Question

describe the rise and fall of the meech lake and charlottetown accords how and why did they fail be certified

Answer 1

Answer :

The Meech Lake Accord :

The Meech Lake Accord was a series of proposed amendments to the Constitution of Canada negotiated in 1987 by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and all 10 Canadian provincial premiers. It was intended to persuade the government of Quebec to symbolically endorse the 1982 constitutional amendments by providing for some decentralization of the Canadian federation.

The proposed amendments were initially popular and backed by nearly all political leaders. Concerns about the lack of citizen involvement in the Accord's drafting and its future effects on Canadian federalism were raised by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, feminist activists, and Aboriginal groups. Support for the Accord began to decline. Changes in government in New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Newfoundland brought to power governments that declined to accept the Accord. Further negotiations were conducted but tension increased between Quebec and the predominantly English-speaking provinces.

A dramatic final meeting among first ministers a month before the Accord's constitutionally mandated deadline seemed to show renewed agreement on a second series of amendments that would address the concerns raised in the intervening debates. Despite this, the original accord would not gain acceptance in the Manitoba or Newfoundland legislatures in time for ratification. Failure to pass the Accord greatly increased tensions between Quebec and the remainder of the country. The Quebec sovereignty movement gained renewed support for a time. The general aims of the Accord would be addressed in the Charlottetown Accord, which failed to gain a majority vote in a referendum.

Support : Supporters of the Accord argued that it would provide a generation of constitutional peace and do so in a simple and understandable way without major structural changes to the Federal government or the Canadian federation. Bourassa described Quebec's exclusion from the 1982 agreement as a "hole in the heart" that had to be mended before Quebec could become a normalized participant in constitutional matters. Mulroney and others, acknowledging that the agreement focused on primarily Quebec concerns, described the agreement as a "bridge" that, once accepted, would allow for further negotiations with other groups to proceed with Quebec's full participation.

Mulroney argued that the Senate and Supreme Court reforms would allow for greater involvement of other parties in what was generally a unilateral decision from the Prime Minister. It was an attempt to reduce what was seen as an overly powerful Prime Minister's Office. Mulroney would tell the Toronto Star, "You can have the old style of warring federalism, or you can have genuine co-operative federalism, on which we're trying to build a new country."

Proponents such as constitutional expert Peter Hogg said that the "distinct society" clause was merely an "affirmation of a sociological fact". Chief Justice Brian Dickson noted that court decisions had for decades taken Quebec's "character" into consideration on a standard basis.

Opposition : Opponents of the Accord took issue with both the process and ultimate results of the negotiations. Process objections focused on the agreement being negotiated in circumstances considered to be opaque and undemocratic: the amendments were effectively drafted and agreed to by the eleven Premiers themselves in two meetings and were presented to their legislatures as a fait accompli. Some academics described the Accord as resulting from an exercise in "elite accommodation" not compatible with a more democratic Canada. Aside from Quebec, no province held public hearings on the Accord until opposition began to sprout.

Some critics said that "distinct society" focus unbalanced the Federation, creating a "special status" for Quebec that would lead to asymmetrical federalism and the possible decline of the English-speaking community in Quebec and Francophones elsewhere in Canada. Aboriginal, feminist, and minority groups worried that the clause could be interpreted by courts to allow the Quebec government to disregard sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and of other constitutional protections in the name of preserving the province's culture. Aboriginal groups were opposed to the amendments that involved constitutional change, as they had not had any representation in negotiations.

Former Prime Minister Trudeau and similar critics argued that the further devolution of powers was unnecessary and did not result in any "trade-off" with the Federal government. Rather, the Accord reduced its ability to speak for all Canadians on matters of national interest. Western and Atlantic Canada particularly objected to the lack of more substantive reforms in how the Senate membership was chosen, especially as the Accord required further Senate reform to be subject to unanimous approval by the provinces. On the other hand, activists seeking sovereignty for Quebec were also unhappy; they generally opposed the agreement, believing that "recognition of Quebec as a distinct society" would be only moderately useful. They thought acceptance of the agreement would forestall devolution of further powers.

The Charlottetown Accord :

The Charlottetown Accord was a package of proposed amendments to the Constitution of Canada, proposed by the Canadian federal and provincial governments in 1992. It was submitted to a public referendum on October 26 and was defeated.

The Charlottetown Accord of 1992 was a failed attempt by Prime Minister  Brian Mulroney and all 10 provincial premiers to amend the Canadian Constitution. The goal was to obtain Quebec’s consent to the Constitution Act, 1982. The Accord would have recognized Quebec as a distinct society; decentralized many federal powers to the provinces; addressed the issue of Indigenous self-government; and reformed the Senate and the House of Commons. The Accord had the approval of the federal government and all 10 provincial governments. But it was rejected by Canadian voters in a referendum on 26 October 1992.

After the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, Canadians again could not reach a national consensus on constitutional reform. The defeat of the Charlottetown Accord was interpreted as a protest by Canadians against the country’s “political class”, and as a vote against the Accord itself.

Support: The campaign saw an alignment of disparate groups in support of the new amendments. The Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals, and the New Democratic Party supported the accord. First Nations groups endorsed it as did some women's groups and business leaders. All ten provincial premiers supported it. Most major media and media figures seemed to support it. All three major party leaders travelled the country supporting the accord while large amounts of money were spent on pro-accord advertising. While many advocates of the accord acknowledged that it was a compromise and had many flaws, they also felt that without it the country would break apart.

Opposition : Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was a prominent opponent of the Accord. In a piece first published in Maclean's, he argued that the accord meant the end of Canada and was the effective disintegration of the Federal government. He hosted a press conference at a Montreal Chinese restaurant, La Maison du Egg Roll, the transcript of which was published and distributed in book form as "This Mess Deserves a 'No'".

Preston Manning's fledgling, western-based Reform Party battled the Accord in the West with the slogan, "Know More", opposing recognition of Quebec's "distinct society", Quebec's guarantee of 25% of House seats and arguing that Senate reform did not go far enough. The two Quebec sovereigntist parties, Lucien Bouchard's Bloc Québécois and Jacques Parizeau's Parti Québécois, both strongly opposed the Accord, as they believed it did not give Quebec enough powers.