation build-
ing.” All references to aboriginal peoples
and women were dropped as well.

A public campaign by women and abo-

Bourassa and Brian Mulroney following Accord’s

riginal groups caused this to be re-
negotiated but the results were far from
satisfactory.

Alberta premier Peter Lougheed would
agree to the new constitution if the worlds
“existing aboriginal and treaty rights” were
used. Section 37 of the Charter necessitated
a series of constitutional conferences with
the original drafters and aboriginal peoples
to work out definitions concerning land
claims and treaty rights.

Women’s organizations in English Can-
ada successfully campaigned to have the
equality clauses — 15 and 28 — included
in the 1982 agreement. This was an impor-
tant and significant achievement, but it
must be noted that Quebec and Native
women felt excluded from this victory. For
them, recognition of their national rights
had. precedence over what they considered
vague commitments to gender equality.

Successive Quebec National Assemblies
refused to ratify the 1982 Constitution. But
the election of a Liberal provincial govern-
ment in Quebec in 1985, following on the
heels of the Tory majority of 1984, created a
new situation. The Tories desperately
needed Quebec’s support for its free trade
agreement, a commitment they would not
get without addressing the province’s con-
stitutional status.

It is equally noteworthy that the frame-
work of Meech Lake can be found in the
report on the Macdonald Commission on
the Economy. The document which promp-
ted free trade, had as its companion piece a
formula to revamp the political structures
of the country to meet the desires of the
ruling class for an integrated continental
market.

The Quebec government listed its five
conditions for accepting the new constitu-

tion in its 1985 program, Mastering our
Future. It demanded recognition in the
preamble of recognition of Quebec as a
“distinct society,” the cornerstone of
French Canada. Other conditions included
a veto on constitutional amendments affect-
ing federal institutions, limitations on fed-
eral spending power, control over immi-
gration to the province and the right of the
Quebec government to participate in the
nomination of Supreme Court justices from
that province.

Quebec’s demands were met by giving
the same powers, and more, toall the pro-
vinces. As in 1867, the less radical represen-
tatives of French Canada were prepared to

“accept increased provincial powers instead
of real recognition of their national status.
For Ottawa, it was “easier” to empower all
the provinces together than to deal with
Quebec.

In the eight weeks between the Accord’s
signing and its ratification by the Quebec
National Assembly, the province’s unions
and other groups condemned Bourassa for
accepting so little.

To date every provincial legislature has
ratified the Accord with the exception of
New Brunswick and Manitoba. Provincial
public hearings were either not held or were
of such short duration as to be meaningless.
They were even more meaningless con-
ducted under the proviso that the Accord
could and would not be amended.

The Accord continues the attempt to deal
with the national struggles of the aboriginal
peoples through elimination. Premier Don
Getty of Alberta made this very clear when
asserting that the one key reason for insist-
ing upon unanimous provincial consent for
future constitutional changes, was this
would preclude the possibility of any pro-
vince being pressured into observing aborig-
inal rights. Little wonder Native groups see
Meech Lake as a permanent bar to self-
government.

In addition, neither the constitution or
Meech Lake recognizes the rights of minori-
ties or of Francophones living outside
Quebec.

A major concern of women’s organiza-
tions with regard to the Accord is Article 7.
It allows a province not participating in
national programs to initiate “compatible”
programs meeting “national objectives.”
But neither terms are defined.

It is highly unlikely that a Canada’s med-
icare system could have been enacted under
such conditions, thereby raising concerns
about future social programs, including
child care — a long standing demand of the
women’s movement.

Labour unions have. also seen many of
their basic rights go unrecognized in the
Constitution. Recent interpretations of the
Supreme Court of Canada based on the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not
include the right to collective bargaining
and the right to strike. Nor does it fecognize
the political rights of public sector
employees. In fact a recent decision of the

courts to recognize this right was appa i
rvice

by ‘supposedly neutral Public ~

Commission of Canada.

The Meech Lake Accord crowns the his- °

tory of constitutional exclusion in Canada.
It is not an amendable document. If in a
democracy, sovereignty belongs to the peo-
ple, its fundamental law must involve the
participation of its citizens. ;

This requirement can be met through the
calling of a democratically elected assembly,
including representatives from all compo-
nents of society, mandated to draft a new
constitution. This plan should be submitted
to the people through a referendum.

Such a process would allow Canadians to
come to terms with the national concerns of
Quebec and the Native peoples, it would
allow us to address such burning issues as
regional inequality, racism and sexism. It
would allow the people of Canada to
express their wishes with regard to the polit-
ical, social and economic system they desire.

It would also guarantee that the rights of
all are respected and that Canada gets a real
constitution.

Pacific Tribune, March 6, 1989 « 7