SOME POSSIBLE APPROACHES: CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLIES NOW
Eva H. Lyman
1. Why constituent assemblies The present system isn't working, different approach is needed
Government not responding to wishes of people, or sticking to promises The agenda seems to be dictated by narrow economic interests Short term versus long term policies are damaging the country Rich country, poor people, why?
2. Goals:
Keeping a strong, united Canada Avoiding fragmentation of the country into its parts Decision making genuinely in the hands of the people Principled, ethical policies Best interest of the largest number of citizens Long term environmental sustainability Fairer sharing of wealth
3. Representation
4. Selection process: some options
***
TIME TO DELIBERATE
Much of what we do now is done in a hurry. The constituent assembly should have at least two years to finalize their proposals. Within that time there should be blocks of time for getting organized, setting up detailed goals, consulting with specialists in various relevant fields, reviewing their recommendations, and due deliberation. Decisions arrived at in haste are often repented at leisure.
SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS FOR THE UPCOMING MEETING
On reading professor Gibbins submission, I was saddened. He equates the desire to keep the country together on the part of Canadians to a desire to have universal social programs.
This is rather a cheapening of what this country is, or has been about. Indeed what hopefully we will try to decide it is about.
It is not the national standards, but the survival of this nation that is at stake. But then of course some cynics would have us believe that the nation concept is dead. Even Trudeau used to say the nation state is dead. I believe most ordinary Canadians still love their country, not as the province they live in, but as the totality. Maybe the people will prevail. As Chief Seattle says in his famous address
"We shall see".
Who will fight for this country if there is no strong central government? Ten squabbling Premiers? Get real! Although it may not be fashionable to say this, we need a strong central government to keep this country together. The reason why we are floundering is because the current central government is playing with the opposition.
We need to make changes to make government accountable to the electorate, not five year dictatorships, with barely any difference in policies among the available choices.
Professor Charles Doran of John Hopkins University has written an interesting article in the September issue of Foreign Affairs. He forecasts how we may become regions, so that we can then be policed by the US, and so that they have easier access to our resources, region by region. They don't even want us as states, just as the back yard resource area, and garbage dump. We can pay for our own management, and please don't expect to be coddled by our extravagant social support systems. Alberta seems to be well on its way there. Good luck, folks!
Hopefully there are some people coming to this conference who still love Canada.
If not, and we want to create constituent assemblies merely to dismantle the country, we can all go hiking instead! It'll fall apart on its own. No effort required.
Eva H. Lyman, MA, MLArch (Harvard)
******************************************************************************
CANADA AT THE FORKS --
POST MORTEM, AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE
Eva H. Lyman
INTRODUCTION
About 70 people from across Canada came to the conference on CANADA AT THE FORKS, held in Calgary October 25 -27, 1996, to ponder the topic of Constituent Assemblies.
Notable by their absence were Aboriginal People's representatives, and almost missing were Francophones from Quebec. Efforts had apparently been made to get participation from these groups. The lack of response is worrisome, but may be partly due to who was approached, especially in Aboriginal communities.
This participation bias raises an immediate concern about the representative nature of the meeting, and must be addressed in future gatherings.
As it is, one must ask whether a fairly homogeneous English speaking, largely Caucasian group of Canadians can speak for the whole country. Or should we ask, are Caucasian Anglophone Canadians the only people interested in Canada's survival?
This post mortem is a combination of the writer's personal insights, and a few brief comments on the conclusions as reported by various presenters.
There were five selected topics, of which this writer attended 4, and they are a major part of the following discussion. These topics were: what is a constituent assembly, how should it be set up, what should it achieve, and who should be on it.
1. WHAT IS A CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY?
The general consensus was that a Constituent Assembly would have to be made up of Canadian citizens not representing any special interest groups, although they might come from different interest groups or peoples. One definition was:
At the same time, there was concern that the discussion should be broader, than just the constitution. For that reason it was proposed that the name might be changed to a "Citizens' Assembly".
2. HOW SHOULD THE ASSEMBLY BE SET UP?
This topic exposed concern about the role of governments in the Assembly. The question was posed: to what extent can the work of the assemblies be carried out without government interference? Will there be government support, or obstruction? Can there be an assembly without government financial support, and what role would Provincial governments play?
The feeling of the group seemed to be that government acquiescence would be required. Hopefully the Federal government would be willing to commit themselves to supporting and putting into operation whatever the Citizens Assembly proposed, and the people of the country ratified in a binding referendum.
Without such a commitment, a Citizen Assembly would be a waste of time, and money. Many shelved public hearings' documents and Royal commission reports attest to the lack of government commitment to the will of the citizens.
Nevertheless, if a large percentage of Canadians felt that renewal was needed, then few governments could ignore their wishes. Not if they desire reelection. There is, of course, the danger that approval will be promised to gain electoral support, and withdrawn after the election, if the findings become inconvenient to the power elites.
Given the poor Government record of acting on public initiatives, holding a Citizens' Assembly, and a Referendum without some form of a priori "teeth" guaranteed, would be futile. To achieve that, pressure will have to come from a large number of Canadians before a Citizens' Assembly, or series of assemblies are undertaken. It is quite likely that even once it is underway, attempts will be made to subvert its work and purpose through the use of the mainstream media. After all, it is probable that a Citizens' Assembly might find the current control of our media in so few hands a threat to democracy.
3. WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED?
Specifics were not discussed for obvious reasons. Some participants felt that a fairly narrow review of the present "constitution" should suffice via a constitutional amendment. More people felt that a broad approach should be taken, reconsidering all aspects of the way that Canadians govern themselves, or are governed.
Given the fact that our constitution is actually not a constitution but a statute drafted by, in the first place the British, and in 1982 patriated, and revised without public inputs, Canadians would be justified in wanting a totally new document.
4. SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS
This writer's group opted for random selection. No consensus was reached by the other groups. Some other methods suggested were government appointments, selection by constituencies, selection of the brightest members of regional constituent assembly groups. A combined assembly of three or four different categories was another promising suggestion. In this last option there would be some randomly selected members, and some geographical, cultural, and elected representation.
CONCLUSION
Overall the conference was a very promising beginning of a promising initiative to renew Canada. No one left under any illusions about the massive work that lies ahead before a working Assembly becomes reality.
The organizers did a fantastic job, and must have our thanks.
One minor comment on the panel of Saturday morning, which was made up entirely of political science professors. Academics have a certain perspective that is often not shared by the citizens at large. Since Universities have a tendency to be sheltered from the winds of reality, and financed by Governments and corporate donations they might be suspect of a certain bias. CAN should be wary of this bias in future selections, and opt for panelists with a broader range of backgrounds.
IMPRESSIONS:
We have a long way to go before we change the Constitution, and renew this country. Although the work will be monumental, we must not be deterred, because there is no other hope.
A few circumferential observations:
IN CLOSING
We do need to set goals, and principles very clearly, and firmly. Once we set the goals, the tools can be found. The political infrastructure should serve the people, not vice versa. This must be reflected in the new Constitution.
The group decided to make plans for the next session in 1997, hopefully to be held in Montreal. Much work needs to be done prior to that date.
Part of that work is networking between the 1,500 groups interested in the renewal of Confederation.
A working group should get onto this networking project in each region as quickly as possible. That means contact persons should be designated regionally for that purpose.
Planning an agenda that would move us forward when we meet next year must get under way soon. Every participant should try to speak to half a dozen people who might be interested in coming to the next meeting. We need greater numbers, because without very broad support this idea will not get off the ground.