|
|
"From the editor's desktop" by William Watson Sorry, the summary of this article is not available. Peter McCormick, "Reform the Senate and the Supreme Court?" The Senate is an anachronistic embarrassment, but selecting senators more reasonably without at the same time changing the Senate's powers, which are all but co-equal to those of the House of Commons, would cause too great a revolution in our federal structure. Moreover, changing the Senate's powers requires constitutional amendment, which means it is probably is not on. Non-constitutional changes to the Supreme Court probably are possible, however. New members should be chosen by the prime minister from a list provided by the relevant provincial premier and opposition leader, a selection method that would help reduce the Court's "federalism deficit." Its "democratic deficit" could be reduced by submitting nominees to an interview, but not ratification, by Parliament. The chief justice's term could usefully be limited to six years or so, after which he or she would return to associate justiceship. Richard Simeon, "Let's get at the basic question indirectly" In the past, Canadian federalism has proved remarkably flexible. At one time or another, a number of devices have been used to effect change: formal constitutional amendment, executive federalism, intergovernmental agreements, judicial interpretation of statutes, and the federal spending power, all of which have led to considerable asymmetry within the federation. Apart from the usual day-to-day problems of federalism, the big question facing the country is how to reconcile English Canadian, Québécois and Aboriginal views of nationhood. On this question, most of the usual channels for change seem either blocked or irrelevant. As a result, we need to look at new approaches that get beyond executive-centred "Westminster federalism." Roger Gibbins/Guy Laforest, "Reflections on Mont-Tremblant" A question for policy wonks: Was last October's Mont-Tremblant conference on federalism a. a four-star media event? b. just a backdrop for renewed incivilities between Ottawa and Quebec City? c. an intellectually stimulating encounter between students and practitioners of federalism? d. a showcase for Canadian federalism? e. none of the above?? Policy Options asked two attendees, Roger Gibbins and Guy Laforest, for their impressions. Graham Fraser, "In praise of ambiguity" Recent changes in the newspaper business, both in Canada and worldwide, have moved news coverage in the direction of simplicity, with the unfortunate result that much of it is now simplistic. Coverage of the Mont-Tremblant conference on federalism conformed to the new rules of the media game, much to the apparent surprise (surprisingly) of its organizers. These same organizers are now pushing for simplicity - or clarity - in the rules that will govern a future Quebec referendum. In many, if not most respects, the problems facing the country are not simple and would benefit from greater ambiguity, both in the media's coverage and in our understanding of them. James Bickerton, "The politics of limited change" The explanation for Canada's current constitutional deadlock is not lack of creativity, but lack of a majority coalition of interests supporting constitutional change. Until such a coalition emerges, the federation can change only in piecemeal, administrative ways. There is ample room for asymmetry among provinces in such change, as divergent Atlantic Canadian experiences in the take-up of labour market training make clear. Such room will vary from policy to policy, however. In health care, for instance, the federal government may find it difficult politically to permit significant departures from national norms. Modest changes can in fact go fairly far, but they probably cannot address overarching constitutional concerns, such as recognition and formal asymmetry. Alan Cairns, "Aboriginal peoples' two roads to the future" Public policy debates in Canada invariably focus on just one of two possible Aboriginal futures: the development of self-government for Aboriginal people with a land base, ranging from Indian nation governments on reserves to the Inuit government of the quasi-province of Nunavut. However understandable such a focus may be, it essentially ignores the problems of the roughly half of Aboriginal people who live in Canada's cities - status and non-status Indians, Metis and some Inuit. Their plight is often desperate; indeed, there is talk of emerging inner-city ghettoes, along American lines. On the other hand, according to many important social indicators, from earnings to education to suicide rates, urban Aboriginals often do better than their counterparts who remain on reserves. If policy is to address the needs of all Aboriginal people, this other road into the future must not be lost sight of. Alain Noël, "Canada: Love it or don't leave it!" The current federal approach to our constitutional dilemmas seems aptly paraphrased by this variant of the famous US bumper sticker. Plan A offers little in the way of real change. Plan B says Quebecers have no way out of a federation that refuses to accommodate their desire for change. Attitudes toward Quebecers seem to be hardening in the rest of the country, one symptom of which is a willingness to make intergovernmental deals without Quebec. All this suggests that for a time Quebec will have to tend to its own problems. By definition, however, local action on local problems cannot solve national problems. André Burelle, "Droit à la différence et gestion de l'interdépendance au sein de la fédération canadienne" Justice based on equivalent instead of identical treatment is the only way to reconcile equality of individuals and provinces with Quebec's right to remain a distinct French-speaking society within Canada. This means a Charter that takes into account the fact that "we get symmetry in Canada through unilingualism by law in Quebec and unilingualism by sociology elsewhere in Canada." It also means respect of the sovereign powers of provinces balanced by a European-style codetermination of common objectives and minimum common standards to guarantee equivalent social services to all citizens. Quebec should hold a federalist referendum proposing this kind of win-win rebalancing of our federation. Such a referendum would carry a very large majority and force Ottawa to negotiate a true partnership renewal of the Canadian federation. Claude Ryan, "Le dossier constitutionnel : perspectives de changement" The national unity debate has moved forward in a number of respects since 1995. The Calgary Declaration, the Supreme Court secession reference, the federal government's "lending" of its veto to Quebec, and a number of other developments have altered the situation. But the basic problem of the federation insofar as Quebec is concerned remains in abeyance. What is still largely missing is recognition both of Canada's duality (rather than its diversity) and of Quebec's unique reality. For the moment, it seems impossible to address these concerns constitutionally. While waiting for a new opportunity to arise, much good work can be done at the legislative and administrative level in building them into the everyday workings of the federation. Christian Dufour, "Le pourrissement" Though almost half of Quebecers seem ready to vote for a constitutional option that would at least risk