Monday, August 25, 2014
A New Constitution for Canada
Excerpt from the Brief submitted by the Communist Party of Canada to the Laurendeau-Dunton Royal Commission.
WE DO NOT BELIEVE that our country's problems can be solved by amendment of the British North America Act. The B.N.A. Act, as we have pointed out, does not recognize the equality of the two nations of Canada, and the right of each to self-determination. The structural crisis of the Canadian state has now developed too far to be resolved by any mere tinkering with the old constitution.
Such a new constitution must be an instrument of the people of both Canadian nations. The vestigial remnant of British authority over Canadian affairs, which finds expression in the fact that the B.N.A. Act is a statute of the parliament at Westminster, must be eliminated.
Because its essential character must be that of a pact between two Canadian nations, and not between nine English-speaking and one French-speaking province, a conference of the present federal and provincial governments, or of the provincial governments meeting without the federal government, could not be the means for negotiating a new constitution.
Therefore, we have put forward in our resolution submitted at the beginning of this brief, the proposal for the convocation of a Constituent Assembly to be elected on the basis of equal representation from French and English Canada. In such an assembly, the representatives of the two nations would negotiate a new constitution on a completely equal footing, with the principle of unanimity prevailing as between the delegations from French and English Canada.
The people of French and English Canada should then each adopt or reject the proposed new Constitution in a plebiscite. The constitution could only be endorsed if it was supported by a majority in each of the two nations. If the people of either nation rejected the confederal constitution it would be voided for both of them by that action.
To those who would question the possibility of achieving agreement on a new constitution in this way, we will reply that this
represents the only practical possibility for the continuing existence of Canada as we have known it for almost 100 years. We say that the effort must be made, in the interests of the people of both nations, and we have confidence that once the matter is approached on the basis of recognition of complete equality between the two nations, that effort can be successful.
This is the basic recommendation which we make to this Royal Commission, and which we urge it to include in its findings.
At the present time, we hold the view that those who put forward proposals for such a new Confederal pact, embodied in a new constitution (and we are by no means alone in advancing such ideas) have a responsibility to indicate at least the broad outlines of the constitution which they are visualizing.
Otherwise the danger is that the movement for a new constitution will be lost in mutual misunderstanding and distrust.
We therefore put forward the following views with respect to the possible outlines of a new constitution while emphasizing our keen desire to enter into discussion with and to hear the views of all other patriotic and democratic Canadians on this matter.
A. The new constitution must first of all spell out in clear and unmistakable language that the union between French and English Canada is a voluntary union, based on complete equality. It must contain explicit guarantees of the right of each nation to self-determination up to and including separation from the other nation.
B. The new constitution should have embedded in it a new Bill of Rights which should include firm guarantees of the rights of freedom of speech, assembly organization and the practice of religious belief. This Bill of Rights should outlaw all forms of discrimination on the basis of national or ethnic origin, and should protect the right of every national group to maintain the cultural tradition and language of its forefathers, including the right to establish organizations and institutions on a voluntary basis for this purpose.
The rights of members of the English-Canadian community in French Canada, and of the French-Canadian community in English Canada freely to conduct their affairs in their own language should be clearly established in the new constitution.
These communities should be placed in a position of constitutional equality -- that is to say French-speaking communities in English Canada should have the privilege of asserting the same rights as are enjoyed by the English-speaking communities in French Canada.
Special provision should be made for the Indian and Eskimo peoples. In addition to outlawing all forms of discrimination against these peoples, these provisions should include explicit recognition of their identity, should reaffirm their rights as embodied in the
original treaties, and proclaim their right of self-government in all areas where they comprise a majority of the local population.
C. The new constitution would have to set out those powers which would be delegated to the confederal government, and those which would be retained by the governments of the two nations.
The powers of the confederal government would include responsibility for those all-Canadian affairs which concern both Canadas in their relationship with foreign states such as diplomatic representatives and treaties, citizenship and passports, defense and the armed forces, external trade and its regulation. In all likelihood it would be possible for the Constituent Assembly to agree on Confederal administration over other matters of a distinctly all-Canada character such as the postal service, and navigation and shipping. The Confederal parliament would have the power to levy such taxes on incomes and corporate wealth as would be necessary for the discharge of its responsibilities.
