Meech Lake Accord Essay Example

out the values that define the nature of the Canadian character. One of those values was the recognition that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada.

However, inspite of Canadian government’s sincere efforts of solving constitutional grievances, both the accords failed.Unlike the Meech Lake Accord, the ratification process here provided for a national referendum. Charlottetown Accord failed because, nationally, 54% of the votes cast opposed the accord. Whereas, there were different reasons for failure of Meech Lake Accord. The accord failed because it could not be ratified.

The areas of concern which lead to delay in ratification process were: 

• The distinct society clause will be the first step towards separation.
• It would weaken minority rights in Quebec.
• It would weaken powers of Federal Government.
• Aboriginal Rights will be neglected, and last but not the least
• Tthe closed door process by which the accord was formulated was not liked by critics .

Failure of these accords show that amending procedure is flawed and public participation is important, but it does not guarantee success of the proposals. The core reason for the failure of Charlottetown Accord was that it failed in national referendum. However, there were some elements in the Accord that were heavily criticized. The most debated point was the “Distinct Society “clause.

Quebec separatists, Lucien Bouchard’s Bloc Quebecois and the provincial Parti Quebecois led by Jacques Parizeau, strongly opposed as they believed it did not give Quebec enough powers. Preston Manning's fledgling, western-based Reform Party battled the accord in the West, opposing the acknowledgement of Quebec as a distinct society and arguing that Senate reform did not go far enough. The most important opponent of the accord was probably

former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. In a piece first published in Maclean's Magazine he argued that the accord meant the end of Canada and was the disintegration of the federal government.Critics in Quebec noted that the Accord did not address the province’s demands for greater powers and found the distinct society provisions to be insufficient.

Daniel Turp, Jose Woehrling, Daniel Proulx, and other constitutionalists, argued that the distinct society clause as written in the proposed "Canada clause" represented a major setback for Quebec, since the scope of the clause was too narrow and was diminished by being placed in the context of the larger clause . Secondly, many aboriginal voted against the Accord.Although, the accord contained the provision of Self-government, the aboriginal were unhappy about the provisions related to their land. The accord sated that though the land belonged to the aboriginals but there was a partial control of government over it.

There were many other reasons which lead to failure of the Accord. The Mulrooney government was infamous for imposing new tax called G. S. T, this made people very unhappy and many people voted against the accord simply because it was initiated by Mulrooney government.There were also concerns about rights of women. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NACSW) also campaigned against the Accord because they believed that equality rights for women would not be sufficiently protected under the revised Distinct Society clause.

In addition to the above-mentioned reasons, the rest of the Canada was against the provision that Quebec will have 25% of seats in House of Commons irrespective of its total population. This point was strongly advocated by Preston Manning, leader

of Reform Party.Preston Manning's western-based Reform Party battled the accord in the West with the slogan, "KNOw More". The Accord was defeated by 54% of voters with six provinces voting against the Accord.

Thirdly, outside Quebec, criticism focused on all elements of the new accord, but was muted with respect to its distinct society provisions. It was placed in an interpretive clause that made reference to a long list of fundamental characteristics of Canada, thereby diminishing, according to the Quebec critics of the new Accord, Quebec’s constitutional importance.The Accord also departed significantly from its predecessor in that Quebec’s distinctiveness was explicitly defined in terms of language, unique culture and civil law tradition. Unlike in the case of Charlottetown Accord, the main reason for failure of Meech Lake accord was that two provinces, Manitoba and Newfoundland, did not ratify it. To become law, the Accord had to be ratified by Parliament and the legislatures of all the provinces in accordance with section 41 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

Accord had to receive unanimous ratification on or before 23 June 1990.In Manitoba, the government tried to speed up the normal proceedings of the legislature in order to bring accord to normal vote. However, this kind of action required the suspension of standing orders of the Legislature and this could only be achieved if there was a unanimous consent of all the members of the Legislative assembly. One member of the legislature, Elijah Harper, withheld his consent, at the urging of aboriginal people groups who were aggrieved at the Accord’s neglect of aboriginal concerns and ultimately the Accord did not come to a vote in that province.On the same

day, the federal minister responsible for federal-provincial relations suggested extension by 3 months of the ratification date and consequently necessitating re-ratification in Quebec. This dissatisfied the premier of Newfoundland, who then did not bring the Accord to a vote in his legislature on that day - ultimately delivering yet another blow to the Meech Lake Accord and ensuring its disintegration.

