From: dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca (David Joseph Regeczi)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:39:42 GMT

Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:

>Could I lure participants away from the usual nostalgia plus personal attacks
>on one another to spend some time actually discussing and evaluating the
>present constitutional deal on which we are to vote in less than two months?
>Can people in Quebec tell the rest of us why they like or dislike the deal, and
>can people elsewhere in the country give us a sense of how the deal seems to
>affect their interests?

>With any luck at all, we ought to be able to get sub-discussions going on
>topics like native self-government, rep by pop, the actual function of the new
>Senate, and so on.

>I really don't know what to think of the deal yet; I worry about the vagueness
>of the native self-rule concept, the guaranteed 25% for Quebec, and the odd
>variations in rep by pop from province to province. But for all I know, those
>are non-issues and some really serious problem is lurking in the fine print.

>Comments?

Well, true enough there has not been an official text released on the "deal"
but as far as I'm concerned, it has some major flaws.

25% guarantee : not exactly rep-by-pop.  But then again, Mike Harcourt does
not really know what that is anyway.  25% of the vote for all time is unfair
and undemocratic

Senate : a single-E senate, only equal.  Completely ineffective and elected
if the provincial government is in the mood.  (Never mind the fact that Mikey
wants BC to have a "gender equal" senate, ensuring 3 male and 3 female 
senators - why pay any attention to who I want to vote for)

Veto for all provinces : I believe every province will have a veto on future
constitutional changes (ensuring this deal will forever keep Central Canada
in control).  If we take this, we have to live with it forever.

I remember a Quebec reporter saying something to the effect of this deal 
was nothing more than the status quo being maintained, and I agree completely.
If you live in Ontario, then you can remain happy.  Quebec keeps what it has
plus a little more (whether Quebecers consider this enough is another thing).
Is it all enough, no.  A sell-out to Central Canada and the maintenance of
the status quo.

And for anyone thinking that this is the end all for the constitution and for
this reason alone we should vote yes...   Well Bourassa said it himself today
(Sept 7)...  This deal will not end the demands and the constitutional deals.
There is no guarantee that Quebec will not decide next year (or some future 
time) that they want more.  Then they will threaten again.

Are we just postponing the inevitable?  I don't know about that but my point
is that voting yes won't make anything go away.  I'm probably voting no.  
Hope something I said made sense.


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
|   David Joseph Regeczi              |  If crime fighters fight crime...    | 
|   Simon Fraser University           |  and fire fighters fight fires...    | 
|   Vancouver, BC, TROC               |  then what do freedom fighters fight?|  
|   dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca            |  G.Carland                           | 
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Newsgroups: can.vlsi