From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:53:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.204619.22393@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>As the title says, why vote NO?  Does this agreement make our lives better
>or worse?  I can understand the people complaining because there is no legal
>text, though I read a copy of the Charter of Rights last night and quite 
>frankly without legal training most of it sounded just as vague as the accord
>does, but I cannot understand why the accord is bad.  How does it make our
>lives worse?  As I see it :
>

The Canada Clause undermines individuals rights, entrenches the rights 
and perogatives of governments, and sets up a hierarchy of group or
collective rights...it basically fritters away liberty.

>  1. Even if the senate isn't that useful at least it is elected.

And will cost a bloody fortune...if you are trashing the federal
government, as Charlottetown does, why have more federal politicians?

>  2. Quebec is hardly getting more power from a Distinct Society clause
>     when right now they totally ignore the constitution.
>  3. Who can say that native self government is bad, especially when it is
>     limited by the Charter and a "no new land claim" promise.

I don't see how apartheid on reserves and in our major cities is a good
thing.

>  4. Ok, Quebec having 25% HoC seats cast in stone isn't great, but I'm sure
>     if they ever drop much past 25% everyone will scream for a new accord anyway.

What will a BC grandparent tell their grandchildren in 50 years...that
they voted to make every British Columbian 0.7 the person a Quebecker
is.  Quebec's population will have to fall to only 21 or 22% of the 
population for this to happen.

>  5. The transfer of powers is fairly minimal and shouldn't destroy national
>     programs in any significant way.
>

The transfer of powers is not minimal...the provision for bilateral
and multilateral agreements which limit the legislative and budgetary
powers of Parliament is open-ended.  The federal government can be
systematically dismantled with Charlottetown.

>Please ask yourself :
>
>  1. Will Ontario and Quebec ever accept a pure EEE senate?  NOT!

No, it wouldn't take much of an argument to convince BC and Alberta
that a EEE senate isn't in their best interests either.

>  2. Will Quebec ever accept an accord without 'Distinct Society'?  NOT!

What really matter is the division of powers, not the distinct society.
Bourassa is using the distinct society as a constitutional insurgency
to get more power eventually.  If Quebec is offered the right deal
on the division of powers, the two words distinct society don't matter.

>  3. Will the west ever get a better opportunity to guard it's natural 
>     resources?  Probably NOT - unless they are their own country!

Why does one need to protect what has already been stolen?

>  4. Will the Federal Government, 10 Premiers, 2 Territorial Leaders, and the
>     Natives ever reach a better deal?  NOT! NOT! NOT!

I find it hard to imagine a deal worse than Charlottetown.  We need
a different more open process, perhaps with an elected constitutional
convention to craft several different options for consideration by
the people and the legislatures.

>  5. Isn't this accord a reflection of our thoughts - EEE Senate, Distinct
>     Society and Native Self Government seem to be the theme of all those 
>     meetings.
>

It is a reflection of the smaller and darker aspects of our nature
rather than the great and glowing principles of liberty and democracy.

>My predictions, the results of a YES vote :
>
>  1. Some economic stability - finally.

If you truly understand the consequences of the Accord,
a YES vote leaves Canada handicapped in the face of the global economic
challenges we face.

>  2. The lawyers argue for a couple of years about legal text and the federal/
>     provincial governments keep negotiating - SO?
>  3. This will no longer be the big issue, though it will always be an issue,
>     and we can now deal with other important issues (economy)?

The new constitution makes dealing with the new ecomomic challenges
very difficult if next to impossible. 

>  4. Quebec signs the CHARTER - I get to be a real citizen when I'm in Quebec!!!!
>  5. Maybe the PQ will finally die, or a least diminish in power and the big
>     threat will go away (this probably won't happen, but a NO vote certainly
>     isn't going to get rid of them).
>

The Quebec nationalists are not going away...this deal does not solve
the Quebec "problem".

>The results of a NO vote (without Quebec seperation) :
> 
>  1. More economic instability - look at Montreal after the 1981 Referendum.
>     Companies do not like to invest in unstable countries - it's simple.

The sky did not fall after Meech.

>  2. Another 10 years of constitutional committes, Quebec threats, referendum.
>

Perhaps, but the YES side guarentees unending constitutional
negotiations and doesn't nothing to eliminate the likelihood of
a Quebec referendum.

>The results of a NO vote (with Quebec seperation) :
>
>  1. Possibly four countries from one.  Quebec, the Maratimes (probably join
>     the U.S.), Ontario and the West (who would never let their lives be run
>     by just Ontario).

This is a certainty with a YES vote.  Charlottetown is a deconfederation
agreement.

>  2. Kiss off the #1 rated country by the U.N..  Right now Canada is the best place
>     in the world to live, according to the U.N..  Would we be better as four 
>     weaker countries?  I doubt it.
>

Disintegration is a certainty with a YES vote, only a possibility with
a NO vote.  If we are number #1, why not sell Canada to Quebeckers 
instead of selling something Clark and Mulroney concocted.

>My god, think about!  And don't just protest vote!
>

Definitely, think about it, read about it, and inform yourself as
best you can as to the content of the Accord and what the agreement
really means...and then I am confident that you will vote for Canada
and vote NO!

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics