From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Canadian Federalism
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:16:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.063536.18845@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>
>The things that provinces would agree to, if they are sensible, are:
>
>- a common defense and foreign policy
>  This way, Canada would remain large, and strong enough to carry more weight
>  than the provinces could alone. BC , Ontario or Quebec etc are viable on
>  their own, but if we pull together, we have more clout.
>

Why do provinces have all these foreign missions, and why does Quebec
want a separate seat at the Francophonie.  The premiers would never
agree to this.

>- a common criminal and civil justice system

This was opposed by the first ministers in Charlottetown...aboriginal
self-government means a separate justice system.

>- a common system of political process and elections

This was opposed by the first ministers in Charlottetown...some premiers
wanted and got the right to appoint senators, some waned the right to
impose gender and other types of quotas for Senators, some Senators
would have different voting privileges than others.

>- a common charter of human rights

The premiers wanted and got and want to keep the notwithstanding clause
they obtained in the patriation.

>- national standards (health, saftey, weights and measures etc.)

Charlottetown and Meech were dead set against national standards.

>  Well, we're all civilized, and have similar concepts of justice and rights
>
>- interprovincial free trade, that is binding, through the justice system
>  This would be new. (I'm not kidding)

The premiers have been continually opposed to this and remain so to this
day.

>
>feel free to add more...

Everything you've suggested, the premiers were opposed too...no wonder
the people of Canada voted overwhelmingly NO to Charlottetown.

>
>We already have so much of this, that it would be simple to agree on
>these, and it would form the basis for a stronger nation. This process
>would be stronger, because no province could claim it was forced, cheated
>or ignored. 
>

Charlottetown was moving in the exactly opposite direction to all of the
things you proposed...that is why the people voted NO.

>An agreement like this would have to be unanimous, but that is not a recipe
>for deadlock, because if a province starts negotiating with all power, they
>are not going to agree to something harmful. Any agreement that comes out
>would be beneficial to all. This is much different from the Charlottetown
>agreement, where unanimity was required, because unanimity would lock
>in existing flaws, which would be difficult to change. The incentive for
>agreement is that the other provinces might call the bluff and say,
>"we can agree", you can take it or leave it. No one province can wield power
>over the others, since the others could turn around and leave them out.
>And of course, no province would be obligated to give up anything it didn't
>want to. This is a recipe for balance of powers, and noone would get screwed.
>

The premiers are opposed to everything you proposed.

>It's so simple: if you start with everything, and you agree to a deal that's
>in your own interest, you can't complain that the federal government, or 
>ontario, or English Canada or whatever is cheating you, and that you had
>to compromise priciples, just for expediency.
>
>I would suggest that if the provinces negotiate this way, that they create
>a smaller federal branch that would have its budget controlled by the
>provinces.  The provinces would pay proportionally for the common parts
>of the system (like defense, diplomacy etc). Or whatever other formulas
>the provinces would agree to.
>

The provinces don't negotiate this way...they oppose strongly everything
you have proposed...where have you been for the last ten years.

>This is the opposite of where (as now) power originates from
>the top (prime minister and cabinet) and trickles down. A similar structure
>should exist within provinces, where cities and muncipalities delegate to
>the provincial govt, instead of dictating to them. To borrow from H Ross
>Perot, do you want a government that comes at you or from you?
>

Meech Lake and Charlottetown were all about concentrating power in
the executive branches of governments and particularly in the premiers
offices...exactly the opposite of government coming from the people.

Charlottetown would have entrenched secret executive government in 
the form of behind closed doors first ministers conferences...no
public debate, no Question Period, no nothing...

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics