From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Why I like the Charlottetown Accord
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:31:49 GMT

In article <BvILrn.32z@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Why I like the Charlottetown Accord
>-----------------------------------
>
>It doesn't take much political consciousness to realise that Canada is in a
>quandry. It can't have escaped your attention that on October 26th we must
>vote on the future of our country. Much rhetoric is heard from both sides
>of the issue, but lost in the rhetoric is the details. Here is what I like
>about the Charlottetown Accord:
>
>Canadians were consulted before negotiations started. A big criticism of
>Meech Lake was that it was negotiated and presented before we knew what was
>going on. This time we had commissions and talk lines. We had travelling
>committees and write-ins. People told their governments what they wanted,
>what they needed. The government listened, and coalesced it into the
>Charlottetown Accord. I believe this provided our premiers with the
>mandate to negotiate, and a basis to negotiate on.
>

The first ministers totally ignored what was said at the public
conferences.

In Halifax, the ordinary Canadians were opposed to a significant
weakening of the federal spending power, and were open to the
consideration of asymmetrical powers.

In Calgary, the Senate was equitable, effective, and elected,
by standalone elections using proportional representation with
a single transferable ballot and gender-balanced lists.

In Toronto, the Canada Clause included the Charter, and all the
collectivities mentioned theirin...it was an inclusive Canada Clause...
not the exclusive one of Charlottetown.

>I believe the Canada clause is going to prove beneficial to all Canadians.
>The Canada clause is designed to interpret the Charter of Rights where it
>is weak or ambiguous. For the most part, the charter is unambiguous. Many
>groups are against this Accord because of this clause, but they have
>misinterpreted its purpose. The Canada clause sets forth common
>characteristics that Canadians hold dear. It commits us to democracy.  It
>recognises Quebec as the unique entity that it is. It commits all
>Canadians to racial and ethnic equality. It respects individual and
>collective rights. It commits us to gender equality. I believe that these
>basic Canadian values, in addition to our already well-designed Charter of
>rights, will make Canada a better and more tolerant place for all Canadians.
>

The Canada Clause is a muddle-headed confused monstrosity that elevates
various collective and government rights about individuals rights,
and creates a hierarchy of citizens.  It also simultaneously advocates
mutually exclusive principles...the distinct society and the equality of
the provinces, and individual and collective rights.

>There is another important section of the Accord which deals with our
>Social and Economic Union. It commits our government to providing us with
>a public health system which is comprehensive, universal, and accessible. 
>This is fundamental to our Canadian culture.
>

The Social Union is non-justiciable...a lot of nice words...it will jobs
for about 100 to 1000 new bureaucrats...to do the monitoring job that
is supposed to be done by our elected representatives...now we will
pay two groups of people instead of one to do the same job.

>
>Also important in our economy is the free movement of trade and people.
>The Charlottetown Accord provides for this. It is important to tear down
>internal barriers and become more competitive globally. I don't believe we
>should be competing against other Canadians.
>

I quote Jeffrey Simpson in the Globe and Mail on October 1:
----------------------------------------------------------
"'Before you decide you have a right to know,' shouted the bold typeface
in the YES side's advertisement in newspapers yesterday.  Yes, indeed,
you have the right to know that the advertisement is deeply misleading.

Right there, in the second section, the ad asserts that 'the
Charlottetown Agreement recognizes our country would better be served
by creating the goal of a stronger economic union.'  IT DOES NO SUCH
THING.

The accord wimped out on strengthening the Constitution's provisions for
the free movement of goods, services, and people across Canada.  Too
many provinces including Quebec and those governed by the NDP premiers,
were too deeply wedded to their protectionist measures to see them
diluted by the constitution.  And Ottawa, although nominally in favor of
strengthening the economic union, was not prepared to let the deal fall
apart over the issue.  After Charlottetown, Brian Mulroney admitted he
was disappointed that the economic-union provisions were not stronger.

The negotiators achieved only a vague political commitment to discuss
these barriers later.  In other words, they FAILED TO ACHIEVE ANY
PROGRESS IN THIS VITAL AREA.  To suggest otherwise, as the YES
advertisement does, is misleading at best, false at worst."
-----------------------------------------------------------

>The Accord commits governments to ensuring sustainable and equitable
>development. This could be used to prevent the selling of natural
>resources for immediate cash, and force governments to come up with
>solutions to economic problems rather than band-aid fixes. A long standing
>problem Albertan's have had is the National Energy Program which siphoned
>billions of dollars out the province. Under this Accord, Alberta could
>block this on constitutional grounds.
>

Alberta only has 6 votes in the Senate...6 votes out of 62 seats does
not an NEP-proof Senate make.

>Even more importantly, nothing in this accord detracts from any rights
>guaranteed by the Charter of Rights. You will not lose any rights as a
>Canadian because of this proposal.
>

Individuals charter rights are seriously weakened, as well as their
democratic and political rights, because of the Politburo, entrenched
executive federalism (which directly contradicts the Canada clause which
talks about a parliamentary system of government).

>The Charlottetown Accord also recognises that there are some areas where
>provincial governments and regional governments can more efficiently deal
>with the needs and requirements of Canadians. The Accord commits the
>Federal Government to provide funding to regional governments to alleviate
>regional disparity. This will benefit all Canadians in the long run. By
>helping traditionally poor provinces grow, we will grow ourselves. I'm sure
>that no one would argue that reducing Newfoundland's dependency on fishery
>products would be beneficial.
>

BC and Alberta are underrepresented in the federal government and it
will worsen over time...increasingly they will opt out of everything,
patriate their dollars, and begin looking towards Cascadia.

>A long held concern of many Canadians has been the domination of the
>country by the central provinces (Ontario and Quebec). These two provinces
>have well over half the population, and comprises less than one quarter of
>the land mass. The East and West have justifiably had some concerns as to
>whether their interests were met in a central government dominated by
>Ontario and Quebec. Charlottetown rectifies this by providing equal
>representation in the Senate for all provinces, and by including in the
>Canada Clause that all provinces are equal. This equal senate is important
>for many reasons. I feel the most important is efficiency. The Senate will
>be compelled, on constitutional grounds, to deal with all legislation
>within 30 sitting days. Never again will we have ridiculous delaying
>tactics making a mockery of our government.
>

The Senate is a fraud...and an equal Senate is a stupid idea.

>
>Another important issue is the changing demographics of our society. Some
>provinces are growing quite quickly (BC), others are shrinking
>(Saskatchewan). The Charlottetown Accord provides a method for
>re-adjusting electoral boundaries. It also provides some guarantees so
>that no province or region will ever have less than 95% of the
>representation its population mandates.
>

This is a lie...it is mathematically impossible to maintain BC's and
Alberta's representation above 95% of rep by pop once Quebec's
population falls below 22%.  Under Charlottetown, the voting power
of a citizen in BC or Alberta could very easily be 30% less than 
a citizen of Quebec.

>Unemployment is a big problem in Canada, and has been for some time. It
>has been recognised that re-training will become one of the greatest
>requirements for our work force in the coming years. The Charlottetown
>Accord provides for funding for this. Any province that feels it can do a
>better job of training its workforce (and this is often the case) can
>simply obtain the funding from the federal government to do so. This
>"opt-out" clause can be invoked by any province, so long as it uses the
>funding to achieve similar objectives.
>

The federal government is not likely to raise taxes to provide the 
necessary funds for a equivalent level of training in poor provinces,
and their is no commitment to labour mobility or to portable of
qualifications or training.  If you live in a poor province you 
are being royally screwed by Charlottetown...

>In addition to the benefits of the Accord, one has to look at the
>consequences of non-approval. There really is no united NO campaign. There
>are some really unlikely coalitions that could not exist under any other
>circumstances than hating something. If the Accord is not approved, this NO
>campaign will splinter into hundreds of diametrically-opposed groups. There
>will not be another agreement if this happens. Nobody has started to
>question why the NO groups only provide arguments against this agreement.
>They never provide what they would do instead.
>

A constituent assembly or a constitutional convention...

>A lot of political capital is made by the "NO" side as to the
>unavailability of the deal. Read the summary. It's not going to change
>drastically. Any major change would require the consent of all of the
>premiers, the first peoples, the federal government, etc. You can rest
>assured that there will be no surprises between the summary and the final
>document.
>

Let us deny Bob Rae the final legal text of NAFTA...and see what
results.

>It is extremely important that every Canadian vote in this plebescite. It
>is of fundamental importance that you vote on the contents of the
>Charlottetown Accord. You should not vote the way someone tells you to. You
>should not vote because of something you heard. Ignore the rhetoric, rise
>above the name calling. Don't vote "NO" because you like Preston Manning.
>Don't vote "YES" to spite Jacques Parizeau. Vote your mind. Read the
>Accord, check those items you like, check those items you do not. Balance
>the two. What can you live with. What do you like. What do you dislike, but
>would campaign to change. Remember, we all have to live with the
>consequences of a vote.
>

Understand the likely implications of voting for the deal...most
definitely...and vote on content...and not out of fear.

>Remember, a YES vote gives us a framework for future discussions,
>revisions, and clarifications. A NO vote simply puts us back to the start,
>looking for consensus in a strained environment.
>

The current constitution has worked for 125 years.  A YES vote does
not eliminate the threat of Quebec sovereignty.  The Allaire Report is
still the official policy and program of the Liberal Party of Quebec...
so there will not only be future discussions, but new demands based 
on the Allaire Report.  The Liberal Party also has not revoked that
Quebec still will have the right to separate in the future.

The Charlottetown Accord is a deconfederation agreement...Canada will
disintegrate and balkanize...even if Quebec stays, BC and Alberta will
eventually leave...our Canadian citizenship will erode into nothingness.

After a NO vote, the sun will rise on Oct. 27, and there will be
elections, and then there will be the opportunity for an elected
constitutional assembly.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics