From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Challenge
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:45:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.231327.23516@pandora.matrox.com> thood@twitus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>thood@twitus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>
>>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>>I challenge you to state what in the deal you support that
>>>cannot be achieved legislatively, or which is already
>>>the norm or custom via tradition.
>>
>
>I should have made it clear that I was listing all the items
>in the agreement that I considered "new", with criticisms of
>each one.  I did not mean to imply that I supported them all.
>In fact, I oppose most of them.  If I ultimately vote "yes",
>it will be because:
>
>1) I do not think the damage done by the bad amendments is too great;
>2) there are some good amendments;

The challenge is for "yes" voters to tell us likely "no's" which
are the good amendments...from your previous post it is hard to
tell which you think are "good".

>3) I fear the consequences of a "no" vote.
>
>I invite someone to convince me that we can reject this agreement
>without making upheaval more probable.
>

There are no immediate consequences to a "no" vote because elections
are imminent in Alberta, Quebec, and federally.  Nothing can happen
until these elections are over, which means politicians will be
busy trying to get reelected.  Any immediate consequences of a
"no" economically will be transient, because after a few days
the sky will not have fallen, and the status quo will be in place.

And since so many politicians have to be reelected, they will all
begin paying attention to the economy, and have to calm the situation
or they risk all getting turfed out...the need for reelection will
turn all the Chicken Littles into seeing nothing but blue sky.

The most immediate consequence will likely then be a referendum on
sovereignty in Quebec in 1994...which I think is less dangerous
than voting "yes" to the current deal.  Voting "yes" will not
end the sovereignty question, and Bourassa is already getting
in line for more powers.                             

A "no" vote stops the constitutional tinkering for awhile, and
closes the Pandora's box of Meech-like agreements...which are basically
flawed, and which do not settle the Quebec issue.

It is no use voting "yes" to a constitutional deal that does not
settle the Quebec question which at the same time will weaken
Canada.  If I truly believed this deal settled the "Quebec"
question, I might hold my nose and gag and vote "yes", but 
there is not going to be a 65% yes vote in Quebec...it is going to
be 50-55% yes or no, which doesn't solve anything.

As for the aboriginals...if the governments are truly committed to
self-government, there is nothing stopping them from legislatively
bringing about self-government, and constitutionally entrenching
the legislation and agreement later. 

As for the Supreme Court, the prime minister can begin a tradition
of accepting recommendations for SC justices from provincial premiers.

As for the exercise of the federal spending power, the federal
government can unilaterally stop using it in areas of provincial
jurisdiction with the consent of the provinces.  The federal
government can unilaterally withdraw from areas of provincial
jurisdiction where it is currently intruding.

Quebec is a distinct society...the fact that the constitution
doesn't explicitly contain those two words, doesn't make it less
so, and without those words in the constitution, we don't have
to have this big fight about who gets mentioned in the Canada
clause and who doesn't, and about whether getting mentioned in
the Canada clause introduces a hierarchy of rights.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics