Terrace Standard, Wednesday, October 21, 1992 — Page AS

ii oO Canada?

We asked for a number of
opinions on the proposed
changes to the constitution.

Youll find four on this page
and two on Page A6.

Are you a.new reader ? If so, please take the _
time to read this section. Itis a guide to the report

you will be asked to vote 'YES' or 'NO' to this Monday.

As you read each point, think about what you have
read. Ask yourself how you u feel about it.

What

Senate Reform

How
a) Each province will get to

elect six senators (sen-a-tors)

b) The Yukon and the NWT
will each get one senator.

c) Senators will either be
- elected by voters or by their
MLAs.

d) Away to elect native
senators will be discussed.

* o£ *
What
House of Commons Reform
2 a ‘ _ : sea i ;
; How

a) The size of the House will

‘increase from 295 to 337 seats.

b) _—_B.C. will get four new
seats in the House.

c) Ontario (on-tare -ee-oh)
and Quebec will each get 18 new
seats.

d) Alberta will get two new
seats.

is * OR F

_ What.

. N ew Status for Native People
How

a). Native people will have
the right to govern them-selves.

b) Native govern-ments will
be provided with the resources
(ree-sor-ses) they will need to
meet the level of services given
to other Canadians.

c) Native laws should not

conflict with laws which promote

the peace, order and good.
government of Canada. -

What |
“New role for Quebec
How
a) “Quebec will now be |
| known as a "distinct society."

b) Quebec will have at least
25% of the seats in the House of
Commons.

c) Bills that affect French
language or |

culture will have to be approved
by a majority (ma-jor-i-tee) of
French-speaking Senators

d) Three of nine judges on
the Supreme Court must be able
to practice law in Quebec.

a a ee

New Role for
Provinces

How

ay> Each province can, choose.

cu eiLO. take full control. ‘of it's: “OWL | watig ner

oe --culture issues
_ forestry (for-es-tree)
--housing
--job training
--mining

--recreation (tek- ree- “ays
shun)

--tourism
soe eK,

What

New Reforms

-How

a) Future reform of the House

or the Senate is up to both
parliament ( par-li-ment) and the
provinces.

All provinces will have to agree
to most changes.

b) Future changes to the ~
constitution (con-sti-too-shun) —
that affect the status of Native
cultures and languages (lang-

wah-jez) should be discussed

with Native ve people.

ae 2

> The Terrace Standard acknow-.
- ledges the co-operation and |
efforts” of Project Literacy —

; Terrace i in preparing | this article, 7

The vote is about
_ survival of Canada

By HELMUT
GIESBRECHT

Helmut Giesbrecht wus elected

is the Member of the Legislative
Assembly for Skeena in 1991

This referendum is about the
survival of Canada.

The question on the ballot on
Oct. 26 may not say it in so many
words but make no mistake, the
question being put to Canadians
is about the survival of Canada.
Period.

‘Since this agreement was
reached on Aug. 28th — reached
remarkably enough by all 10
premiers, the federal government,
two territorial governments and
the four key national aboriginal
organizations — those opposed to
it’ have been complaining that
‘they could have done better, and

‘that, had they been in charge,
~ everybody could have had every-

thing they wanted.

’ What they are really saying is
that the agreement that was
reached left out some of the items
an their personal agenda that they
have lost. Separatists in Quebec

ave gone so far as to say that

without a ‘no’ vote they're dead
as a political movement.

They are clearly choosing to ig-
nore is that this exercise isn’t
about winning and losing. It’s
about keeping our nation togeth-
er. It's about defining who we

are. Is about outlining those

Helmut Glesbrecht

things we believe in and are com-
mitted to as Canadians.

But most of all, in a country as
vast and diverse as Canada it’s
about tolerance, understanding
and compromise in'an effort to do
what's best for the whole country.

The Unity Agreement docs that.

This accord includes Quebec
and aboriginal peoples. It recog-
nizes the distinctiveness of
Quebec; but unlike Meech Lake it
limits the scope of Quebec’s dis-
tinct society and removes the
specter of special status. The ac-
cord will “confirm the principle
of equality of the provinces”.

Unlike Meech Lake this accord

recognizes that aboriginal peoples
have the inherent right to self

government within Canada and in
the context of existing federal and
provincial laws and subject to the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It provides new opportunities lo
negotiate without disruption to
other levels of government. This
accord provides protection

throughout Canada for a health

care system which is universal,
comprehensive, portable, and ac-
cessible.

It protects the rights of workers
to organize and bargain collec-
tively. It ensures that agreements
between federal and provincial
goveraments ate protected from
unilateral change. This accord
provides for an elected, equal and
vastly more effective Senate.

It provides B.C. with five more
seats in the House of Commons,
five more than the two we were
entitled 10 under the current con-
stitution. This is more new scats
than any other province in the
House of Commons and_ the
elected Scnate combined.

In this accord B.C. gains new
powers to manage our economy -
powers over labour market devel-
opment and training, culture,
forestry, mining, tourism and
housing.

The ‘no’ campaign has tried to
tell Canadians that they can reject
this agreement without any fall-
out. Life will continue as it al-
ways has. Another round of nego-
tiations will get a better deal.

Native women

By KARLA HENNIG

Karla Hennig is the executive
director of the Terrace Women’s
Resource Centre,

Onc of the most disturbing

_ things about the Charlottetown

Accord text is that it is a list of

oo wo sintentions, notd Jegal: document.

A-legal: document. would. be --
more reassuring to us, even
though, as a lawyer friend ‘of ours
says, “‘you don’t really Know
what a legal document means un-
til the courts have interpreted it a
few times.”