In our opinion, the interests of both Canadas would be well served if the constitution were to contain provisions that natural resources are the inalienable possession of the people, and that none but citizens of Canada can own the land and its mineral rights; that the exploitation of natural resources is under the strictest control of each of the two nations -- or of the Confederal government where mutually agreed upon; and that all ownership of natural resources must contribute to the wealth and employment of the people of the two Canadas.
We hold the further view that an explicit guarantee should be made in the constitution of the right of the representatives of the people of each nation to nationalize public utilities or industries, including foreign owned properties.
D. The new constitution should allow for the assignment on the basis of mutual agreement between the representatives of the two nations of other responsibilities to the confederal government. In a modern state such as Canada there are many matters having to do with the development of the economy, with social and health services and so on which can be advantageously financed and administered centrally. But the point in relation to Canada is that for this to be done, there must be in each case a mutually satisfactory, voluntary agreement negotiated between the two nations.
E. A new constitution established on the above principles would necessitate significant alterations in our existing governmental structure.
The matters which it is proposed to assign to the confederal parliament including questions of foreign policy, defense -- ultimately of peace or war -- are matters of the most vital concern to all Canadians. The whole principle of a confederal pact would he
violated if a situation were allowed to continue in which questions of such import could be decided in the confederal parliament by a majority based upon the English-speaking majority in the population and thus imposed upon the French-speaking minority.
We see as the most satisfactory solution to this problem, the establishment of a bi-cameral confederal parliament, one house based upon representation by population as is the present House of Commons, the other house, also elective (unlike the present Senate), but composed of an equal number of representatives from each of the two nations. Each house should have equal authority, and all legislation would require the endorsement of both.
With respect to the organization of the government of each of the two nations, one can envisage for French Canada the establishment of a national legislature replacing the present provincial legislature of Quebec. This would become the legislative authority for the French-Canadian nation. The question is frequently raised as to whether the borders of the territory of this nation might be somewhat extended beyond the present provincial borders of Quebec in view of the large numbers of French Canadian people living in parts of Ontario and New Brunswick contiguous to Quebec.
Such a redefinition of the border would of course, have to be a matter for negotiation between the representatives of the two nations, with close heed being paid to the wishes of the people living in the areas concerned.
We would not of course visualize that this legislature would have any authority with respect to French-Canadian communities in other parts of Canada. This would not be in keeping with the concept of a nation as possessing a common territory.
The organization of the government of the English-Canadian nation presents a much more complex problem.
Since the new constitution would represent a pact between two nations, and not between ten provinces, it would clearly not be in the interests of the English-Canadian nation to leave the administration of its national affairs solely in the hands of nine provincial legislatures and governments.
This leads us to believe that the English-Canadian nation would find it necessary and to its advantage to establish a national legislature to deal with all those matters pertaining to its national economy and the well-being of its people which would be assigned to it by the new constitution. It would be necessary to work out a division of responsibility between such a national legislature which would concern itself with those matters of national interest which best lend themselves to a policy of centralization, leaving other matters which best lend themselves to regional or local administration in the hands of the provinces and municipalities. No doubt
such arrangements would undergo considerable evolvement over a period of time to meet the demands of changing economic and social conditions. Without attempting to forecast the course of that evolution, we would emphasize that, in our view, the authority of local municipal governments in the administration of those affairs closest to the people must be preserved and strengthened. Without this there can be no healthy, viable and dynamic democracy for the people.
We are aware of the fact that this concept of a national legislature for English Canada opens up questions to which little thought has yet been given, and which undoubtedly need a great deal of further discussion and study.
Other proposals for meeting the problem of government in English Canada may be considered as for example the idea that the Confederal parliament might itself continue to act as the central authority for English Canada. The difficulty with this proposal however, is that it would be hardly in keeping with the right of English Canada to equality and self-determination if matters of its special national concern were to be vested in a bi-cameral parliament in which the French-Canadian nation would have the representation we have suggested.
It would serve no good purpose, and would indeed be most harmful if in wiping out the inequalities under which French Canada has suffered so long, new inequalities were to be set up to the disadvantage of the English-Canadian nation.
F. Finally, in respect to provisions for amendment of the new constitution, it is our opinion that in view of the need to firmly fix the principle of equality between the two nations, the constitution should be subject to amendment only by a reconvened constituent assembly, with the principle of unanimity maintained as between the representatives of the two nations. Interpretation of the Constitution should be in the hands of an All-Canadian Supreme Court composed equally of representatives of the two nations, again with the principle of unanimity prevailing.
end the position of inferiority which has been imposed upon them through all the decades since the Conquest.
At the same time, it will make it possible for them to derive all the benefits they choose to derive from fruitful co-operation with the people of English Canada in the development of this rich country as a whole.
Our party is strongly of the opinion that such advantages exist, but in arguing for them we reject the suggestion that French Canada does not possess the human and material resources necessary for it to maintain an economically viable existence as an independent state. No such arguments are going to deter the French-Canadian people from their determination to chart for themselves the course of their national destiny.
And here it should be added that because of the long years of relative economic backwardness under which the French-Canadian people lived, it is entirely possible that they like other nations which have newly won their freedom from outside domination, may choose a course of development which involves wide and far reaching intervention by the state in the economy in the interest oi the people. This may well include extensive measures of nationalization moving in the direction of socialism rather more quickly than the people of English Canada will be prepared to move. The new constitution which we visualize should and must allow for such a course of development if this should prove to be the desire of the French-Canadian people.
For the people of English Canada, this new constitution will create the most favorable conditions for the final ending of a situation in which wage levels and living standards in English Canada have been held down because of the economic inequalities to which French Canadians have been subjected.
In the famous words of Karl Marx, "a people which oppresses another cannot itself be free." To the extent that elements of oppression have existed in the relations of English Canada to French Canada, to that extent the democratic progress of English Canada has been retarded.
Furthermore, the new constitution will make possible a sorting out of questions of federal and provincial rights which is long overdue in English Canada, and which is taking on the proportions of a major immediate political problem. Indeed, future history may well record that in raising so strongly in these times the demand for new constitutional arrangements, the French Canadians have rendered a signal service to the English Canadians.
Dwelling on this point briefly, we would draw attention to the following familiar pattern of political development which is being
dressed up and obscured under the high-sounding phrase "co-operative federalism":
Proposals arise and win wide acceptance for certain measures of reform to be implemented at the federal level. Quebec through its government asserts its unquestionable right to determine in what form such measures should be developed in French Canada. But these rights are not asserted as the right of a nation, but as the right of a province.
Hence, other provincial governments in English Canada possessing no national rights, nevertheless feel free under the B.N.A. Act to assert as provinces the same rights as those possessed by Quebec.
As a result the federal government encounters serious difficulties in mobilizing the necessary resources for the implementation of the national program, and the program itself is thereby jeopardized.
The consequent weakening of the federal authority, tends to leave the provinces in English Canada with responsibilities which only the richer ones are able to cope with (assuming that their governments are willing to take on such responsibilities). Thus, economic and social equalities as between one section and another of the English Canadian nation are heightened.
One can discern this pattern in the troubled evolvement of the Canada Pension Plan, the agreement on which was only reached after it was linked to heavy financial concessions by Ottawa to all the provinces.
Or to take another example: There is an urgent need for greatly increased contributions by the federal government to education to relieve the growing and increasingly unbearable load now carried by real property in the municipalities.
Obviously, Quebec cannot accept under the present constitution a new relationship with the federal government in a matter such as education because in a situation where there is no recognition or guarantee of French-Canadian national rights, the Quebec government must at least preserve its full provincial authority in such a vital field.
But why should this prevent the nine English provinces from agreeing to a new deal in education under which their national government, possessing the widest tax base and hence the greatest resources, can contribute substantially to the cost of education? Such a sensible arrangement which now encounters the most forbidding difficulties under the present constitutional arrangements wherein Quebec is treated as a province like any other province would become relatively simple of solution under the new constitution which we envisage.
So-called "co-operative federalism" which perpetuates the old relations of inequality can neither open the way for much needed
economic and social reform in English Canada, nor can it provide the basis for genuine co-operation in reform programs between the two nations within a framework of equality and mutual agreement.
For the people of both Canadas this new constitution provides, first of all the basis for a peaceful solution to a conflict in which the possibility of violence and civil war cannot be ruled out.
Surely, it behooves all Canadians of good will in each nation to give deep thought to the means of avoiding such a tragic and disastrous outcome of the present crisis.
This new constitution provides the possibility of a united effort by the Canadians of both nations for the betterment of our country as a whole, and for effective resistance to the loss of our independent existence, through total domination by the United States.
Finally, this new constitution, this concept of a new confederal pact resting upon full equality, provides the basis for the consolidation of the friendship of the peoples of our two nations.
For while we have of necessity spoken much of the old, deep problems of inequality and the grave mounting difficulties to which if uncorrected, they will lead, let it also be said that our history is proof of the possibilities of our two nations living side by side in harmony.
Together the people of French and English Canada have labored to open up this vast new land, and to build out of the wilderness of only a few decades ago the modern, technically advanced country in which we live today.
Together French and English Canadians have fought and died for their homeland, at Chateauguay and Lundy's Lane in Italy and Normandy.
Through all our history the best representatives of both our nations have stood and struggled together for democracy and social progress -- from the Patriotes and Reformers of 1837, Papineau and Mackenzie, Lafontaine and Baldwin, to the men and women who have together organized and marched on the picket lines to build the labor movement in our own time.
Out of the labor and the struggles of yesteryear and of today has grown an abiding love for, and faith in this rich and beautiful country in which our two peoples dwell together, and with this has emerged a sense of common identity as Canadians.
Remembering all this, and believing as we do in the brotherhood of man, and the common interests of the working people of all nations, we Communists have no doubt that on the basis of complete national equality, the peoples of our two nations can forge the bonds of unity and friendship that will preserve our country, and make it truly "a land of hope for all who toil." June 24, 1964
WE DO NOT BELIEVE that our country's problems can be solved by amendment of the British North America Act. The B.N.A. Act, as we have pointed out, does not recognize the equality of the two nations of Canada, and the right of each to self-determination. The structural crisis of the Canadian state has now developed too far to be resolved by any mere tinkering with the old constitution.
Such a new constitution must be an instrument of the people of both Canadian nations. The vestigial remnant of British authority over Canadian affairs, which finds expression in the fact that the B.N.A. Act is a statute of the parliament at Westminster, must be eliminated.
Because its essential character must be that of a pact between two Canadian nations, and not between nine English-speaking and one French-speaking province, a conference of the present federal and provincial governments, or of the provincial governments meeting without the federal government, could not be the means for negotiating a new constitution.
Therefore, we have put forward in our resolution submitted at the beginning of this brief, the proposal for the convocation of a Constituent Assembly to be elected on the basis of equal representation from French and English Canada. In such an assembly, the representatives of the two nations would negotiate a new constitution on a completely equal footing, with the principle of unanimity prevailing as between the delegations from French and English Canada.
The people of French and English Canada should then each adopt or reject the proposed new Constitution in a plebiscite. The constitution could only be endorsed if it was supported by a majority in each of the two nations. If the people of either nation rejected the confederal constitution it would be voided for both of them by that action.
To those who would question the possibility of achieving agreement on a new constitution in this way, we will reply that this
78
 |
DOCUMENTS 79
represents the only practical possibility for the continuing existence of Canada as we have known it for almost 100 years. We say that the effort must be made, in the interests of the people of both nations, and we have confidence that once the matter is approached on the basis of recognition of complete equality between the two nations, that effort can be successful.
This is the basic recommendation which we make to this Royal Commission, and which we urge it to include in its findings.
At the present time, we hold the view that those who put forward proposals for such a new Confederal pact, embodied in a new constitution (and we are by no means alone in advancing such ideas) have a responsibility to indicate at least the broad outlines of the constitution which they are visualizing.
Otherwise the danger is that the movement for a new constitution will be lost in mutual misunderstanding and distrust.
We therefore put forward the following views with respect to the possible outlines of a new constitution while emphasizing our keen desire to enter into discussion with and to hear the views of all other patriotic and democratic Canadians on this matter.
A. The new constitution must first of all spell out in clear and unmistakable language that the union between French and English Canada is a voluntary union, based on complete equality. It must contain explicit guarantees of the right of each nation to self-determination up to and including separation from the other nation.
B. The new constitution should have embedded in it a new Bill of Rights which should include firm guarantees of the rights of freedom of speech, assembly organization and the practice of religious belief. This Bill of Rights should outlaw all forms of discrimination on the basis of national or ethnic origin, and should protect the right of every national group to maintain the cultural tradition and language of its forefathers, including the right to establish organizations and institutions on a voluntary basis for this purpose.
The rights of members of the English-Canadian community in French Canada, and of the French-Canadian community in English Canada freely to conduct their affairs in their own language should be clearly established in the new constitution.
These communities should be placed in a position of constitutional equality -- that is to say French-speaking communities in English Canada should have the privilege of asserting the same rights as are enjoyed by the English-speaking communities in French Canada.
Special provision should be made for the Indian and Eskimo peoples. In addition to outlawing all forms of discrimination against these peoples, these provisions should include explicit recognition of their identity, should reaffirm their rights as embodied in the
|
80 THE MARXIST QUARTERLY
original treaties, and proclaim their right of self-government in all areas where they comprise a majority of the local population.
C. The new constitution would have to set out those powers which would be delegated to the confederal government, and those which would be retained by the governments of the two nations.
The powers of the confederal government would include responsibility for those all-Canadian affairs which concern both Canadas in their relationship with foreign states such as diplomatic representatives and treaties, citizenship and passports, defense and the armed forces, external trade and its regulation. In all likelihood it would be possible for the Constituent Assembly to agree on Confederal administration over other matters of a distinctly all-Canada character such as the postal service, and navigation and shipping. The Confederal parliament would have the power to levy such taxes on incomes and corporate wealth as would be necessary for the discharge of its responsibilities.
In our opinion, the interests of both Canadas would be well served if the constitution were to contain provisions that natural resources are the inalienable possession of the people, and that none but citizens of Canada can own the land and its mineral rights; that the exploitation of natural resources is under the strictest control of each of the two nations -- or of the Confederal government where mutually agreed upon; and that all ownership of natural resources must contribute to the wealth and employment of the people of the two Canadas.
We hold the further view that an explicit guarantee should be made in the constitution of the right of the representatives of the people of each nation to nationalize public utilities or industries, including foreign owned properties.
D. The new constitution should allow for the assignment on the basis of mutual agreement between the representatives of the two nations of other responsibilities to the confederal government. In a modern state such as Canada there are many matters having to do with the development of the economy, with social and health services and so on which can be advantageously financed and administered centrally. But the point in relation to Canada is that for this to be done, there must be in each case a mutually satisfactory, voluntary agreement negotiated between the two nations.
E. A new constitution established on the above principles would necessitate significant alterations in our existing governmental structure.
The matters which it is proposed to assign to the confederal parliament including questions of foreign policy, defense -- ultimately of peace or war -- are matters of the most vital concern to all Canadians. The whole principle of a confederal pact would he
|
DOCUMENTS 81
violated if a situation were allowed to continue in which questions of such import could be decided in the confederal parliament by a majority based upon the English-speaking majority in the population and thus imposed upon the French-speaking minority.
We see as the most satisfactory solution to this problem, the establishment of a bi-cameral confederal parliament, one house based upon representation by population as is the present House of Commons, the other house, also elective (unlike the present Senate), but composed of an equal number of representatives from each of the two nations. Each house should have equal authority, and all legislation would require the endorsement of both.
With respect to the organization of the government of each of the two nations, one can envisage for French Canada the establishment of a national legislature replacing the present provincial legislature of Quebec. This would become the legislative authority for the French-Canadian nation. The question is frequently raised as to whether the borders of the territory of this nation might be somewhat extended beyond the present provincial borders of Quebec in view of the large numbers of French Canadian people living in parts of Ontario and New Brunswick contiguous to Quebec.
Such a redefinition of the border would of course, have to be a matter for negotiation between the representatives of the two nations, with close heed being paid to the wishes of the people living in the areas concerned.
We would not of course visualize that this legislature would have any authority with respect to French-Canadian communities in other parts of Canada. This would not be in keeping with the concept of a nation as possessing a common territory.
