From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:25:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.034002.15160@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.153622.10060@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>But it doesn't solve the "problem" of Quebec nationalism...the PQ could
>>easily be the government in two years, and we will be right back where
>>we started, 
>
>  No we won't be right back where we started. Quebec will be a valid 
>partner in the Canadian federation, and the loose ends that were left in
>1981-2 will have been tied off. 
>

The Quebec Liberal Party maintains the Allaire Report and the right of
self-determination as official party policy.  We will have lose ends,
the Allaire Report, and the threat of sovereignty after the referendum.

>  You don't understand compromise or alternative views (which is one of 
>the reasons I try not to respond more than once to your repetitive postings)
>and have a very logical but absolutist outlook. Most Canadians are not (or
>at least were not ten years ago) quite so 'my way or no way' in their 
>interactions.
>

In the aftermath of a NO, I advocate an elected constitution convention
which would prepare a variety of constitutional options including modest
revisions to the mild asymmetrial federalism we have today, a model of
full-blown asymmetrical federation, and a model of complete sovereignty
for the Canada-Quebec relationship which would then be put to the people
and the legislatures for debate and decision.  I may have strongly held
views about what the correct position should be, but I advocate
democratic decision-making.  It is the first ministers who insist that
it is "their way or no way".

>  But there are ways to sap the energy of Quebec nationalism and bring
>them into harmony with the rest of the country. Bashing them over the
>head all the time is not the most effective of these, even if it renders
>the victim temporarily unconscious.
>

I am opposed to Quebec nationalism (and nationalist ideologies in
general)...my position is that we should lay
out the options in full detail in a calm unthreatening environment
before the Quebec people and let them decide.

>>I think the grievances of all three groups, Quebec, aboriginals, and
>>the West will be worse after Charlottetown than before.
>
>  For some this will be the case, but for many, enough will have been
>achieved that, in the absence of a major incident or provocation, back
>burner contests within the resulting framework will be the only real
>way to pursue their objectives. It is very difficult to motivate people
>to actually do things ... separating included. And this accord will
>remove much of the current motivation rather than increasing it as
>happened after Meech. 
>

BC and Alberta will be underrepresented in the Commons, the Senate, and
the Supreme Court...and they will be paying more per capita into the
kitty than they are taking out...that is a classic taxation without
representation scenario...and you are doing this in a region that is
prone to populist and protest voting, alienation that has resulted from
discriminatory practices against Western provinces since the very time
they became provinces (it didn't begin with Trudeau)
...and you are doing this at a time of economic
globalization, and in addition proposing a balkanizing federalism which
weakens the common Canadian citizenship.  The Tories will have failed
to solve Western alienation, and Reform will likely fail too...a
mainline party will have failed, and a new populist party with the 
slogan "The West wants IN" will have failed...Canada will be extremely
lucky if the next western populist leader, (and there is a long 
tradition of populists movements of the right and the left in Western 
Canada) doesn't come with the slogan "The West wants Out"...and unlike
Quebec, the West need not fear an English-speaking continent, or the
loss of equalization payments and Cascadia and Asia will be calling.

(Just think how inexpensive cars and trucks would be in an independent
Western country...with no automobile industry to defend...it would
be a world dumping ground for cars...add to that the repatriation of
the tax dollars lost to Canada...and even the costs of going independent
could be mitigated by real economic gains that are realizable at 
the individual level)

>
>>Charlottetown is a deconfederation agreement.
>
>  No, Charlottetown is an agreement to restore balance to the federation.
>If there is only one government in Ottawa that counts, then it is not a
>federation.
>

Canada is one of the most decentralized federations in the world
already...any further decentralization has to be done with great care,
and has to be based on the principle of empowering people rather than
empowering provincial governments.  Charlottetown empowers provincial
governments, not people.

Gerald