The second reason for failure of Accord was the “dinstinct society” clause. Manitoba and New Brunswick objected to Meech Lake and held constitutional hearings.On the other hand, Newfoundland held an alternative proposition for constitutional reform. The Manitoba Task Force found that the distinct society clause “generated the most controversy and debate during the public hearings”. There were concerns that it would divide Canada into two linguistic components, that it would create two classes of citizens by giving Quebec special status. The Task Force suggested that any interpretive provision should be known as a "Canada clause," and contain a much more diverse recognition of Canadian society.

Newfoundland's proposal of November 1989 would have contained a combined Canada clause and distinct society clause in a preamble to the Constitution. The Newfoundland proposal would have accepted that Quebec is distinct from other provinces on the basis of its language, culture and legal system, but not that Quebec is different in its status and rights as a province. As mentioned above, apart from “distinct society” clause there were other disturbing elements in the clause.For example, many believed that Accord would weaken the right of minority in Quebec. Critics were of the view that courts would interpret Charter Rights with respect to the DS clause. This would mean that future Quebec government

could offer cash benefits to Francophone women to encourage them to have large families meanwhile denying the same to non-Francophone families.

Secondly, critics were of the view that Accord would weaken the powers and prestige of the Federal Government.Thomas Berger, former supreme court judge, believed that giving provinces a role in appointment of Supreme Court judges might result in provincial bias in the matters relating to adjudication of disputes between Ottawa and provinces. Thirdly, Aboriginal groups thought that they deserve special recognition by Constitution of Canada, moreover, they were unwilling to put their constitutional demands on hold while Quebec was given priority treatment. Fourthly, PM and premiers agreed on this Accord “behind closed doors”.

This meant that the Accord could not be altered in any respect. This was not accepted many Canadians and eventually Accord failed. The Accords highlight a very important point regarding constitutional amendments, that is, the amending procedures are deeply flawed. Firstly the sven-fifty procedure is flawed.

“Seven governments out of eleven is a group which is hard to assemble on anything , and where opting out is available, there will be strong impulse to proceed only when the assent of all the governments is assured. The unanimity rule is even more difficult to operate. The Meech Lake Accord did achieve unanimous agreement at the two First Minister’s Conferences held in 1987. However over the next three years, provincial elections caused three changes in government before process of ratification by all legislative assemblies was complete, and in each case the new government refused to respect the agreement of its predecessor. Unanimity was achieved second time when Charlottetown Accord was agreed to at First Minister’s Conference

in 1992, but failed in national referendum.Thirdly, since 1982 any executive agreement has to be ratified by various legislative bodies, this adds a new hazard to the process because it means that whatever the agreement is achieved by first ministers must be maintained throughout the period of ratification.

The three year maximum period is too long. In case of Meech Lake it allowed the process to drift on while eclection were held and governments changed. “A period of one year, six months, would surely be ample for legislative review of a constitutional proposal”.Secondly, the Accords highlighted a very important fact, that is, no amount of public proposals guarantees the success of proposals to amend the Constitution but, on the other hand, absence of public consultation does guarantee failure. To conclude, both accords failed, but because of different reasons.

However, ‘Distinct Society’ Clause caused equal amount of trouble for Meech Lake Accord and as well as for Charlottetown Accord. Failures of these of these accords offer two valuable lessons, firstly, involving public is very important for the success of proposals and secondly, amending procedures are deeply flawed.After the failure of both the Accords the consensus among all but a few enthusiasts, was that constitutional renewal efforts would not be seen again in the near future. Many believe that constitutional amendment is “Pandora’s box”, which shall not be opened. But now more than decade has passed and another round of constitutional amendments may be just around the corner.

To make future amendments successful Federal Government “requires a more finely balanced and closely integrated "blended" process of parallel elite and citizen-based consultative and participatory structures operating in all phases of the

constitutional process”.