The organization of the government of the English-Canadian nation presents a much more complex problem.
Since the new constitution would represent a pact between two nations, and not between ten provinces, it would clearly not be in the interests of the English-Canadian nation to leave the administration of its national affairs solely in the hands of nine provincial legislatures and governments.
This leads us to believe that the English-Canadian nation would find it necessary and to its advantage to establish a national legislature to deal with all those matters pertaining to its national economy and the well-being of its people which would be assigned to it by the new constitution. It would be necessary to work out a division of responsibility between such a national legislature which would concern itself with those matters of national interest which best lend themselves to a policy of centralization, leaving other matters which best lend themselves to regional or local administration in the hands of the provinces and municipalities. No doubt
|
82 THE MARXIST QUARTERLY
such arrangements would undergo considerable evolvement over a period of time to meet the demands of changing economic and social conditions. Without attempting to forecast the course of that evolution, we would emphasize that, in our view, the authority of local municipal governments in the administration of those affairs closest to the people must be preserved and strengthened. Without this there can be no healthy, viable and dynamic democracy for the people.
We are aware of the fact that this concept of a national legislature for English Canada opens up questions to which little thought has yet been given, and which undoubtedly need a great deal of further discussion and study.
Other proposals for meeting the problem of government in English Canada may be considered as for example the idea that the Confederal parliament might itself continue to act as the central authority for English Canada. The difficulty with this proposal however, is that it would be hardly in keeping with the right of English Canada to equality and self-determination if matters of its special national concern were to be vested in a bi-cameral parliament in which the French-Canadian nation would have the representation we have suggested.
It would serve no good purpose, and would indeed be most harmful if in wiping out the inequalities under which French Canada has suffered so long, new inequalities were to be set up to the disadvantage of the English-Canadian nation.
F. Finally, in respect to provisions for amendment of the new constitution, it is our opinion that in view of the need to firmly fix the principle of equality between the two nations, the constitution should be subject to amendment only by a reconvened constituent assembly, with the principle of unanimity maintained as between the representatives of the two nations. Interpretation of the Constitution should be in the hands of an All-Canadian Supreme Court composed equally of representatives of the two nations, again with the principle of unanimity prevailing.
What Is to be Gained?
We are far from saying that a new constitution such as we have suggested would solve all the political, economic and social problems of the peoples of either French or English Canada. But we do say that this new constitution will make it possible for the peoples of both nations to unite and work for the solution of those problems, each within their own nation, and together.
For the people of French Canada, this new constitution will enable them once and for all to be masters in their own house, to
|
DOCUMENTS 83
end the position of inferiority which has been imposed upon them through all the decades since the Conquest.
At the same time, it will make it possible for them to derive all the benefits they choose to derive from fruitful co-operation with the people of English Canada in the development of this rich country as a whole.
Our party is strongly of the opinion that such advantages exist, but in arguing for them we reject the suggestion that French Canada does not possess the human and material resources necessary for it to maintain an economically viable existence as an independent state. No such arguments are going to deter the French-Canadian people from their determination to chart for themselves the course of their national destiny.
And here it should be added that because of the long years of relative economic backwardness under which the French-Canadian people lived, it is entirely possible that they like other nations which have newly won their freedom from outside domination, may choose a course of development which involves wide and far reaching intervention by the state in the economy in the interest oi the people. This may well include extensive measures of nationalization moving in the direction of socialism rather more quickly than the people of English Canada will be prepared to move. The new constitution which we visualize should and must allow for such a course of development if this should prove to be the desire of the French-Canadian people.
For the people of English Canada, this new constitution will create the most favorable conditions for the final ending of a situation in which wage levels and living standards in English Canada have been held down because of the economic inequalities to which French Canadians have been subjected.
In the famous words of Karl Marx, "a people which oppresses another cannot itself be free." To the extent that elements of oppression have existed in the relations of English Canada to French Canada, to that extent the democratic progress of English Canada has been retarded.
Furthermore, the new constitution will make possible a sorting out of questions of federal and provincial rights which is long overdue in English Canada, and which is taking on the proportions of a major immediate political problem. Indeed, future history may well record that in raising so strongly in these times the demand for new constitutional arrangements, the French Canadians have rendered a signal service to the English Canadians.
Dwelling on this point briefly, we would draw attention to the following familiar pattern of political development which is being
|
84 THE MARXIST QUARTERLY
dressed up and obscured under the high-sounding phrase "co-operative federalism":
Proposals arise and win wide acceptance for certain measures of reform to be implemented at the federal level. Quebec through its government asserts its unquestionable right to determine in what form such measures should be developed in French Canada. But these rights are not asserted as the right of a nation, but as the right of a province.
Hence, other provincial governments in English Canada possessing no national rights, nevertheless feel free under the B.N.A. Act to assert as provinces the same rights as those possessed by Quebec.
As a result the federal government encounters serious difficulties in mobilizing the necessary resources for the implementation of the national program, and the program itself is thereby jeopardized.
The consequent weakening of the federal authority, tends to leave the provinces in English Canada with responsibilities which only the richer ones are able to cope with (assuming that their governments are willing to take on such responsibilities). Thus, economic and social equalities as between one section and another of the English Canadian nation are heightened.
One can discern this pattern in the troubled evolvement of the Canada Pension Plan, the agreement on which was only reached after it was linked to heavy financial concessions by Ottawa to all the provinces.
Or to take another example: There is an urgent need for greatly increased contributions by the federal government to education to relieve the growing and increasingly unbearable load now carried by real property in the municipalities.
Obviously, Quebec cannot accept under the present constitution a new relationship with the federal government in a matter such as education because in a situation where there is no recognition or guarantee of French-Canadian national rights, the Quebec government must at least preserve its full provincial authority in such a vital field.
But why should this prevent the nine English provinces from agreeing to a new deal in education under which their national government, possessing the widest tax base and hence the greatest resources, can contribute substantially to the cost of education? Such a sensible arrangement which now encounters the most forbidding difficulties under the present constitutional arrangements wherein Quebec is treated as a province like any other province would become relatively simple of solution under the new constitution which we envisage.
So-called "co-operative federalism" which perpetuates the old relations of inequality can neither open the way for much needed
|
DOCUMENTS 85
economic and social reform in English Canada, nor can it provide the basis for genuine co-operation in reform programs between the two nations within a framework of equality and mutual agreement.
For the people of both Canadas this new constitution provides, first of all the basis for a peaceful solution to a conflict in which the possibility of violence and civil war cannot be ruled out.
Surely, it behooves all Canadians of good will in each nation to give deep thought to the means of avoiding such a tragic and disastrous outcome of the present crisis.
This new constitution provides the possibility of a united effort by the Canadians of both nations for the betterment of our country as a whole, and for effective resistance to the loss of our independent existence, through total domination by the United States.
Finally, this new constitution, this concept of a new confederal pact resting upon full equality, provides the basis for the consolidation of the friendship of the peoples of our two nations.
For while we have of necessity spoken much of the old, deep problems of inequality and the grave mounting difficulties to which if uncorrected, they will lead, let it also be said that our history is proof of the possibilities of our two nations living side by side in harmony.
Together the people of French and English Canada have labored to open up this vast new land, and to build out of the wilderness of only a few decades ago the modern, technically advanced country in which we live today.
Together French and English Canadians have fought and died for their homeland, at Chateauguay and Lundy's Lane in Italy and Normandy.
Through all our history the best representatives of both our nations have stood and struggled together for democracy and social progress -- from the Patriotes and Reformers of 1837, Papineau and Mackenzie, Lafontaine and Baldwin, to the men and women who have together organized and marched on the picket lines to build the labor movement in our own time.
Out of the labor and the struggles of yesteryear and of today has grown an abiding love for, and faith in this rich and beautiful country in which our two peoples dwell together, and with this has emerged a sense of common identity as Canadians.
Remembering all this, and believing as we do in the brotherhood of man, and the common interests of the working people of all nations, we Communists have no doubt that on the basis of complete national equality, the peoples of our two nations can forge the bonds of unity and friendship that will preserve our country, and make it truly "a land of hope for all who toil." June 24, 1964
|
-- This OCR was prepared by Kathleen Moore in August 2014 for the legal research purposes of Habeas Corpus Canada. --
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment