From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: On the Legal Text
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:38:36 GMT

Op-ed from The Toronto Star, Sept 29, 1992, page C2:

(posted without permission:)

"No vote justified if text unavailable", by David Crane
(the Toronto Star's main business commentator/reporter)

Ontario Premier Bob Rae insults all of us when he dismisses the right of
Canadians to see a legal draft of the constitutional proposals before
the Oct. 26 referendum.

'Let's not be too precious about this,' he is reported as saying over
the weekend.  'There are all kinds of people saying what they want are
the legal texts.  But they are the ones opposed to the package that is
already there.'

This is an astounding comment, especially from someone trained in the
law.  Anyone concerned about the future of Canada should want to see
the text.  It's also insulting---no different from Brian Mulroney
calling critics the enemies of Canada---when Rae contends that if
someone wants to see the legal text, it's only because they oppose the
constitutional package.

As Rae well knows, the legal text is everything and Canadians cannot
make an informed judgement based on an unsigned memorandum between the
Prime Minister and the 10 provincial premiers.

It's a strange argument, as well.  Would Rae have endorsed a referendum
on the Canada-US free trade agreement without a legal text being
available?  Of course not.  He would have been the first to complain.

Yet, the constitutional package will have a much greater impact on the
future of Canada.  So, as a matter of principle, Canadians should vote
NO in the October referendum unless a legal text is available.  If it 
can't be produced by then, the referendum should be postponed.

There may be many reasons why a legal text is not available.  But they
should make Canadians all the more suspicious---especially when the
draft Charlottetown Accord read like one long raid on federal powers and
federal spending capacity. 

One reason there's no text is that it may not be possible to write up
some of the provisions. 

Take the issue of how many seats each province will have in the House of
Commons.  The Charlottetown package provides: a) that the House of
Commons should be based on representation by population so that
following the 1996 census, no province shall have fewer than 95 per cent
of the seats it would have under true representation by population; 
b) that no province that has already achieved representation by
population will lose seats; and c) that no matter whatever the
demographic shifts in Canada, Quebec will always be guarenteed 25 per
cent of the seats.

But calculations already done show that if Quebec's population falls to
about 22% of the total, it will be mathematically impossible for the
other provinces to achieve the 95 per cent representation, while
maintaining the guarentees for a minimum number of seats in provinces
such as P.E.I, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.

Something will have to give.  But how?  That's just one simple but
important example of why we need the legal text.

Or take the provisions dealing with linguistic minorities.  According to
the "Unity Debate" newsletter published by Informetrica in Ottawa, the
wording on the provision concerning linguistic minorities is
significantly and deliberately different in the French and English
language texts, because Quebec and the other provinces weren't able to
agree.
  
What are the courts to make of that?  What does the constitutional text
really mean?  Here again a legal text is essential.

There are many other parts of the Charlottetown package that are
unclear---from personnel power and training to culture and federal
spending power.  There are many issues concerning what kind of Canada we
will have if such an agreement is implemented.

But the key point is that we cannot understand the agreement without a
legal text.  In the absence of a legal text we are being asked to write
a blank cheque for Brian Mulroney, Robert Bourassa, Bob Rae and all the
rest of them.  That's simply not acceptable.

Of course, there is a terrible risk in this.  A NO vote, as the Royal
Bank has pointed out, could cause serious political and economic
uncertainty, which have painful implications for Canadians.

But do you hold the country's future hostage to the temporary value of
the dollar?  This is a question that still needs a clearer examination,
though some argue that a country that puts next month's value of the
dollar ahead of the values enshrined in the Constitution doesn't have
much chance of survival.

And there is a risk of overstating the economic consequences.  Peter
White, chairman of Hollinger, Inc., is urging business leaders 'to 
explain to the rest of the world, most of whom cannot understand what we
are fighting about in the first place, that a No majority in Quebec does
not mean the imminent breakup of Canada.'

Otherwise, foreign investors will accept all the negative consequences
of a No vote being raised in Canada---ensuring a self-fulfilling
prophecy.

But above all else, it's vital that Canadians have a legal text to
examine, which is why they should vote NO if no such text is available.

Mulroney, Bourassa, and Rae don't deserve a blank cheque, even if it
means risking a run on the dollar.  Canadians have a right to know what
they are being asked to vote on."

======================================================================

Gerald
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general