The National Action Committee
on the Status of Women (NAC)
explains, ‘he mew Canada
Clause strengthens the rights of
governments at the expense of the
rights of individuals and dis-
advantaged groups. The Canada
Clause sels up a hierarchy of
rights. As it currently reads,
“Canadians and their govern-
ments (cmphasis added) are re-
quired to be committed to minori-
ty language rights but only Cana-
dians are required to be com-
mitted to the rights of women and
racial minorities.”

There has been a great deal of
discussion on this, with many ex-
perts asserling that gender equali-
ty will be subject to, or less im-
porlant than, aboriginal self
government rights and distinct
society rights. There are also

those who assert that gender
equality has equal status with
those listed above.

NAC and the Terrace Women’s
Resource Centre feel we must
support the Native Women’s As-
sociation of Canada (NWAC). It
states that the ‘Inherent Right of
SelfGovemmént’ section was

-formilated «without any~ input...

from native women.

NWAC has indicated that many
women on reserves don’t hold
much power or rights at the mo-
ment and unless they have the
constitutional guarantees which
uphold their human rights,
aboriginal governments may strip
them of any recourse in the courts
on human righis issues.

The gender equality clause, as it
stands now, only ensures equal
treatment with respect to treaty
tights.

There are similar concerns of
constitutionally sanctioned exclu-
sion of native women with regard
to the Supreme Court. The Char-
lottetown Accord states, ‘The
federal government should cxam-
ine..(the proposal) that an
Aboriginal Council of Elders will
be entitled to make submission to
the Supreme Court when the
court considers aboriginal is-
sues.”*

Who will choose this ‘Council
of Elders’ and what political
agenda will they have? It is not

left out

overly cynical for women to ask
if they will be invited to partici-
pate in the Council of Elders,

The Charlottetown Accord also
gives increased power to the pro-
vinces, Immigration, labour
market development and training
and housing are all areas where

the federal! ‘governnibat "had had’ nt

. some input anti now. - .

‘have not’ provinces. In times of
economic uncertainty, under
governments with different politi-
cal agendas, itis reasonable to. as-
sume that different provinces may
curtail social programs, introduce
doctor extra-billing, and create a
patchwork of programs with un-
equal levels of service, People
who are poor, uncmployed, elder-
ly or disabled will be the first to
be affected.

Giving the provinces more of
these powers also threatens new
social programs such as a nation-
al day care program, dental pro-
gram for children and others.

Canadian women arc being
asked to vote for an agreement
which may or may not uphold
their rights as Canadians.

We are being asked to trust [u-
ture federal, provincial, and
aboriginal governments to do
what they thing is best for us,
with no guarantee we will be at
the table when these decisions arc
being made.

Canada is a land of have? and

Deal doesn’t help natives

By DON RYAN
Don Ryan is a speaker with the
Gitksan and Wet’suwet'en Of-
fice of the Hereditary Chiefs in
the Hazeltons.

1 will not vole in the national
referendum to accept the amend-
ments to the Constitution Act,
1982,

Referenda are a shallow method

to effect social change. Too often
a referendum is manipulated by
both the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ forces so
that the clectorate votes in
protest, ,
-[ have analyzed the Canadian
unity agreement and legal text. I
can’t, support amendments on
“such items as senate reform,
changes to the amending formula
‘and provincial power grabs that
. have a direct impact on aboriginal
peoples.

More importantly, I do not see
‘any positive benefits for cot-
stitutionalizing Indian reserves as
a jurisdictional base for the in-
~ herent right to govern ourselves.

~ Let’s consider two key sections
now in the constitution with
~ respect to aboriginal rights. Part
II, subsection 35(1) states: ‘“The
“existing aboriginal rights: of the
‘aboriginal peoples of Canada are -

hereby recognized and affirmed.”
To see what this section means
we must turn to Section 52 which
states: ‘The Constitution of Can-
ada is the Supreme Law of Cana-
da, and any law that is in-
consistent with the provisions of
the constitution is, to the extent of
the inconsistency of no force or
effect.’’ These two sections were
proclaimed in the Constitution
Act on April 17, 1982.

The Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en
people along with many other
aboriginal people have tumed to
the courts since to assert our con-
stitutional rights. The Gitksan and
Wer’suwet'en have argued that
the effect of the above two sec-
tions gives legal paramountly to
our rights over federal and
provincial laws and common law.

A wide spectrum of rights have
been litigated and won, from reli-
gious rights to fishing rights.
Aboriginal people will remain in
the courts until the Crown starts
to honour the tests established by
the courts to bring the Crown in
line with the supreme law of Can-
ada. ,

I can’t forget the past conduct
of the Crown when it. routinely
violates my constitutlonal right
nor will -I accept an agreement

that offers litde to the gains we
have fought hard for in the courts
since the Constitution Act was
proclaimed a decade ago.

The inherent right to govern
ourselves is already a constitu-
tional. right. We argued this in
Delgam Uukw v. The Queen
when we launched the case in the
B.C. Supreme Court in 1984.

Hight years later we arc still
waiting to hear from the Supreme
Court of Canada on the issue.

While we wait, we are negotiat-
ing with the federal government
to eliminate the Indian Act. The
same policy we hear at these ne-
gotiations will be enshrined in the
constitution if it passes.

I believe we can occupy the
federal and provincial fields of
power to force the issue without
the proposed amendments. ;

For certainty, the Gitksan and
Wet'suwet’en will continue to as-
sert their constitutional rights in
the courts and in the political ne-
gotialions.

After all ihe rhetoric, the in-
herent right to govern ourselves is
not created by a parliamentary
form of government in the con-
stitution, a law or a simple ‘yes’
or ‘no’ vote, but by our creative
and collective will to survive. .

ee. ee