North American constitutional framework. In this period also the constitution was
"repatriated," that is Canada assumed the right to determine its own constitutional rules. The eclipse of the bourgeois
Parti Quebecois (PQ)
opened a space for English- speaking bourgeois politicians to try to come up with a new constitutional setup to contain Quebecois national feeling, which remains strong despite disillusion with the PQ.
BARRY WEISLEDER
E GOT THE worst of both worlds. The constitutional assault on Quebec's national rights, begun with the unilateral repatriation of the British
North America Act in 1981, was deepened and perpetuated with the signing on June 3 of the Meech Lake Accord.
At the same time, the capacity of the federal government to implement social programmes across English Canada, provincial governments, was undermined.
The over-riding purpose of the Constitutional Agreement — which was signed by the provincial premiers and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and based on a text first drafted at Meech Lake, north of Ottawa, on April 30 -was to co-opt Quebec.
The PQ government of Quebec refused to sign the constitution cooked up in 1981 by the previous prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, and the other nine pre miers, because it deprived Quebec of its historic veto over future constitutional change. They also refused to sign because it denied that Ouebec was a nation with the right to decide its own future and to take whatever measures may be necessary to protect its own language and culture. (French is the mother tongue of 90 per cent in Quebec, but only 2 per cent in North
Despite some fancy window-dressing, the current Accord represents no meaningful change. Although the constitutional amendment states that Quebec
"recognized as a distinct society within Canada", it does not spell out what that means. Nor does it say what powers it confers on the government of Quebec "to preserve and promote Quebec's distinct identity".
The Amendment goes on to say that although "the English-speaking population is concentrated outside Quebec, it is also present within Quebec", and vice-versa for Francophones — the classical rationale for Ottawa's hypocritical policy of official bi-lingualism [which is used as an excuse for denying French the rights of a national language in Quebec .
### Big business speaks
English
Because big business speaks English in North America, Quebecois workers suffer systematic discrimination at work, in education and healthcare, in department stores and restaurants and so on, even where Francophones are the overwhelming majority.
The provincial government in Quebec was led by the bourgeois nationalist Parti Quebecois, first elected in 1976. After they had passed Law 101 to give primacy to the French language within Quebec, the courts ruled the law unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the rights of the Anglophone minority the Accord - against the wishes of the majority of Quebecois, including the three Quebec union federations (the CSN, FTQ and CEQ), the farmers' un-
CANADA the opposition Parti Quebecois, and even the Quebec New Democratic Party? Certainly not because of minor concessions to Quebec in the areas of immigration, the appointment of Supreme Court judges, or financial compensation for opting out of federalprovincial shared-cost programmes.
The real motivation, one that Bourassa shares with Mulroney and most capitalists across Canada, is to destroy the national aspirations of the Quebecois. Canada's rulers hope that this new Accord, which has "brought Quebec back into the Canadian family". will once and for all put an end to the struggle for Quebecois national liberation.
Quebec is an oppressed nation
Pierre Trudeau's recent strong denunciation of the Accord merely reflects the view of the man who invoked the War Measures Act in 1970 against Quebec — the view that the federal government should not even give the appearance of making concessions to Quebec.
But Trudeau's allegation that the federal power has been weakened in relation to the provinces is not totally without foundation. Mulroney and the majority of the ruling class are prepared to pay this price to co-opt Quebec — whereas Trudeau and the more centralist (and protectionist) wing of the capitalist class he represents would prefer a sterner and more rigid stance.
Quebec is not a province like the others — it is an oppressed nation with its own distinct language, culture, history and territory. The refusal to recognize this fact constitutes a central contradiction at the heart of the confederal state. This problem is not confined to the capitalists and their state, however; it is one shared by the working-class organizations in English Canada and their political arm, the NDP, which has upheld a federalist perspective consistently hostile to the aspirations of the Quebecois workers. This accounts for the lack of significant support for the NDP in Quebec until very recently - and now the Quebec NDP has broken with the federal party line to oppose the Accord due to the pressure coming from Quebecois workers.
But, in supporting the Accord, the federal NDP and the NDP government of Manitoba not only betray the interests of Quebecois workers, they place new obstacles in the path of progressive social change in English Canada.
The rights of native peoples and residents of the norther territories are 5 frozen out of this constitutional agreement. There's nothing in it for women. There's no improvement in union liberJuly 13, 1987 • International Viewpoint
CANADA / SRI LANKA ties and other collective rights that have been severely undermined by recent Supreme Court decisions.
However, more fundamentally in structural terms, the clause that permits a province to receive financial compensation if it opts out of a shared-cost programme in a provincial jurisdiction may put an end to future universal "national objectives" in order to receive compensation for opting out is not defined. Would it have been possible for the federal government, under tremendous pressure from healthcare groups and the NDP, to force provinces to end extra-billing by doctors under public medical insurance plans, if such a provision had been in effect in recent years?
Cutbacks in social service programmes
Lise Corbeil-Vincent, coordinator of the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association, expressed concern that lax interpretation of "objectives" could give the provinces too much leeway.
She pointed out, for example, that British Columbia is now using some Canada Assistance funds to subsidize baby sitters, who are regulated only by visits from parents. If objectives are defined only, for instance, "to provide care for children", British Columbia could use all its shared-cost money on unregulated services.
Louise Dulude, president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, agreed that the Amendment paralyze a national plan for "Ottawa could make proposals but say they have to wait until the legislatures make their will known. That alone could take three years. The need for child care is urgent", she said. "We can't afford to wait.
But the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney has no intention of introducing a universal childcare programme, or any other universal social service programmes for that matter. The Tory perspective is to cut back existing programmes. That is why they have so little difficulty with the Constitutional Amendment.
But a future NDP federal government would face new obstacles in the path of implementing even the simplest reforms.
Another obstacle may take shape in
1 the form of a rejuvenated Senate. Al-
though now the Senate has constitutional power to block legislation passed by the Commons, because it is an appointed body of bourgeois party bagmen and retired political hacks, it lacks the necessary credibility to exercise this power. International Viewpoint • July 13, 1987
However, under a new system of provincial nominations, even though still subject to federal choice, the Senate may attempt to exercise power as an assembly representing "regional (i.e. capitalist) interests".
An NDP or more radical pro-workingclass government would be locked in permanent battle with such a structure to struggle to overcome this — as if there weren't enough obstacles in the existing capitalist state (the judiciary, the army and police, top levels of the civil bureaucracy).
Socialists demand abolition Senate, not its reform! But the working class in English Canada and especially in Quebec has a more reserved, skeptical - even critical - approach to the
Socialists should work to deepen that