Image
File
¢
October 15, 1992 the Other Press Z
THE REFERENDUM
by Karen Rempel Shelagh Day, vice-president of This raises questions about the earlyintheconsultation process, but other things are Soe priorities, it
The federal government is
- spending $300 million to convince
Paves e of Canada to vote YES to
the Charlottetown Constitutional
Accord. Peopleall over the country
are discussing the accord. There is
disagreementabout whata YES vote
will mean. There is disagreement
about what a NO vote will mean.
There is disagreement about which
vote will be best for Canada.
Dawn Black, MP for New
Westminster-Burnaby and NDP
status of womencritic, supports the
YES vote. She said the choice “isnot
between this accord and what we
wanted. It is between this accord
_ and the status quo ... There is no
better deal around the corner. “
While Black supports the accord,
she wants onesection tobe modified.
GlendaSimms, presidentof the
Canadian Advisory Council on the
Status of Women, said the CACSW
has decided to support the accord,
but proposes that it be modified in
four areas.
the National Action Committee on
the Status of Women, said NAC
decided to recommend a NO vote to
its membership of three million
women. In her recent s 1 at
Douglas College she said “It’s
important to get it [the accord] ri
to do it thoughtfully and carefully.”
The process through which the
accord was reached is a new one for
Canada:
proposals, consultation. This was a
positivestep toward representational
government. But just because we
approve of the doesn’t mean
we have to accept the first draft. In
fact, there are some compelling
reasons not to.
When it came time for the first
ministers to sit down and write out
the accord, based on the wealth of
information gathered from the year’s
consultations, it seems the spirit of
the process was lost. The federal
government refused to include the
Native Women’s Association of
Canada in the accord talks, even
though the Federal Court of Appeal
said they had a legal right tobe there.
country-wide forums, —
integrity of the accord.
Also, the first ministers who
became involved at the end
seemingly felt no obligation to the
consensus that had emerged from
the constitutional conferences.
Throughout the earlier debate, the
were shut out of the men’s club of
first ministers and native leaders at
the end.”
However, McDonald said
Canadians should vote YES so that
wecan “getonwithsolving problems
such as high unemployment, with
There is no
"Yes, but..." vote
section relating to the election of
senators provided for “proportional
representation in such a way as to
increase representation of women
and minorities.” The first ministers
dropped this wording.
Another point was raised by
Lynn McDonald, chair of sociology
and anthropology at the University
of Guelph in Ontario. She said in an
article in the Globe and Mail that
“Women participated and were
heard at the community meetings
making aboriginal self-government
work, and with achieving greater
justice for women.” True, these are
important matters that need
addressing. Perhaps McDonald is
correct; maybe the constitution isn’t
high on our list of priorities right
now. But does that mean we should
accept a_ less-than-adequate
constitution? The new constitution
could bein force for another hundred
years. Remember the saying, “Marry
in haste, repent in leisure.” If these
People are Dissatified with Accord Proposals
yes
no TA, maybe
Accord Section 1
Affirms Fundamental
Canadian Values
This section includes the
Canada Clause, which would guide
the courts to interpret the entire
Constitution, including the
Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. TheCanada Clause says
our values and goals are:
1. parliamentary democracy
2. self-government and heritage
protection for Aboriginal
peoples
3. recognition of Quebec’s
_ distinctive character
4. pe rotection of minority
guage rights
5. racial and ethnic equality,
and cultural diversity
6. respect for individual and
collective rights and freedoms
7. equality of women and men
8. equality of provinces
Dissatisfaction: The clause
specifically mentions the rights of
some groups, but doesn’t mention
the rights of disabled persons,
lesbians and gay men, poor women
and men, of religious faiths,
children and old people. Because
some mega ri tsare mentioned
and other peoples’ rights are not,
the clause at pom the courts to
relax their standards ininterpreting
theCharter rights of the people who
are not mentioned. This would be
an unintentional negative impact of
the accord. Dawn Black said
“concerned § ps,suchas
with disabilities, should be
specifically enumerated.”
Accord Section 2
Modernizes our
Institutions of
Government
This section proposes reform to
makeour system of governmentmore
effective and responsive. Seats in the
House of Commons would be
distributed to provinces on the basis
of population, with Quebec
guaranteed 25% of the seats. The
Senate would give equal weight to
each province (6 seats), with 1 seat
each for the territories, and additional
seats for re tatives of Aboriginal
peoples. tors would be elected
rather than appointed. A double
majority would be ired for bills
affecting French language or culture.
The Su Court would be “the
highest court in the land,” and would
have a irement that three of
nine members have been admi
law from Quebec’s civil law bar.
