¢ 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.