From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:43:30 GMT

In article <oiBRqB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:
>
[ massive quotes deleted ]
>
>
>Look, let's put it in perspective. Sure, the agreement is flawed in many 
>ways - not all the senators will be elected, they sure aren't going to be 
>effective, I don't agree with the 25% floor for Quebec, and nobody has 
>yet defined for me exactly what aboriginal self government means, etc.
>Be that as it may, there is no way at all that Quebec will agree to less 
>than the current proposal. 

Gee, when you put it THAT way, the deal's just irresistable!
>
>The choice isn't whether or not this is a good constitution that will 
>meet our requirements for the next one hundred years or more - it's 
>whether or not we'll have any COUNTRY at all in ten years from now. It's 
>true that separatist forces will continue to push for an independent 
>Quebec but if TROC rejects this accord we'll have no chance to keep 
>Quebec within Canada at all. 

I don't buy the argument one bit. It's been two years since Meech, and 
Canada hasn't disappeared. Rather than accepting a half assed deal,
the status quo is (almost) preferable. We can afford to ignore the 
constitution for a year or two, and focus on more pressing problems.

Before Mulroney got the urge to play "great statesman" a couple of years
ago, everybody was more or less happy. This isn't to say there weren't any
flaws. It's just that this whole "crisis" is imaginary. All we have seen
is a lot of bluffing and fake consultation by politicians.
>
>Lastly, we simply do not have the luxury of pissing around with the 
>consitutional arrangement for another ten years. Our jobs are 
>disappearing, the economy is going to hell in a handbasket, the education 
>system is falling to bits, etc. We simply MUST start paying attention to 
>some of the other problems out there. 

I completely agree with this.

A Fraser Institute policy analyst wrote an excellent letter to the Globe.
To paraphrase: the constitution is about the higher philosophical and
political principles that are the basis for our country. Instead of
bluffing, playing games, and most of all political deal-making, politicians and
citizens should be thinking about principles! (do politicians know what
those are???). What are the principles we all aspire to? What is the correct
role for government? What about rights?

For example: what is fair representation? Are votes all equal? 
If this matters, then its absolutey ridiculous to say 25% doesn't matter.
If it doesn't matter, then what is the alternative principle that will
be the root of our government??

If the *people* don't hash out the basics from the beginning, we'll
never have any solid ground to stand on. If we agree about rep. by pop.
then we can't compromise *at all* (and we have to make amends for the
deal making that distorted things in the past).

Eleven twits have been horse-trading Canada back and forth. Sell out
one set of values to gain a couple points. 
>
>If TROC accepts this accord, distasteful though it is to many of us, we 
>may have to go through this again - in forty or fifty years. If we reject 
>it, it won't matter whether it was perfect or not.

What makes you think it will be any better or easier next time round?
People are already saying this is "A constituion to last Canada the next 10
 years" I think not.

As a BCer, you should realize that BC is of no importance to Quebecers.
And Quebec is basically of no economic importance to BC. BC's future
is with the rest of the Pacific countries, with Washington/Oregon/California.
With Japan. If British Columbian's are unlucky enough to have a visionless,
non-leader (ie Harcourt), then we should hold our ground, and rejecting
it can't hurt. Why should one province compromise its goals?

Why can't Canadians come up with simple principles we can all aspire to,
instead of a bunch of ifs and excepts. I would NOT be happy to see Canada
break up, or Quebec leave, but can you blame Quebec for wanting out,
if the rest of Canada can't get its act together? The status quo might not
be overtly bad, and I don't believe for a moment that English Canada is 
ganging up on Quebec. But even though things aren't that bad, the status
quo is preventing provinces from moving on to better things (esp. Quebec
BC, Alberta). If provincial goals are irreconcilable, then compromise
is worse than seperation.


The American's managed to draw up a constitution and bill of rights which
represents the principles they believe in. Why can't Canada find its own
essence? Compromise, exceptions, exemptions etc. are not becoming in a
constitution.

>
>
>emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)
>
>The way to get things out of a government is to back them to the wall, 
>put your hands to their throats, and you will get all that they have. 
>- Agnes McPhail


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegomony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________