Quebec's becoming its own country, English Canadians seem to believe that Canadian federalism is functioning well. The danger now is not so much that Quebec will leave but that it will stay, and that the "Quebec question" will continue to eat away at the country. If Quebecers are to be truly reconciled to Canada, Canada needs classical federalism, in which the different, coequal levels of government are genuinely respectful of each other's jurisdiction. And the constitution should recognize that Quebecers can use the law to preserve the most important aspect of their identity, the predominance of the French language in their society. Graham Fox, "A summary of the discussion" Sorry, the summary of this article is not available. Michel Venne, "Avant-propos" Sorry, the summary of this article is not available. Serge Cantin, "Getting past survival" For more than a century, survival was the principal theme of Quebec's view of its own history. Beginning in the 1950s, Quebec intellectuals came to a different understanding of their past, one that demystified the ideology of survival and required a break with it. But now it seems they are returning to survivalist mode. This has a high social cost, which almost no one talks about. The way out of this trap is through independence, which would allow Quebecers, once having acquired political control of their own nation, to cease being nationalists. Gilles Gagné, "Taking a stand against global capital" Since Jacques Parizeau's famous speech in 1995, the time-honoured tradition of figuring out who does and who does not support Quebec independence has fallen out of fashion. In fact, the numbers show that in 1995 francophones under 55 years of age and making less than $80,000 a year - Quebec's working-class, in other words - voted 75 per cent for sovereignty, and likely would do so again. What they most want from it is protection from the naked power of mobile capital. What they will face, the day after independence is achieved, is the standard 20th century problem of reconciling individual rights with collective needs. As a minority themselves, they must do so by recognizing themselves in all the other minorities that will make up their new country. Daniel Jacques, "Winning conditions or meaningful conditions?" Quebec's government has set itself the goal of achieving "winning conditions" for the next referendum, which may come soon. Its strategy is in the Machiavellian tradition of focusing on means, not ends. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, by contrast, argued that a new state is not worth having unless it produces a political community in which people can live in relative harmony. If this is the true purpose of sovereignty, several implications follow, of which three are: The referendum question must be clear and honest; minorities must be given constitutional assurances of their rights before a vote takes place; and all communities in the future state must truly understand and accommodate each other's desires and no longer treat one another as enemies. If these meaningful conditions are not satisfied, a new state is not worth having. Danielle Juteau, "What true pluralism requires" It is true that Québec has embraced the ideology of diversity and inclusion. But, like many modern societies, it seems not to understand the full implications of this embrace. The pluralist option means accepting as genuine equals all the communities that make up the national community, each fully entitled to rights, representation, respect and political status (though not to its own sovereignty project). Facing up to this diversity requires that the national project no longer be based either on ancestry or common memory - since many communities are not party to such memories. In fact, the idea of the Québécois national community will have to give way to that of Québec society. Denys Delâge, "Our three founding peoples" Québec has three founding peoples: the francophone majority, anglophones, and Aboriginals. After the conquest of 1759, francophones and Aboriginals were treated differently. Francophones were given permanent rights on the basis of territory: All residents of Lower Canada, which eventually became Québec, were subject to the Civil Code, the freedom of religion and the seigniorial system of land tenure. Aboriginals, by contrast, were given their various treaty rights on the basis of blood ties. If Québec becomes independent, it should eliminate the system of blood ties by offering Aboriginals territory-based rights that would inhere in anyone who chose to live on land governed by Aboriginals. Jocelyn Létourneau, "Let's accept "the Québec identity" in all its complexity" A common belief is that only if Québec finally becomes a sovereign nation will it solve its identity problem, at the crux of which lie pervasive tension among the various groups that make up Québec society, and profound ambivalence among Québec francophones. In fact, tension between groups, which can often be very creative, is an inherent characteristic of interdependence, and is therefore unavoidable in most contemporary societies. Ambivalence should also be accepted. All Quebecers, independentists included, must come to terms with the fact that "canadianness" is an important part of the Québec identity. Not Quebecers' history as Canadians, or the memory of Canadian experience, but the very idea that tensions among groups often cannot be resolved, may be lived with, and should be the basis for hopeful renewals. Gérard Bouchard, "Manifesto for a national coalition" Quite apart from the question of whether they will have a nation-state, Québecers must decide what type of nation they wish to be. Their traditional model is to found the nation on French-Canadian ethnicity. Another model, however, is to found the nation on a language, French, and on democratic rights, institutions, and values, and then to let the nation and its culture evolve as a result of interaction and partnership among the different ethnic groups that live within it. The choice of this model is logically separate from the question of political independence, though it probably would be much easier to achieve in a separate state. Is Ontario a Region-State? In March of last year, the University of Toronto, with the financial support of the Ontario Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, held a one-day symposium called "Ontario: Exploring the region-state hypothesis." It brought together more than 40 academics and policy practitioners to discuss Courchene and Telmer's book and its provocative thesis. Here are most of the papers that were presented that day. They were initially edited by Jacqueline Krikorian of the University of Toronto Political Science Department. Policy Options is grateful to the conference co-chairs, Meric Gertler and Richard Simeon, and to the authors themselves, for permitting their publication in Policy Options. Alan S. Alexandroff, "Guerrilla theatre and the uncivil society" Policy Options asked Canadian trade lawyer Alan Alexandroff to give us his impressions of what turned out to be the failed Seattle Ministerial meetings of the WTO. What he found in Seattle was wall-to-wall theatre, both in the streets and in the meetings themselves. Sarah Fortin reviews Time to say goodbye: The case for getting Quebec out of Canada by Reed Scowen Sorry, the summary of this article is not available. |
