From: alanw@bnr.ca (Alan Williams)
Subject: Re: Why I will vote Yes on Oct.26 (DSY)
Reply-To: alanw@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa ON Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:15:39 GMT

In article <1RF2qB3w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca>, yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
|> I have read the text of the Charlettetown Accord,   and this certainly no Meech
|> lake, Meech lake which would have been our version of apartheid.

I've read it as well, and I must have seen a different document :-) 
DISCLAIMER:  I'm going on memory here, so I can't quote the exact text.

|> What I have in fact read is the Globe & Mail version of the text from 1 Sept
|> 1992.   This accord recognize within Canada that:

I recommend getting the text from your local Federal Government publications
office.  They can supply the actual text of the accord.

|> 1) All provinces are equal.

I don't remember seeing this anywhere.  Perhaps you are referring to the section
that each province gets an equal number of senators?

|> 2) French and English are the official languages of the country and deserve
|>    protection righ accros the board.

Instead of being official languages of the "country", French and English are
official languages of the Parliament of Canada (and its associated institutions),
and in the legislative institutions of New Brunswick.  There is a clause to
"promote" the use of both languages.  In Quebec, the National Assembly is required
to "preserve and promote" the use of French.

|> 3) Quebec's Distinct Society is now subject to the Charter, and not the other
|>    way around.

The Canada Clause explicitly states the reverse, namely the Constitution,
*including the Charter of Rights* is to interpreted considering, among other
things, Quebec's distinctiveness.

|> 4) The Multicultural aspect of Canada is recognized and to be protected.
|> 
|> 5) The Senate is Equal, eventually 100% elected and give time would become very
|>    effective.

The option is given to elect senators either by popular vote, *or* by the
provincial legislative assembly.  There is nothing that guarantees eventual
popular election of senators.  As for effective, I suspect it will become tied
to party politics just like the House of Commons, but that is another can of worms.

|> 6) I have heared the rep. by pop arguments acc the constitution, however since
|>    1st-past-the-post is how we elect the HoC, it doesn't matter.  What would
|> really matter would be if the HoC was based on proportional representation.  As
|> it is now, it is based on party discipline.

I find it strange that the document recognizes the principle of representation
by population in the House of Commons, and then within several paragraphs, guarantees
Quebec 25% of the seats, no matter what their population may become.

|> 7) The aborginals are basically citizens of Canada just like the rest of us,
|> wiht there Treaty right entrenched.
|> 
|> Let's discuss content, not propaganda.  I am voting yes due to content, not due
|> to rhetoric.

Let's also make sure the content we discuss is correct.

/* opinions coming */

However, at least there are people who are attempting to get the facts.  I would
rather see that over people going into the polling booth thinking "if I vote yes,
maybe the politicians will shut up for a while".

I plan to vote no because of the content.  I don't buy the idea that having any
deal, however flawed, is more important that no deal.  I've heard people say "well,
we can fix it later." A Constitution is (correctly) made hard to change, since it
is the expression of our fundamental values, and the basic law of the land.  With
all the wrangling since 1982, we still have the same Constitution.  With the provisions
of this deal, the Constitution will be even harder to change, since there are added
areas that require unanimous consent instead of the 7/50 rule.  We can't fix it later,
so we'd better get it right now.

What's wrong? 

-- The notion of designating one province a "distinct society" in a document that
   should be a statement of our common values.  The object of the Constitution
   is to unify the country, not partition it.

-- Abandoning representation by population in the House of Commons, with Quebec's
   guarantee of 25% of the seats.

-- How do we determine which senators are francophone?  I've seen one posting in
   this group that said that Trudeau and Mulroney are not francophones because they
   have "funny accents".  What are bilingual people classed as?  What is a person who
   learned both languages as a child?  Where do we draw the line?  Do we make senators
   pass language tests?  Chromosome tests?

   The effect is to promote officially sanctioned discrimination on the basis
   of "linguistic origin".

-- Election of senators by the legislative assembly, which is hardly different from
   having them appointed by the Prime Minister.
   
-- The provision that allows reserving senate seats for certain groups, such as
   gender based seats.  Once again, this is officially sanctioned discrimination.
   Let's work toward reducing the barriers in the system that hinder the election
   of (women, aboriginals, ...), instead of just reversing discrimination.  I
   support efforts by political parties towards putting together a more
   representative slate of candidates.  But let's not put it in the Constitution.


-- 
Alan Williams        |  Bell-Northern Research Ltd.   
alanw@bnr.ca         |  Ottawa, Ont. CANADA  K1Y 4H7