From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:59:23 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: "Objectives" is a pretty weak word...they mention very little about
: mobility in relation to training...the fact that they use "objectives"
: instead of "standards" means that labour mobility is not assured.

Webster defines an Objective as: "an aim, goal, or end of action" This seems
pretty specific to me. If a national objective were to be defined to promote
Employment Equity, I fail to see how the provinces could object. If a
national objective were that all professional associations create common
standards, labour mobility would be increased. You don't have to mention
specifics -- a constitution is a guiding document meant to cover all possible
and unforseeable circumstances. If you start wasting time on specifics right
away, you defeat the generality of the document.

: 
: Considering the state of labour mobility in Canada as it already is,
: and the premiers' continued strong objections to a true economic union ...

What is wrong with labour mobility? It is fairly trivial to change the
province you work in. Many Many people in Quebec work in Ontario, and vice
versa. (Have you seen the traffic across the bridges in Ottawa?)

Companies like BNR and NT regularly transfer employees from Montreal to
Ottawa. The federal government regularly transfers employees from province to
province. There are no border guards, no work permits.

: 
: >Where do you get "entrenched domineering provincialism"? Its not there. Why
: >is a provincial government "domineering" and a federal not? Why? How do you
: >reason this? What causes you to expect that the provincial government YOU
: >vote for will be domineering? If it is, vote it out. That's democracy, my
: >friend.
: >
: 
: Federalism can be domineering too...but the ratio of provincial to
: federal spending in Canada is one of the highest of any federation
: in the world...we have generous equalization...
: 
: Canada is already one of the most decentralized 
: federations in the world, and we don't have a common market or
: the right to work anywhere in the country...domineering federalism
: is not really our problem.  
: 
: >How do you figure individual democracy is gone? You still can vote. You are
: >represented by the person you vote for. This is a democracy. 
: >
: 
: If you look at the provisions with regard to the First Ministers
: Conference and the protection of intergovernmental agreements...
: democracy is in some jeopardy.

You'll have to elaborate on that. I didn't see anything there.
: 
: >How do you figure individual liberty is gone? The Charter of rights is
: >unchanged.
: >
: 
: Not with this Canada Clause...I could accept this Canada Clause
: reluctantly if the Charter were included as one of the fundamental
: characteristic of Canada with the others.

The Canada clause is an interpretive clause. It interprets what is vague in
the Charter. Since the charter is for the most part not vague, it has no
effect on the charter of rights.

: 
: 
: The mobility rights in the Charter are really limited to be a tourist
: without need for a passport.

It is trivial to move from one province to another. Simply apply for medicare
in the province you move to, and get a job. The rest falls into place.

I have visited all provinces (except Sask). I have never been asked for a
passport. If I felt so inclined, I could have settled down and lived
anywhere.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Xref: sparky can.politics:7909 soc.culture.canada:7163