From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: What Binds Canada Together?
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 11:42:49 GMT

In article <13687@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>In article <13686@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>
>I would like to ask a question that I regard as vital to all
>discussions about Canada's future.
>
>What Binds Canada Together?
>
>a) a common nationality - some sense that there is some shared thing
>   abouth being Canadian. This sharing would produce the common purpose
>   to produce the sharing among the cultural and lingustic groups which
>   seem to play such an important part in Canadian life. 
>
>b) a common economic union - Canada is a convenient structure for the 
>   resolving of disputes between the geographical communities. This seems
>   to be the Bourassa/Parizeau/Mulroney vision of Canada. It is seen in their
>`  use of the term federation rather than country when referring to Canada.
>
>c) Clark's Community of Communities - I've never been able to penetrate
>   Clark's rhetoric to understand this concept. Perhaps someone could.

Well, if you read Redekop's APPROACHES TO CANADIAN POLITICS (not exactly
sure of the title) you will see that Confederation as it was originally
composed was really a compact between colonies to withstand U.S. domination
and to enhance trade between themselves and with others. The rest of the
constitution really gave the provinces most of the powers (although they
were not as important then as now). Clark's communities, I think were the
original colonies (as well as the colonies which later entered into
Confederation). I know that there are some arguments against that in that
Saskatchewan and Alberta as examples were not really communities when formed
in 1905 but having lived in both provinces, I would say they are communities
now much more than Ontario is.

>
>The Charlottetown agreement claimed to be an attempt to reconcile disparate
>visions of this country. It certainly gave more power to the various
>communities but it gave no answer to the question "Why Canada" The so called
>Canada Clause was nothing more than some bland statements that could apply
>to any western democracy. If Canada disintegrated, the new states created in its
>place could all equally place the Canada Clause in their constitutions.

My problem with the Charlottetown agreement was the lack of recognition of
the communities in any meaningful way but also the lack of respect for the
trade benefits of having a community of communities. There are two (and only
two) crucial powers for the federal government to have. One is to impose
some educational standards so that Canada will be able to compete globally
in trade (a national standardized test?) and the other is to remove trade
barriers between the communities. They had neither! Instead, they took for
themselves powers (social charter) which should be provincial or community
powers. I say that because the provinces are more homogeneous (except for
Ontario) than the Confederation.

>

In a Financial Post article which I wrote, I mentioned that if the federal
government was given all the power and decided we should all wear beaver
hats, we would have no choice. However, if each province is given the right
to choose what kind of hat we are to wear, then we could move to the
province which uses cowboy hats, or baseball caps, or whatever. In other
words personal freedom depends on the provinces having a great deal of
power. Here I disagree with the feminists and others who want the federal
government to have ALL the social programs, etc. so that they can ram down
my throat what I don't want and down somebody else's throat what they don't
want. I viewed the Charlottetown Accord as leaving us open to that kind of
future, where my only option might be to leave the country altogether.
Xref: sparky can.politics:10982 edm.general:16