Federal referendum in Kanada

MIM on Kanada

MIM Notes, Issue 71: December, 1992

Canada referendum poses meaningless question

by a comrade
While Amerikans were gearing up to go to the polls to choose between imperialist candidates, Canadians cast their ballots in a choice between reactionary nationalism and chauvinism. On October 26, this choice was presented in the form of a yes/no referendum on a new Canadian constitution that represented a carefully constructed compromise between the various capitalist interests in Canada.
The referendum failed 54-46%, losing in six of 10 provinces and the Yukon. It lost decisively in Quebec and barely won in Ontario; every province had to approve for the changes to take effect.(2)
The new constitution would have made cursory changes in various government bodies, turning the Senate into a representative upper house of the Parliament and giving each province a veto over further constitutional amendments. Many saw the referendum as a way to settle the Quebec autonomy fight that has been waging for more than 125 years. It offered greater than proportional representation to Quebec but would have maintained unity between Canadian provinces.(1)
This left some on the No side opposing the constitution because it would give Quebec too much power, and others against the referendum because they want complete separation for Quebec. Also against the constitution were those who thought it gave native people too much autonomy as well as those who thought it did not give them enough. This made for an odd coalition that included the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, which opposed the accord because women were not represented separately as a group in the negotiations.
Those in favor of the referendum basically supported the status quo in relations between Canadian provinces and a united Canada: many, including the Canadian fraternal organization to the Workers League, equated a Yes vote with patriotism. Those on the No side, whatever their reasons, were basically campaigning against something they did not like in the new accord, just as many Amerikans campaigned against Bush, assuming that the alternative could not be as bad. Most of the Trotskyists of Canada, with the exception of the Bolshevik Tendency, voted No for these reasons.
It is unclear how this No victory on the referendum will affect Canada, but many suggest that it will further strain an already weak economy and united country.
Yes or No is no choice
Taking the Yes or No side in this referendum, just like taking the Bush or Clinton or Perot side in the elections, is not really a choice at all. Neither side offered any change to the imperialist status quo, just a bit of inter-imperialist power rivalry. It is interesting that so many organizations in Canada that call themselves revolutionary bowed to this imperialist bickering and took sides.
Just as MIM denounces any progressive groups that legitimized the Amerikan elections by telling people to vote for Clinton or any independent candidates, MIM denounces these opportunist Trotskyists who actively campaigned on the part of the government to convince the people they really could make a difference through the ballots controlled by the imperialists.
The only groups that MIM is aware of who actively campaigned against the entire ballot referendumDGroupe Action Socialiste, Mobilisation, and the Bolshevik TendencyDjoined in a coalition calling for Canadians to spoil their ballots. (The first two are Marxist-Leninist organizations opposed to Trotskyism, but without a worked out line on Maoism, the latter is a Trotskyist split from the Spartacist League.)
In a statement issued by Groupe Action Socialist, they explain some of their reasons for opposing this referendum:
"The YES side does not want to really change the relations between nations that form this country. As for the NO side in Quebec, they want everything to become Quebecois rather than half Canadian and half Quebecois; but they also promise us that, for the rest, everything will stay the same.
"The new constitutional deal offers no democratic solution to the divisions and national oppressions. Native people have been offered the possibility of being denied the right to government autonomy in five years from now. After intense backroom maneuvering, the Premiers took back with one hand what they had given with the other and have kept the First Nations under the trusteeship of federal and provincial laws.
"We must manifest our opposition to the reactionary chauvinists in English Canada who denounce the deal because they think it is the best way to impose setbacks to Quebec as well as Native Nations. We must oppose the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois who are trying to scare French speaking workers by telling them the deal is threatening their basic rights and at the same time are attacking Native demands. We must oppose the capitalists and the politicians that support the deal only to protect their own interests and maintain their domination over us by making sure that workers in St. John, Newfoundland, Montreal or Whitehorse do not really have the same rights.
"On October 26, spoil your ballot. Say No to that kind of politics and join us in fighting for real changes."
MIM applauds the hard work of these comrades to expose the bankruptcy of the system in which a small group of bourgeois politicians put before the people only dead end choices.
As the people will quickly learn, neither the No-to-Bush, nor the No-to-the-referendum side will result in any change from imperialist practices of either the Amerikan or the Canadian government.
Notes:
1. Boston Globe 10/22/92, p. A1.
2. Economist 10/31/92, p. 41.