I'd say that's a 'no': Canada hangs together

Commonweal, Dec 4, 1992 by Jordan Bishop

To complicate matters further, many Canadians felt that the proposed institutions of the federal government in the new accord appeared cumbersome and unworkable. An elected Senate in which Prince Edward Island (population 120,000) had the same representation as Quebec (over 6 million) and Ontario (over 8 million), presented problems enough for some. In compensation, Ontario and Quebec were to be give eighteen new, permanent parliamentary seats each. But to these bodies was to be added a new institution, a First Ministers Conference, composed of provincial premiers and the federal prime minister. It would be given specific federal powers. Many felt that all this was too complex for a YES/NO decision. So they voted NO.

So whither goest Canada now? Elijah Harper, an OjibwayCree member of the Manitoba legislature who had urged his constituents to abstain, put it this way after the vote: "Life goes on. We were here a long time before it [the accord], and we shall be here a long time after it." In Quebec, a poll taken following the accord's defeat indicated that the majority of the province (54 percent) remained steady in opposing secession. The Mulroney government, for its part, quickly announced that it would tackle the problem of Canada's sagging economy. But Stephen Lewis, former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, said that if the question of self-government for aboriginal peoples, which Mulroney's Conservative party had stressed as a prime reason for voting YES, were so important, there was no reason why the government should not give it top priority along with the economy. He expressed some amazement that Canada is now governed by politicians who can apparently do only one thing at a time. Others regard the Mulroney government's previous attention to the economy as dubious at best. Perhaps Elijah Harper did have the last word. Life goes On. JORDAN BISHOP

Jordan Bishop, a frequent Commonweal contributor lives