From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:47:41 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

Today, yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) wrote:
>Table:   Positive                          Negative
> Yes:  - the economy                      - mass negatived campaign
> Side  - collective rights                - abandonment of minority rights
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
These two rights necessarily conflict, and you can't have one without
compromising the other, unless a law is enacted that will only "enhance"
collective rights of the majority without harming anyone else. That will
never happen, because in that case a law will not be necessary in the
first place, hence entrenching collective rights in the constitution is
for the explicit purpose of enacting laws when they are needed, and
we've closed the circle again.

>       - native recognition
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is just collective rights, isn't it? OK, maybe that's too
simplistic. See it as the creation of a new level of government, a level
that only apply to certain people in Canada, and other than with that
one significant difference, it is no different from the power of a new
province. I am quite sure that in the discussions to come in the near
future on native self government, there will be immense pressure put on
the native groups to limit the extent of their power to a clearly
defined (but not necessarily fixed for all time) geographical area, and
the starting point of that area is obviously land that already belong to
the aboriginal people.

> NO  :  - NO EEE Senate                    - Economic disaster
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
You can't have it both ways.
Quebec would never agree to an EEE senate in the current climate.

>                                           - Pre- Stone Age "Preston" Manning
>                                             and the meglomaniac retreat
>                                             "Reformers", Reformers, what
>                                             Reformers? 5 year moratorium on
>                                             constitutional talks? That's
>                                             Reform???!!

Very well put. Thank you.

>                                           - "Lucien" Coco Boucher "Bouchard"
>                                              and the chip of the old Bloq
>                                              Quebecois with "Jacques"
>                                              Paribonzac "Parizeau" and the
>                                              Ultra Right-Wing Legalize
>                                              Discrimination Parti Quebecois,
>                                              out of touch with the ordinary
>                                              Quebecois

No, the BQ and PQ are not out of touch. The BQ, in particular, is _very_
in touch with ordinary Quebecois, because, you see, with a small number
of those Quebecois it's the other way around: they have a nationalist
panic button, and the BQ is the only party able to push that button,
elegantly, without offending anyone else. Some Albertans also have such
a panic button, and the Reform party knows how to push those too.

Say YES now, and then form a constitutional review committee that's
separate from the political process to continue refining the
constitution in the many years to come. Take (horrors !!!) the
experience of the US constitution changes as a guide on how it could be
done, albeit I hope the Canadian version will not take nearly as long.

>Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca,
>userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)

Michael MY Hui  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada