This discussion paper is based on research and on discussion of the
issue at a roundtable. The Institute provides this document as an attempt to promote
better understanding of the Calgary Declaration among ordinary Canadians and not to
advocate any particular viewpoint, besides finding a way to advance Canadian Unity in a
spirit of respect and trust.
GENERAL CONTEXT
The general context is characterized by some uneasiness, both in Canada
and Quebec, about what the current status is in relations among Quebec, the provinces and
territories and the federal government.
The points of agreement are very broad and the process is left open to
each jurisdiction to decide for itself. The announcement of general subjects and
guidelines coincides with announcements about more "practical" steps to ensure
provincial, territorial and federal jurisdictions are wording cooperatively in areas such
as social policy, health care and youth unemployment.
This can be seen as a move to leave open the possibility of pursuing
constitutional change if required, but to move forward on immediate and more concrete
cooperation in the short term. "Constitutional change if necessary --- but not
necessarily constitutional change."
Sovereignists immediately rejected this particular framework, while at the same time
some also left open the possibility of renewing arrangements within Canada. This reflects
the current lack of enthusiasm among the majority of the electorate of Quebec for
confrontations that could lead to uncertainty and conflict. "Sovereignty if possible
--- but possibly not sovereignty."
FRAMEWORK FOR DISCUSSION
The sub-headings in bold are the actual text of the Calgary Framework.
Below each statement is an analysis of it.
1. All Canadians are equal and have rights protected by law.
Equality is a notion that enjoys a lot of support in Canada. NO one want
to feel unequal or inferior.
This statement appears to mirror statements in the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms that "All Canadians are equal before and under the law,"
especially in Section 15.
However, this formulation does not actually say that Canadians have equal rights. The
notion of individual equality, widely supported as it is, may be used by some to attack
what they see as "special rights" and could undermine everything from maternity
leave, Aboriginal rights, provisions for disabled people, official languages policy,
multiculturalism and employment equity. The divergency on this point is as follows: some
feel that equal treatment means same treatment, while others believe that to have equal
treatment you may need different treatment in some instances. So for example, you build a
ramp for a person in a wheel chair rather than saying "I can get up those stairs, why
cant you? Why should you have a special ramp, special treatment, more rights?"
To prevent this interpretation it would be important for a clarification
that any such statement as this, does not undermine or water down the Charter of
Rights and the Canadian Constitution.
The statement could say:
" Every Canadian is equal before and under the law as guaranteed
in the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms".
2. All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equality
of status.
This statement reflects a popular sentiment in Western Canada, and could perhaps be
clarified to define "status". Provinces and territories have different
histories. They entered confederation at different times and a number have
"unique" legal realities to contend with. Quebec for instance has the Civil Code
and must respect the rights of Protestant schools for support. Similarly, Newfoundland's
fisheries and denominational school system formed part of its conditions for entry into
Confederation. New Brunswick is the only province with two official languages under the
law. Unlike some other provinces, Newfoundland and Quebec require constitutional
amendments to move from religious to secular school systems.
It could be clarified whether recognition of equal status would entail other measures
such as equal fiscal transfers, equal representation in the Senate, in the Commons or on
Canada's Supreme Court.
3. Canada is graced by a diversity, tolerance, compassion and an equality of
opportunity that is without rival in the world.
This is a very positive statement about Canada and represents a principle
that many would see us aspiring towards. However, given some historic inequalities that
still exist, various people may not see this as a current reality.
Perhaps this statement would be better seen as a positive ideal to live up
to than as a statement of fact. The issue would then focus on how best to achieve the
ideal. The statement could read:
"Canada is committed to ensuring a society graced by diversity,
tolerance, compassion and equality of opportunity that is a leader in the
world".
4. Canada's gift of diversity includes Aboriginal peoples and
cultures, the vitality of the English and French languages and a multicultural citizenry
drawn from all parts of the world.
This statement appears to be dealing with matters of fact and seems
positive in its intent. However, there is concern is that it can be misinterpreted by some
as dividing Canadians into large mutually exclusive blocks, and some may exploit this for
political purposes.
A possible alternate formulation could be:
"Canada's gift of diversity includes Aboriginal peoples and cultures, the vitality
of the English and French languages which together form a multicultural citizenry
drawn from all parts of the world, all in a diverse, respectful and united Canada.
"
5. In Canada's federal system, where respect for
diversity and equality underlies unity, the unique character of Quebec society, including
its French speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil is fundamental to the
wen being of Canada. Consequently, the legislature and Government of Quebec have a role to
protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.
This statement tries to deal with the French character of Quebec and specifically
recognizes the role of the Quebec government "to protect and develop the unique
character of Quebec society within Canada." The words "unique
character" are meant to replace the words "distinct society" which took on
so much poetical baggage over the last decade.
This statement parallels statements in decisions in the area of language by the Supreme
Court, which has, however, been careful to balance the role of Quebec government in
protecting the French character of Quebec society with its obligations in honouring the
individual rights of non-French members of that society.
Some have suggested also stressing the presence of French Canadians
outside Quebec as web as the role of the federal government in assisting the vitality of
the unique character of Quebec.
6. If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these
powers must be available to all provinces.
This process which allows freedom of choice will probably be well accepted - just
because one province wants a certain power, all provinces do not have to take the power
too even though they may not be interested in it. It is not clear how it will be decided
that provinces should or should not have a particular power. Perhaps the process for any
province to obtain a power needs to be specified, for instance, a commitment to a
province-wide vote before a provincial government accepts particular powers. This would
ensure that it is the people of the province who confer the powers on the provincial
government rather than simply the government itself.
Provinces have often spoken of a "rebalancing" of powers. This
implies an exchange, not just a one way transfer. Should there also be a statement of how
the provinces could transfer powers to the federal government?
Underlying this matter though, is the need to ensure that Canadians from
coast to coast to coast do have some basic set of common values, aspirations, policies and
services.
This passage of powers and responsibilities from the federal to the
provincial levels appears to formalize what has been happening gradually over recent
years.
7. Canada is a federal system where federal, provincial, and
territorial governments work in partnership while respecting each other's jurisdictions.
Canadians want their governments to work cooperatively and with flexibility to ensure the
efficiency and effectiveness of the federation. Canadians want their governments to work
together particularly in the delivery of their social programs. Provinces and territories
renew their commitment to work in partnership with the Government of Canada to best serve
the needs of Canadians."
There has been increased partnership among governments in recent years and
this too appears to formalize what is the case now.
From the perspective of a federation, some common expectations and values
should exist from one provincial jurisdiction to another. The devolution of powers does
not specify what common core of values and services any Canadian could expect from one
province to another. Such questions should perhaps form an explicit part of the discussion
of partnership and be outlined in consultations on this statement.
GUIDELINES FOR THE PROCESS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The following are the guidelines for consultations that accompanied the
seven above-noted statements as developed by the leaders:
1. Will be open to the general citizenry.
2. Efforts should be made to find creative ways of engaging Canadians in
each provincial consultation process.
3. Governments should act as catalyst for the process of consultation.
4. It is acknowledged that provinces and territories may wish to have processes of
consultation in stages but the advantage of a coordinated time frame is recognized.
5. Each province and territory is free to decide on the range or scope of consultation
as well as the most appropriate mechanism for consultation
.
The premiers agreed to these general guidelines for consultation with the understanding
that each province would do things their own way. It appears that these consultations will
take place from October through to December with the premiers meeting again in January to
wrap things up - perhaps agreeing on a re-worked Calgary Framework based on what they
heard in the consultations. Late in 1997 or early in 1998, a federal process is likely to
begin (it could be a House of Commons or a Joint Senate-House Committee which will hold
hearings, perhaps being combines with events such as town-hall meetings, deliberative
polling, constituent assemblies, and culminating with some kind of federal provincial
meeting. The purpose could be two fold: to forge some sense of Canada-wide values and
principles and to allow Parliament to join the consultative process before it votes on the
resolution.
Whether this resolution is to be "constitutionalized" (added to
the constitution), remains unclear. If so, it would require referenda in some provinces
such as B. C. and Alberta and possibly Manitoba and Ontario (at which point all provinces
will need to do likewise).
At the least it would seem that the nine provinces and the federal Parliament will want
to pass the resolution by early Spring 1998, in other words before the next Quebec
election. The thinking is that with something decent in place, even if not a
constitutional offer to Quebec, it will help the federal forces, and even if it does not
help defeat the Parti Québécois it will create enough satisfaction in the Quebec
population that there will be little will to have a referendum in the near future.
Some cautionary questions that have been raised are:
What if provinces come up with different results at the end of their
consultations which do not facilitate a Canada-wide resolution?
Is there any process for the people of Quebec to have input on this
framework?
Ultimately a common framework will be needed to consult all Canadians on
common questions for common purpose, including constitutional change.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For more information on the Calgary Framework and
opportunities for involvement contact any of the following:
Government/Political:
- Your member of Parliament
- Your Member of Provincial Parliament / Legislative Assembly
- Canadian Intergovemmental Conference Secretariat., Phone: (613)
995-2344, Fax: (613) 996-6091,
Web site: www.scicsgc.ca (includes links to federal, provincial and
territorial governments)
Citizens' Groups:
- National Directory of (Unity) Groups: www.ccu.cuc.ca/unidir.html
- Dialogue Canada; Phone (613) 745-2437; Fax: (613) 745-1758
- Unity Link / Unilien. Web site: www.uni.ca
- Council for Canadian Unity; Phone (514) 849-5303, Fax (514) 849-7402,
Web site: www.ccu-cuc.ca
- Place du Canada: www.pearson-shoyama.com
then click on "Place du Canada"
- Many others can be found on the Internet.
The Pearson-Shoyama Institute is a think-tank dedicated to a more
inclusive
way of developing public policy. It conducts research and consultations in a
range of social and economic issues, national unity and diversity issues.
219 Argyle Ave. Ottawa, Canada K2P 2H4; Phone(613) 230-8284; Fax(613)
235-3160
Web site: www.pearson-shoyama.com E-mail: anne@pearson-shoyama.com