Vacancies would be filled by the
federal government from lists
submitted by provincialand territorial
governments.
Dissatisfaction: The Senate
reform does not make provision for
“proportional representation of
womenand minorities” in the Senate.
Europeanand Scandinaviancountries
use a system of proportional
representation to elect their
governments; it would be fairly simple
to adopt a similar system in our own
government. Since proportional
representation was clearly identified
as desired by Canadians at the
constitutional talks, itis ae ane
the first ministers i 3 esire
at the final stage. SN: NAC and the
CACSW want the accord to require—
and not merely permit—provinces to
institute measures toachieveequity in
the tation of womenand other
disa vantaged groups.
Accord Section 3
Reduces Duplication
of Government
Services
This section _re-defines
governments’ jurisdictionand power.
Federal spending power would be
limitedinareasofexclusive provincial
jurisdiction. Provinces would beable
to opt out of Canada-wide shared-
cost programs, and would receive
compensation as long as their own
s meet national ives.
Federal government would have
responsibility for defence,
international trade, criminal law,
unemployment insurance, and old
age pensions. Provinces would have
sole responsibility for forestry,
ining, tourism, housing, recreation,
municipal and urban affairs, and
labour market development and
traini ng Culture and immigration
would be subject to both federal and
rovincial jurisdiction. Agreements
the federal and provincial
governments could not be ed
without both parties’ approval.
Dissatisfaction: Reduced federal
spending power means that people
wholiveina province thathasdecided
to opt out of a program may receive
t certieie of lesser eaetteperle
who live in other provinces. The
CACSW wants this section of the
accord to include a clause that will
“enable the federal government to
ensure that [people] across Canada
will have access to services of
comparable quality.”
Accord Section 4
Allows for Aboriginal
Self-government
This section recognizes
A peoples’ inherent right
to self-government, and describes
how self-government will be
achieved. Aboriginal governments
wouldbea third level of government
in Canada (in addition to federal
and provincial). The form of their
government wouldemerge through
negotiated agreements, with all
Aboriginal peoples having access to
the negotiating process. During the
transition period federal and
provincial laws would apply.
Aboriginal laws would have to be
consistent with federal and
provincial laws. Self-government
would notcreate new rights to land.
TheCharter of Rightsand Freedoms
would apply to Aboriginal
governments.
Dissatisfaction: Aboriginal
women’srightsarenotassured. The
Native Women’s Association of
Canada was illegally prevented
from attending ‘the accord talks.
en eclewaces
been discriminated against by
whites and by their own bands.
When Aboriginal women fought
forand won theright toequal Indian
status in the Indian Act, 70,000
womenregained their Indianstatus.
Only 7,000 have been re-admitted
to their bands because of the
rovisionin the Indian Actthat says
ds and band council determine
who can be in the band. Now, the
accord says that all Aboriginal
peoples will have access to the
process of negotiating self-
government. However, because of
their history of gender ee
women want the accord to inclu
a clause that specifically states that
they will beincluded in the process.
Another problem is the accord is
unclearaboutwhether, in transition
period, Aboriginal women’s
Charter rights to gender equity will
be recognized.
makes sense to put the constitution
aside until we have time togiveit our
full attention. That is, it makes sense
to vote NO.
What will happen if Canada
votes NO? Shelagh Day said Brian
Mulroney is creating an Apocalypse
Now scenario, telling Canadians that
if we vote NO the country will fall
apart and the economy will be in
ruins. Her response is that “the
economy is in trouble anyway. The
constitution won’t make much
difference in the face of global
recession, free tradeimplementation,
and the lack of a coherent labour
market strategy for retraining
people.”
Dire prophecy aside, the fact
remaing that the accord was written
after a year of the most exhaustive
consultation in Canadian history. Is
the whole thing going to be thrown
out if the NO vote wins? This is
highly unlikely. Consensus has been
reached in many areas. If Canadians
vote NO then the consultation will
continue until consensus can be
reached in the remaining areas. Day
stressed that it’s important for
Canadians to help the politicians
interpret whata NO vote means. To
tell them why weare voting NO, and
whatchanges we want them tomake.
Asa matter of fact, while we are
being asked to accept the accord in
total, the document itself did not
achieve full consensus by the people
who. drafted it. This raises the
question, if they did not agree
amongst themselves, why are they
expecting us to? The answer seems
clear: they wantthe people aie
to decide whether we are
metrenwnirey nabs beh be
ornot. If weare, then they don’thave
tokeep working toachieveconsensus.
If we are not, they'll have to go back
to the drawing board. That seems to
be the true purpose of the
referendum: to find outif Canadians
are happy with the work they've
done, or if we want them tokeepatit.
Edited Text
¢
October 15, 1992 the Other Press Z
THE REFERENDUM
by Karen Rempel Shelagh Day, vice-president of This raises questions about the earlyintheconsultation process, but other things are Soe priorities, it
The federal government is
- spending $300 million to convince
Paves e of Canada to vote YES to
the Charlottetown Constitutional
Accord. Peopleall over the country
are discussing the accord. There is
disagreementabout whata YES vote
will mean. There is disagreement
about what a NO vote will mean.
There is disagreement about which
vote will be best for Canada.
Dawn Black, MP for New
Westminster-Burnaby and NDP
status of womencritic, supports the
YES vote. She said the choice “isnot
between this accord and what we
wanted. It is between this accord
_ and the status quo ... There is no
better deal around the corner. “
While Black supports the accord,
she wants onesection tobe modified.
GlendaSimms, presidentof the
Canadian Advisory Council on the
Status of Women, said the CACSW
has decided to support the accord,
but proposes that it be modified in
four areas.
the National Action Committee on
the Status of Women, said NAC
decided to recommend a NO vote to
its membership of three million
women. In her recent s 1 at
Douglas College she said “It’s
important to get it [the accord] ri
to do it thoughtfully and carefully.”
The process through which the
accord was reached is a new one for
Canada:
proposals, consultation. This was a
positivestep toward representational
government. But just because we
approve of the doesn’t mean
we have to accept the first draft. In
fact, there are some compelling
reasons not to.
When it came time for the first
ministers to sit down and write out
the accord, based on the wealth of
information gathered from the year’s
consultations, it seems the spirit of
the process was lost. The federal
government refused to include the
Native Women’s Association of
Canada in the accord talks, even
though the Federal Court of Appeal
said they had a legal right tobe there.
country-wide forums, —
integrity of the accord.
Also, the first ministers who
became involved at the end
seemingly felt no obligation to the
consensus that had emerged from
the constitutional conferences.
Throughout the earlier debate, the
were shut out of the men’s club of
first ministers and native leaders at
the end.”
However, McDonald said
Canadians should vote YES so that
wecan “getonwithsolving problems
such as high unemployment, with
There is no
"Yes, but..." vote
section relating to the election of
senators provided for “proportional
representation in such a way as to
increase representation of women
and minorities.” The first ministers
dropped this wording.
Another point was raised by
Lynn McDonald, chair of sociology
and anthropology at the University
of Guelph in Ontario. She said in an
article in the Globe and Mail that
“Women participated and were
heard at the community meetings
making aboriginal self-government
work, and with achieving greater
justice for women.” True, these are
important matters that need
addressing. Perhaps McDonald is
correct; maybe the constitution isn’t
high on our list of priorities right
now. But does that mean we should
accept a_ less-than-adequate
constitution? The new constitution
could bein force for another hundred
years. Remember the saying, “Marry
in haste, repent in leisure.” If these
People are Dissatified with Accord Proposals
yes
no TA, maybe
Accord Section 1
Affirms Fundamental
Canadian Values
This section includes the
Canada Clause, which would guide
the courts to interpret the entire
Constitution, including the
Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. TheCanada Clause says
our values and goals are:
1. parliamentary democracy
2. self-government and heritage
protection for Aboriginal
peoples
3. recognition of Quebec’s
_ distinctive character
4. pe rotection of minority
guage rights
5. racial and ethnic equality,
and cultural diversity
6. respect for individual and
collective rights and freedoms
7. equality of women and men
8. equality of provinces
Dissatisfaction: The clause
specifically mentions the rights of
some groups, but doesn’t mention
the rights of disabled persons,
lesbians and gay men, poor women
and men, of religious faiths,
children and old people. Because
some mega ri tsare mentioned
and other peoples’ rights are not,
the clause at pom the courts to
relax their standards ininterpreting
theCharter rights of the people who
are not mentioned. This would be
an unintentional negative impact of
the accord. Dawn Black said
“concerned § ps,suchas
with disabilities, should be
specifically enumerated.”
Accord Section 2
Modernizes our
Institutions of
Government
This section proposes reform to
makeour system of governmentmore
effective and responsive. Seats in the
House of Commons would be
distributed to provinces on the basis
of population, with Quebec
guaranteed 25% of the seats. The
Senate would give equal weight to
each province (6 seats), with 1 seat
each for the territories, and additional
seats for re tatives of Aboriginal
peoples. tors would be elected
rather than appointed. A double
majority would be ired for bills
affecting French language or culture.
The Su Court would be “the
highest court in the land,” and would
have a irement that three of
nine members have been admi
law from Quebec’s civil law bar.
Vacancies would be filled by the
federal government from lists
submitted by provincialand territorial
governments.
Dissatisfaction: The Senate
reform does not make provision for
“proportional representation of
womenand minorities” in the Senate.
Europeanand Scandinaviancountries
use a system of proportional
representation to elect their
governments; it would be fairly simple
to adopt a similar system in our own
government. Since proportional
representation was clearly identified
as desired by Canadians at the
constitutional talks, itis ae ane
the first ministers i 3 esire
at the final stage. SN: NAC and the
CACSW want the accord to require—
and not merely permit—provinces to
institute measures toachieveequity in
the tation of womenand other
disa vantaged groups.
Accord Section 3
Reduces Duplication
of Government
Services
This section _re-defines
governments’ jurisdictionand power.
Federal spending power would be
limitedinareasofexclusive provincial
jurisdiction. Provinces would beable
to opt out of Canada-wide shared-
cost programs, and would receive
compensation as long as their own
s meet national ives.
Federal government would have
responsibility for defence,
international trade, criminal law,
unemployment insurance, and old
age pensions. Provinces would have
sole responsibility for forestry,
ining, tourism, housing, recreation,
municipal and urban affairs, and
labour market development and
traini ng Culture and immigration
would be subject to both federal and
rovincial jurisdiction. Agreements
the federal and provincial
governments could not be ed
without both parties’ approval.
Dissatisfaction: Reduced federal
spending power means that people
wholiveina province thathasdecided
to opt out of a program may receive
t certieie of lesser eaetteperle
who live in other provinces. The
CACSW wants this section of the
accord to include a clause that will
“enable the federal government to
ensure that [people] across Canada
will have access to services of
comparable quality.”
Accord Section 4
Allows for Aboriginal
Self-government
This section recognizes
A peoples’ inherent right
to self-government, and describes
how self-government will be
achieved. Aboriginal governments
wouldbea third level of government
in Canada (in addition to federal
and provincial). The form of their
government wouldemerge through
negotiated agreements, with all
Aboriginal peoples having access to
the negotiating process. During the
transition period federal and
provincial laws would apply.
Aboriginal laws would have to be
consistent with federal and
provincial laws. Self-government
would notcreate new rights to land.
TheCharter of Rightsand Freedoms
would apply to Aboriginal
governments.
Dissatisfaction: Aboriginal
women’srightsarenotassured. The
Native Women’s Association of
Canada was illegally prevented
from attending ‘the accord talks.
en eclewaces
been discriminated against by
whites and by their own bands.
When Aboriginal women fought
forand won theright toequal Indian
status in the Indian Act, 70,000
womenregained their Indianstatus.
Only 7,000 have been re-admitted
to their bands because of the
rovisionin the Indian Actthat says
ds and band council determine
who can be in the band. Now, the
accord says that all Aboriginal
peoples will have access to the
process of negotiating self-
government. However, because of
their history of gender ee
women want the accord to inclu
a clause that specifically states that
they will beincluded in the process.
Another problem is the accord is
unclearaboutwhether, in transition
period, Aboriginal women’s
Charter rights to gender equity will
be recognized.
makes sense to put the constitution
aside until we have time togiveit our
full attention. That is, it makes sense
to vote NO.
What will happen if Canada
votes NO? Shelagh Day said Brian
Mulroney is creating an Apocalypse
Now scenario, telling Canadians that
if we vote NO the country will fall
apart and the economy will be in
ruins. Her response is that “the
economy is in trouble anyway. The
constitution won’t make much
difference in the face of global
recession, free tradeimplementation,
and the lack of a coherent labour
market strategy for retraining
people.”
Dire prophecy aside, the fact
remaing that the accord was written
after a year of the most exhaustive
consultation in Canadian history. Is
the whole thing going to be thrown
out if the NO vote wins? This is
highly unlikely. Consensus has been
reached in many areas. If Canadians
vote NO then the consultation will
continue until consensus can be
reached in the remaining areas. Day
stressed that it’s important for
Canadians to help the politicians
interpret whata NO vote means. To
tell them why weare voting NO, and
whatchanges we want them tomake.
Asa matter of fact, while we are
being asked to accept the accord in
total, the document itself did not
achieve full consensus by the people
who. drafted it. This raises the
question, if they did not agree
amongst themselves, why are they
expecting us to? The answer seems
clear: they wantthe people aie
to decide whether we are
metrenwnirey nabs beh be
ornot. If weare, then they don’thave
tokeep working toachieveconsensus.
If we are not, they'll have to go back
to the drawing board. That seems to
be the true purpose of the
referendum: to find outif Canadians
are happy with the work they've
done, or if we want them tokeepatit.
¢
October 15, 1992 the Other Press Z
THE REFERENDUM
by Karen Rempel Shelagh Day, vice-president of This raises questions about the earlyintheconsultation process, but other things are Soe priorities, it
The federal government is
- spending $300 million to convince
Paves e of Canada to vote YES to
the Charlottetown Constitutional
Accord. Peopleall over the country
are discussing the accord. There is
disagreementabout whata YES vote
will mean. There is disagreement
about what a NO vote will mean.
There is disagreement about which
vote will be best for Canada.
Dawn Black, MP for New
Westminster-Burnaby and NDP
status of womencritic, supports the
YES vote. She said the choice “isnot
between this accord and what we
wanted. It is between this accord
_ and the status quo ... There is no
better deal around the corner. “
While Black supports the accord,
she wants onesection tobe modified.
GlendaSimms, presidentof the
Canadian Advisory Council on the
Status of Women, said the CACSW
has decided to support the accord,
but proposes that it be modified in
four areas.
the National Action Committee on
the Status of Women, said NAC
decided to recommend a NO vote to
its membership of three million
women. In her recent s 1 at
Douglas College she said “It’s
important to get it [the accord] ri
to do it thoughtfully and carefully.”
The process through which the
accord was reached is a new one for
Canada:
proposals, consultation. This was a
positivestep toward representational
government. But just because we
approve of the doesn’t mean
we have to accept the first draft. In
fact, there are some compelling
reasons not to.
When it came time for the first
ministers to sit down and write out
the accord, based on the wealth of
information gathered from the year’s
consultations, it seems the spirit of
the process was lost. The federal
government refused to include the
Native Women’s Association of
Canada in the accord talks, even
though the Federal Court of Appeal
said they had a legal right tobe there.
country-wide forums, —
integrity of the accord.
Also, the first ministers who
became involved at the end
seemingly felt no obligation to the
consensus that had emerged from
the constitutional conferences.
Throughout the earlier debate, the
were shut out of the men’s club of
first ministers and native leaders at
the end.”
However, McDonald said
Canadians should vote YES so that
wecan “getonwithsolving problems
such as high unemployment, with
There is no
"Yes, but..." vote
section relating to the election of
senators provided for “proportional
representation in such a way as to
increase representation of women
and minorities.” The first ministers
dropped this wording.
Another point was raised by
Lynn McDonald, chair of sociology
and anthropology at the University
of Guelph in Ontario. She said in an
article in the Globe and Mail that
“Women participated and were
heard at the community meetings
making aboriginal self-government
work, and with achieving greater
justice for women.” True, these are
important matters that need
addressing. Perhaps McDonald is
correct; maybe the constitution isn’t
high on our list of priorities right
now. But does that mean we should
accept a_ less-than-adequate
constitution? The new constitution
could bein force for another hundred
years. Remember the saying, “Marry
in haste, repent in leisure.” If these
People are Dissatified with Accord Proposals
yes
no TA, maybe
Accord Section 1
Affirms Fundamental
Canadian Values
This section includes the
Canada Clause, which would guide
the courts to interpret the entire
Constitution, including the
Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. TheCanada Clause says
our values and goals are:
1. parliamentary democracy
2. self-government and heritage
protection for Aboriginal
peoples
3. recognition of Quebec’s
_ distinctive character
4. pe rotection of minority
guage rights
5. racial and ethnic equality,
and cultural diversity
6. respect for individual and
collective rights and freedoms
7. equality of women and men
8. equality of provinces
Dissatisfaction: The clause
specifically mentions the rights of
some groups, but doesn’t mention
the rights of disabled persons,
lesbians and gay men, poor women
and men, of religious faiths,
children and old people. Because
some mega ri tsare mentioned
and other peoples’ rights are not,
the clause at pom the courts to
relax their standards ininterpreting
theCharter rights of the people who
are not mentioned. This would be
an unintentional negative impact of
the accord. Dawn Black said
“concerned § ps,suchas
with disabilities, should be
specifically enumerated.”
Accord Section 2
Modernizes our
Institutions of
Government
This section proposes reform to
makeour system of governmentmore
effective and responsive. Seats in the
House of Commons would be
distributed to provinces on the basis
of population, with Quebec
guaranteed 25% of the seats. The
Senate would give equal weight to
each province (6 seats), with 1 seat
each for the territories, and additional
seats for re tatives of Aboriginal
peoples. tors would be elected
rather than appointed. A double
majority would be ired for bills
affecting French language or culture.
The Su Court would be “the
highest court in the land,” and would
have a irement that three of
nine members have been admi
law from Quebec’s civil law bar.
Vacancies would be filled by the
federal government from lists
submitted by provincialand territorial
governments.
Dissatisfaction: The Senate
reform does not make provision for
“proportional representation of
womenand minorities” in the Senate.
Europeanand Scandinaviancountries
use a system of proportional
representation to elect their
governments; it would be fairly simple
to adopt a similar system in our own
government. Since proportional
representation was clearly identified
as desired by Canadians at the
constitutional talks, itis ae ane
the first ministers i 3 esire
at the final stage. SN: NAC and the
CACSW want the accord to require—
and not merely permit—provinces to
institute measures toachieveequity in
the tation of womenand other
disa vantaged groups.
Accord Section 3
Reduces Duplication
of Government
Services
This section _re-defines
governments’ jurisdictionand power.
Federal spending power would be
limitedinareasofexclusive provincial
jurisdiction. Provinces would beable
to opt out of Canada-wide shared-
cost programs, and would receive
compensation as long as their own
s meet national ives.
Federal government would have
responsibility for defence,
international trade, criminal law,
unemployment insurance, and old
age pensions. Provinces would have
sole responsibility for forestry,
ining, tourism, housing, recreation,
municipal and urban affairs, and
labour market development and
traini ng Culture and immigration
would be subject to both federal and
rovincial jurisdiction. Agreements
the federal and provincial
governments could not be ed
without both parties’ approval.
Dissatisfaction: Reduced federal
spending power means that people
wholiveina province thathasdecided
to opt out of a program may receive
t certieie of lesser eaetteperle
who live in other provinces. The
CACSW wants this section of the
accord to include a clause that will
“enable the federal government to
ensure that [people] across Canada
will have access to services of
comparable quality.”
Accord Section 4
Allows for Aboriginal
Self-government
This section recognizes
A peoples’ inherent right
to self-government, and describes
how self-government will be
achieved. Aboriginal governments
wouldbea third level of government
in Canada (in addition to federal
and provincial). The form of their
government wouldemerge through
negotiated agreements, with all
Aboriginal peoples having access to
the negotiating process. During the
transition period federal and
provincial laws would apply.
Aboriginal laws would have to be
consistent with federal and
provincial laws. Self-government
would notcreate new rights to land.
TheCharter of Rightsand Freedoms
would apply to Aboriginal
governments.
Dissatisfaction: Aboriginal
women’srightsarenotassured. The
Native Women’s Association of
Canada was illegally prevented
from attending ‘the accord talks.
en eclewaces
been discriminated against by
whites and by their own bands.
When Aboriginal women fought
forand won theright toequal Indian
status in the Indian Act, 70,000
womenregained their Indianstatus.
Only 7,000 have been re-admitted
to their bands because of the
rovisionin the Indian Actthat says
ds and band council determine
who can be in the band. Now, the
accord says that all Aboriginal
peoples will have access to the
process of negotiating self-
government. However, because of
their history of gender ee
women want the accord to inclu
a clause that specifically states that
they will beincluded in the process.
Another problem is the accord is
unclearaboutwhether, in transition
period, Aboriginal women’s
Charter rights to gender equity will
be recognized.
makes sense to put the constitution
aside until we have time togiveit our
full attention. That is, it makes sense
to vote NO.
What will happen if Canada
votes NO? Shelagh Day said Brian
Mulroney is creating an Apocalypse
Now scenario, telling Canadians that
if we vote NO the country will fall
apart and the economy will be in
ruins. Her response is that “the
economy is in trouble anyway. The
constitution won’t make much
difference in the face of global
recession, free tradeimplementation,
and the lack of a coherent labour
market strategy for retraining
people.”
Dire prophecy aside, the fact
remaing that the accord was written
after a year of the most exhaustive
consultation in Canadian history. Is
the whole thing going to be thrown
out if the NO vote wins? This is
highly unlikely. Consensus has been
reached in many areas. If Canadians
vote NO then the consultation will
continue until consensus can be
reached in the remaining areas. Day
stressed that it’s important for
Canadians to help the politicians
interpret whata NO vote means. To
tell them why weare voting NO, and
whatchanges we want them tomake.
Asa matter of fact, while we are
being asked to accept the accord in
total, the document itself did not
achieve full consensus by the people
who. drafted it. This raises the
question, if they did not agree
amongst themselves, why are they
expecting us to? The answer seems
clear: they wantthe people aie
to decide whether we are
metrenwnirey nabs beh be
ornot. If weare, then they don’thave
tokeep working toachieveconsensus.
If we are not, they'll have to go back
to the drawing board. That seems to
be the true purpose of the
referendum: to find outif Canadians
are happy with the work they've
done, or if we want them tokeepatit.
¢
October 15, 1992 the Other Press Z
THE REFERENDUM
by Karen Rempel Shelagh Day, vice-president of This raises questions about the earlyintheconsultation process, but other things are Soe priorities, it
The federal government is
- spending $300 million to convince
Paves e of Canada to vote YES to
the Charlottetown Constitutional
Accord. Peopleall over the country
are discussing the accord. There is
disagreementabout whata YES vote
will mean. There is disagreement
about what a NO vote will mean.
There is disagreement about which
vote will be best for Canada.
Dawn Black, MP for New
Westminster-Burnaby and NDP
status of womencritic, supports the
YES vote. She said the choice “isnot
between this accord and what we
wanted. It is between this accord
_ and the status quo ... There is no
better deal around the corner. “
While Black supports the accord,
she wants onesection tobe modified.
GlendaSimms, presidentof the
Canadian Advisory Council on the
Status of Women, said the CACSW
has decided to support the accord,
but proposes that it be modified in
four areas.
the National Action Committee on
the Status of Women, said NAC
decided to recommend a NO vote to
its membership of three million
women. In her recent s 1 at
Douglas College she said “It’s
important to get it [the accord] ri
to do it thoughtfully and carefully.”
The process through which the
accord was reached is a new one for
Canada:
proposals, consultation. This was a
positivestep toward representational
government. But just because we
approve of the doesn’t mean
we have to accept the first draft. In
fact, there are some compelling
reasons not to.
When it came time for the first
ministers to sit down and write out
the accord, based on the wealth of
information gathered from the year’s
consultations, it seems the spirit of
the process was lost. The federal
government refused to include the
Native Women’s Association of
Canada in the accord talks, even
though the Federal Court of Appeal
said they had a legal right tobe there.
country-wide forums, —
integrity of the accord.
Also, the first ministers who
became involved at the end
seemingly felt no obligation to the
consensus that had emerged from
the constitutional conferences.
Throughout the earlier debate, the
were shut out of the men’s club of
first ministers and native leaders at
the end.”
However, McDonald said
Canadians should vote YES so that
wecan “getonwithsolving problems
such as high unemployment, with
There is no
"Yes, but..." vote
section relating to the election of
senators provided for “proportional
representation in such a way as to
increase representation of women
and minorities.” The first ministers
dropped this wording.
Another point was raised by
Lynn McDonald, chair of sociology
and anthropology at the University
of Guelph in Ontario. She said in an
article in the Globe and Mail that
“Women participated and were
heard at the community meetings
making aboriginal self-government
work, and with achieving greater
justice for women.” True, these are
important matters that need
addressing. Perhaps McDonald is
correct; maybe the constitution isn’t
high on our list of priorities right
now. But does that mean we should
accept a_ less-than-adequate
constitution? The new constitution
could bein force for another hundred
years. Remember the saying, “Marry
in haste, repent in leisure.” If these
People are Dissatified with Accord Proposals
yes
no TA, maybe
Accord Section 1
Affirms Fundamental
Canadian Values
This section includes the
Canada Clause, which would guide
the courts to interpret the entire
Constitution, including the
Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. TheCanada Clause says
our values and goals are:
1. parliamentary democracy
2. self-government and heritage
protection for Aboriginal
peoples
3. recognition of Quebec’s
_ distinctive character
4. pe rotection of minority
guage rights
5. racial and ethnic equality,
and cultural diversity
6. respect for individual and
collective rights and freedoms
7. equality of women and men
8. equality of provinces
Dissatisfaction: The clause
specifically mentions the rights of
some groups, but doesn’t mention
the rights of disabled persons,
lesbians and gay men, poor women
and men, of religious faiths,
children and old people. Because
some mega ri tsare mentioned
and other peoples’ rights are not,
the clause at pom the courts to
relax their standards ininterpreting
theCharter rights of the people who
are not mentioned. This would be
an unintentional negative impact of
the accord. Dawn Black said
“concerned § ps,suchas
with disabilities, should be
specifically enumerated.”
Accord Section 2
Modernizes our
Institutions of
Government
This section proposes reform to
makeour system of governmentmore
effective and responsive. Seats in the
House of Commons would be
distributed to provinces on the basis
of population, with Quebec
guaranteed 25% of the seats. The
Senate would give equal weight to
each province (6 seats), with 1 seat
each for the territories, and additional
seats for re tatives of Aboriginal
peoples. tors would be elected
rather than appointed. A double
majority would be ired for bills
affecting French language or culture.
The Su Court would be “the
highest court in the land,” and would
have a irement that three of
nine members have been admi
law from Quebec’s civil law bar.
Vacancies would be filled by the
federal government from lists
submitted by provincialand territorial
governments.
Dissatisfaction: The Senate
reform does not make provision for
“proportional representation of
womenand minorities” in the Senate.
Europeanand Scandinaviancountries
use a system of proportional
representation to elect their
governments; it would be fairly simple
to adopt a similar system in our own
government. Since proportional
representation was clearly identified
as desired by Canadians at the
constitutional talks, itis ae ane
the first ministers i 3 esire
at the final stage. SN: NAC and the
CACSW want the accord to require—
and not merely permit—provinces to
institute measures toachieveequity in
the tation of womenand other
disa vantaged groups.
Accord Section 3
Reduces Duplication
of Government
Services
This section _re-defines
governments’ jurisdictionand power.
Federal spending power would be
limitedinareasofexclusive provincial
jurisdiction. Provinces would beable
to opt out of Canada-wide shared-
cost programs, and would receive
compensation as long as their own
s meet national ives.
Federal government would have
responsibility for defence,
international trade, criminal law,
unemployment insurance, and old
age pensions. Provinces would have
sole responsibility for forestry,
ining, tourism, housing, recreation,
municipal and urban affairs, and
labour market development and
traini ng Culture and immigration
would be subject to both federal and
rovincial jurisdiction. Agreements
the federal and provincial
governments could not be ed
without both parties’ approval.
Dissatisfaction: Reduced federal
spending power means that people
wholiveina province thathasdecided
to opt out of a program may receive
t certieie of lesser eaetteperle
who live in other provinces. The
CACSW wants this section of the
accord to include a clause that will
“enable the federal government to
ensure that [people] across Canada
will have access to services of
comparable quality.”
Accord Section 4
Allows for Aboriginal
Self-government
This section recognizes
A peoples’ inherent right
to self-government, and describes
how self-government will be
achieved. Aboriginal governments
wouldbea third level of government
in Canada (in addition to federal
and provincial). The form of their
government wouldemerge through
negotiated agreements, with all
Aboriginal peoples having access to
the negotiating process. During the
transition period federal and
provincial laws would apply.
Aboriginal laws would have to be
consistent with federal and
provincial laws. Self-government
would notcreate new rights to land.
TheCharter of Rightsand Freedoms
would apply to Aboriginal
governments.
Dissatisfaction: Aboriginal
women’srightsarenotassured. The
Native Women’s Association of
Canada was illegally prevented
from attending ‘the accord talks.
en eclewaces
been discriminated against by
whites and by their own bands.
When Aboriginal women fought
forand won theright toequal Indian
status in the Indian Act, 70,000
womenregained their Indianstatus.
Only 7,000 have been re-admitted
to their bands because of the
rovisionin the Indian Actthat says
ds and band council determine
who can be in the band. Now, the
accord says that all Aboriginal
peoples will have access to the
process of negotiating self-
government. However, because of
their history of gender ee
women want the accord to inclu
a clause that specifically states that
they will beincluded in the process.
Another problem is the accord is
unclearaboutwhether, in transition
period, Aboriginal women’s
Charter rights to gender equity will
be recognized.
makes sense to put the constitution
aside until we have time togiveit our
full attention. That is, it makes sense
to vote NO.
What will happen if Canada
votes NO? Shelagh Day said Brian
Mulroney is creating an Apocalypse
Now scenario, telling Canadians that
if we vote NO the country will fall
apart and the economy will be in
ruins. Her response is that “the
economy is in trouble anyway. The
constitution won’t make much
difference in the face of global
recession, free tradeimplementation,
and the lack of a coherent labour
market strategy for retraining
people.”
Dire prophecy aside, the fact
remaing that the accord was written
after a year of the most exhaustive
consultation in Canadian history. Is
the whole thing going to be thrown
out if the NO vote wins? This is
highly unlikely. Consensus has been
reached in many areas. If Canadians
vote NO then the consultation will
continue until consensus can be
reached in the remaining areas. Day
stressed that it’s important for
Canadians to help the politicians
interpret whata NO vote means. To
tell them why weare voting NO, and
whatchanges we want them tomake.
Asa matter of fact, while we are
being asked to accept the accord in
total, the document itself did not
achieve full consensus by the people
who. drafted it. This raises the
question, if they did not agree
amongst themselves, why are they
expecting us to? The answer seems
clear: they wantthe people aie
to decide whether we are
metrenwnirey nabs beh be
ornot. If weare, then they don’thave
tokeep working toachieveconsensus.
If we are not, they'll have to go back
to the drawing board. That seems to
be the true purpose of the
referendum: to find outif Canadians
are happy with the work they've
done, or if we want them tokeepatit.