From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:16:15 GMT

In article <BvCuCC.9BM@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: I am not afraid of letting provinces and other communities think
>: for themselves...but we should not be putting locks on the doors
>: of all the rooms in the big house and restrict the key distribution
>: to the premiers...which is what Charlottetown is about...an
>: entrenched domineering provincialism at the expense of individual
>: liberty and democracy.              
>: 
>
> Section 28:
>
>          There should be a constitutional provision for an ongoing
>   federal role in the establishment of national policy objectives for the
>   national aspects of labour market development. National labour market
>   policy objectives would be established through a process which could be
>   set out in the Constitution including the obligation for presentation to
>   Parliament for debate. Factors to be considered in the establishment of
>   national policy objectives could include items such as national economic
>   . . . 
>

"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.

Considering the state of labour mobility in Canada as it already is,
and the premiers' continued strong objections to a true economic union
and common market (even with expanded equalization)...the provisions
for labour market training jeopardize Canada's ability to compete in
the emerging global economic environment.  The premiers blocked
the expanded common market clause to allow for the free movement
of goods, services, and people...in this context, section 28 is
a threat, not a consolation...it means provincial training fiefdoms
with qualification obstacles for workers moving across the country.

>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.

>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.

>
>   B.4:
>           A clause should be added to the Constitution stating that the
>   Social and Economic Union does not abrogate or derogate from the
>   Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
>
>Individual liberties remain protected under the Charter. Which rights are you
>concerned about losing?
>

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

Gerald