From: coxm@Software.Mitel.COM (Michael Cox)
Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:23:42 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Oct4.221356.28066@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>If you read the leading business commentators for the Toronto Star
>(David Crane, Mr. Industrial Policy) and for the Globe and Mail
>(Terence Corcoran, Mr. Free-Enterprise), both suggest that 
>Charlottetown is bad for the economy and will lead to a worse
>business and economic environment for the challenges we face,
>mainly because of the increased bureaucracy and government and
>the chaotic provisions for bilateral accords to confuse what
>level of government is responsible for what, and they specifically say
>the provisions for training and telecommunications are not good
>for the future global economy.
First I think the Globe and Mail lost it's stature back in the late seventies
and is no better than the Ottawa Citizen -- whatever sells right Ken?  I see
less problems than is the current case.  External investors also see less
problems with the accord than with the present system.  I can't see what anyone
can say about telecommunications when they have only agreed to clean up the
current mess of conflicting roles for the Federal and Provincial Governments
and mold telecommunications policy into one cohesive policy for all of the
country.  Perhaps both of these "business commentators" have stock in BCE which
may drop due to more competition?  Training right now is a mess.  There are
programs funded by the provincial government (which does have jurisdiction for
education) and those funded by the Federal Government.  Some are jointly funded.
Now the provinces will have exclusive jurisdiction for training.  They will
acquire the Federal funds and use them in one "pot" rather than having all
the funds divided into three "pots".  To me all this is a bonus for industry.
Or perhaps the "business commentators" have interests in private education
places which get more funding due to three programs (thus three times the
administration charges) rather than one.  Believe me this happens a lot.
>
>There are 20 some asterisks in Charlottetown, and the official position
>of the Quebec Liberal Party remains the Allaire Report and that Quebec
>fully maintains its right to self-determination.
I wouldn't say "self-determination" without specifying that the Allaire report
indicated areas which they felt might interfere with the functioning and
promotion of french in North America.  They're a minority in North America and
they're scared (gee wait to see if they ever separated -- the U.S. cultural
steamroller would be hard to keep out).  I have no problems with the Allaire
report since it is a document which specifies goals that the Liberal party
would like to attain.  Perhaps if we were all more confident, then some items
in the Allaire report would not be required by Quebec, and others would not be
so resisted by the rest of Canada.
>
[stuff deleted]
>BC and Alberta will be underrepresented in the Commons, the Senate, and
>the Supreme Court.
With only nine members, it's hard not to have some place under-represented.
Certainly, Quebec is over-represented but since we are dealing with the "law"
then I don't care where they come from.  In many of these cases, it's actually
the staff below them who do much of the research anyway.


-- 
Michael H. Cox      | Referendum vote:
                    | Remember:  Preston Manning would not have a job if he
Mitel Corporation   | went to the YES side.
                    | 
Newsgroups: can.francais