From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:36:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.192632.17090@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>In article <13024@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>>An examination of the consensus agreement on the constitution has
>>revealed to me that there is nothing of Canada in it. There is a great
>>deal of accommodation of the interests of various interest groups
>>but there is nothing which unites these groups into a common
>>nationality.
>
>  I firmly believe differently ...
>
>  The Quebec issues bring Quebec back into the Constitutional family.
>

But it doesn't solve the "problem" of Quebec nationalism...the PQ could
easily be the government in two years, and we will be right back where
we started, and the political capital for compromise in the rest of
the country will have been used up on an agreement that didn't solve
the problem.  These deal squanders the political capital necessary to
make that compromise.

>  The Native issues bring natives into the Canadian federation as a 
>recognized component for the first time.
>

I know I may be in the minority on this one...but I think this agreement
is a step backward and a net loss for aboriginals.  It is a horrible
mistake to constitutionalize something which can be more effectively
dealt with in other ways first, and constitutionized later.  The
aboriginals have surrendered their future to lawyers...            

I am also somewhat opposed on philosophical grounds to race-based
government.

>  The Senate issues redress provincial concerns about the federation 
>recognizing the importance of regional diversity in needs and a forum
>to counter the previous swing to autocratic centralization.
>

This Senate is a waste of money...with the decentralization of
Charlottetown, and the transfer of power from legislatures to
first ministers, we need fewer politicians in Ottawa, not more...

>  The Social Charter and Economic issues are little more than noise and
>should be dropped, but leaving them in won't hurt much more than defining
>the starting line for the next round of tussles.
>

You've got it exactly right when you say that the economic challenges
of the future were totally neglected at Charlottetown.

>
>  Now tell me you don't fall under one of the first 3 groups, or that you
>don't think that resolving long held grievances by all three elements
>(Quebec, native and regional) will result in a general improvement in the
>national climate, or that this won't benefit the country.
>

I think the grievances of all three groups, Quebec, aboriginals, and
the West will be worse after Charlottetown than before.  Quebec has
always come back for more, because we refuse to demand that they
make the fundamental choice on their destiny...and they will be back.
My personal minority opinion is that aboriginals will soon be enraged
with Charlottetown...on this, I know most people are probably not
going to agree with me now...but I am saving up my "I told you so".
The West is as underrepresented in Ottawa as ever, and in quantitative
terms worse.  The West is going to be more unhappy after this agreement
than before.

I urge the undecided to read, think, and try understanding what they
are really doing to this country with Charlottetown.  Charlottetown
is a deconfederation agreement.  Neville Chamberlain returned from
from Germany with "peace in our time"...don't be fooled...make an
informed choice.  Understand what the words mean, and not just
the superficial spin put on them.  Words and omitted words matter
in constitutions.

Gerald
Xref: sparky can.politics:8053 soc.culture.canada:7222