From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:56:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.204619.22393@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:

>  1. Even if the senate isn't that useful at least it is elected.

Ah, so we have to have an election that we be meaningless.  Hmm, didn't
all the communist countries call themselves the "peoples democratic republic"?
Lots of elections, but the people had no power.

>  3. Who can say that native self government is bad, especially when it is
>     limited by the Charter and a "no new land claim" promise.

Ever heard of the native women's association?  Ever heard of discrimination
on the basis of race or ethnic origin?

>  4. Ok, Quebec having 25% HoC seats cast in stone isn't great, but I'm sure
>     if they ever drop much past 25% everyone will scream for a new accord 
>     anyway.

And Quebec will say no, and because they have a veto, there is nothing any
other province can do about it; other than separate, of course.  But that
clearly indicates that this deal is going to lead to future Western
alienation, and probable separation.

>  5. The transfer of powers is fairly minimal and shouldn't destroy national
>     programs in any significant way.

You must be joking, right?

>  1. Will Ontario and Quebec ever accept a pure EEE senate?  NOT!

Don't know.  However, an equitable for equal (five regions model) with
straight 50% normal majority rules would be substantially superior to
this setup.  Of course, as Gerald has already pointed out, the Feds could
easily enact a law making the present Senate elected.  It would be very
close to this model in terms of equitable, would not require any
constitutional changes, and would give people a good opportunity to see
how good or bad such a Senate would be without enshrining it in a 
document that requires all premiers to agree to change.

>  2. Will Quebec ever accept an accord without 'Distinct Society'?  NOT!

Depends on the definition of "Distinct Society".  If you ask me, all
provinces are distinct.

>  3. Will the west ever get a better opportunity to guard it's natural 
>     resources?  Probably NOT - unless they are their own country!

Sure they will.  Even if this deal fails, other deals will be proposed.
Also, the feds could simply hand over the power to the provinces if they
wanted to.

>  4. Will the Federal Government, 10 Premiers, 2 Territorial Leaders, and the
>     Natives ever reach a better deal?  NOT! NOT! NOT!

Will they?  I don't no.  I'm not a prophet.  Could they?  Easily!

>  5. Isn't this accord a reflection of our thoughts - EEE Senate, Distinct
>     Society and Native Self Government seem to be the theme of all those 
>     meetings.

Not my thoughts.  And if they are a reflection of our thoughts, then
we are in desperate need of a shrink.

>My predictions, the results of a YES vote :
>
>  1. Some economic stability - finally.

What's this "finally" all about?  We have had, and will continue to have
economic stability as long as we run our economy intelligently.  We will
not loose it through a no vote.  Oh, sure there may be a short downturn,
and then the international community will realise that Canada is still
there, and hasn't gone away.

>  3. This will no longer be the big issue, though it will always be an issue,
>     and we can now deal with other important issues (economy)?

While all this has been going on, Mike Wilson has negotiated NAFTA.  The
gov't is capable of dealing with the economy at the same time as it deals
with the constitution.

>The results of a NO vote (without Quebec seperation) :
> 
>  1. More economic instability - look at Montreal after the 1981 Referendum.
>     Companies do not like to invest in unstable countries - it's simple. 

Rubbish.  Businesses invest for profit.  Canada will have just as many
natural resourses the day before the vote as the day after.

>The results of a NO vote (with Quebec seperation) :
>
>  1. Possibly four countries from one.  Quebec, the Maratimes (probably join
>     the U.S.), Ontario and the West (who would never let their lives be run
>     by just Ontario).

And probably only two.

>  2. Kiss off the #1 rated country by the U.N..  
>     Right now Canada is the best place
>     in the world to live, according to the U.N..  Would we be better as four 
>     weaker countries?  I doubt it.

Actually, even if Quebec separated, Canada would remain as the #7 economy
in the world.  The environment would be the same.  Cities would all still
look as good as they did before.  The Rockies would still be standing.  On
the whole, I think Canada would be just as good as before separation.

Newsgroups: can.politics