From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:11:04 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: 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.

That is your opinion. Many prominent lawyers do not feel that way. There was
a piece on the Journal last night in which a constitutional lawyer (I
apologise, I cannot remember her name) felt that the Canada clause did no
harm at all. Her reasoning was that since it is an interpretive clause, and
that since the Charter of rights is very clear, it cannot detract from any
rights or freedoms.

: 
: >  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?

How do you figure it will cost more? If it does cost more, maybe it will be
more effective, and thus we will be better governed and have a higher GNP.
Who can say? One thing is for sure, the new senate will have a greater
responsibility to Canadians, and will be forced, on Constitutional grounds,
to swiftly deal with legislation within 30 sitting days of the Commons.

   A.12
           The Constitution should oblige the Senate to dispose of any
   bills approved by the House of Commons, within thirty sitting days of
   the House of Commons, with the exception of revenue and expenditure
   bills.

           Revenue and expenditure bills would be subject to a 30
   calendar-day suspensive veto. If a bill is defeated or amended by the
   Senate within this period, it could be repassed by a majority vote in
   the House of Commons on a resolution.

How can you argue that this is bad? It seems to me that this forces an
EFFICIENT senate.

: 
: >  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.

I don't understand why you keep bringing South Africa into this. We are not
South Africa, they are not we.

: 
: >  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.

I wouldn't worry too much about this. If Quebec's population falls drasticly,
the country would use the amending formulae to change things.

: 
: >  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.

O sure. I guess.


   III 25
          A framework should be developed to guide the use of the federal
   spending power in all areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Once
   developed, the framework could become a multilateral agreement that
   would receive constitutional protection using the mechanism described in
   Item 26 of this report. The framework should ensure that when the
   federal spending power is used in areas of exclusive provincial
   jurisdiction, it should:

****       (a) contribute to the pursuit of national objectives;    *****
   
****       (b) reduce overlap and duplication;                      *****

Why do you say the federal government can be dismantled? They control
finances and the budget, definition of national objectives, defense,
customs/excise, policy, etc, etc, etc. Just endlessly repeating that the
federal government will disappear isn't going to make it so.


: 
: >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.

I think you should look a little more closely at where the desire for a EEE
senate came from. The west feels geographically isolated, and would like a
way to rectify this disparity. I feel that this is acceptable. They are
reasonably asking that the disparity be rectified in the Senate and accepting
that the house of commons be proportional to population. I think this is a
very reasonable request to enable the West to have their voice heard in
government, without causing disparity in representation.

To suggest that the people of Alberta "really don't know what's in their best
interest" as you do is insulting. You imply that with half an hour you could
convince a province that they have been stupid and greedy.
Good Luck.

: 
: >  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.

I think this is wrong. Anybody who has visited Quebec has realised that it is
different. Their law is based on civil law, their culture is different, their
legislature different. Different is not necessarily better or worse. Just
different. What is wrong with recognising this? People who equate "distinct"
with "better" are really not looking at the issue, they are just being
emotional.

: 
: >  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?

O come on. This deal allows the west to protect mineral and forestry rights.
It is very specific on these rights. It is the first time this has been
entrenched in a constitution. Without this protection, there could be
increasing problems in the years ahead.

: 
: >  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.

We have elected constitutional craftsmen. Our Premiers. We elected them. They
negotiated the deal. If there were multiple options, it would multiply the
dissent. Just because you personally don't like this deal, and think we
should remain in negotiations forever is no reason for the rest of us to
believe this.

: 
: >  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.

Are you implying that the west is a "smaller and darker aspect" of Canada? It
is they who want EEE senate. Are you implying that Quebec is a "smaller and
darker aspect" of Canada? It is they who want distinct society. Are you
implying that native rights is a "smaller and darker aspect" of Canada? Am I
somebody to be ashamed of if I, as a Canadian, would like to rectify some of
the wrongs we have perpetrated against our first peoples? Are you ashamed to
hear me call myself a Canadian and also believe that Quebec is distinct from
the rest of Canada? I think EEE is ok since I believe the West has some valid
concers. Am I smaller for it?

: 
: >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.

If anybody truly understood the consequences of the vote, there would be no
vote. I believe a YES vote leaves Canada in a strong, united position. United
to face the world. We could focus our problem solving abilities on our
economy, instead of on internal strife.

: 
: >  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. 

The Accord makes dealing with new economic challenges easier.

: 
: >  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".

There is a distinction between Quebec Nationalists and Quebecers who feel
that separation may be the only option. If we give these latter a better
option, they will take it. If Quebecers feel at home in a Canadian union,
they will stay. If not, they will leave.

: 
: >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.

This is not Meech. The sky is already falling. Look at the dollar. Look at
interest rates. Inflation. If we don't solve the problem, and soon, the last
two years of inflation fighting and belt-tightening will be for naught.

: 
: >  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.

There will be constitutional negotiating for as long as we have Canada. It is
a fact that our society is constantly changing, and the needs of a
constitution are changing. To suggest that someone or someones can sit down
and write a document that will remain unchanged in perpetuity is a little
naive. We have however a need to have a base document for future revisions.
Voting NO will provide us with no document, and we'll have to go through
another 10 years of negotiating to get back to where we are now. It is better
to vote this in and then change it as required until it perfectly fits our
society, than it is to vote it out, and then spend 10 years trying to
negotiate the same thing over.

: 
: >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.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Where do you get this erroneous thinking? A YES vote
will bring unity. This is a surety. All the provinces have agreed to this
deal. If all the provinces were to ratify it (a YES vote), all would, by
definition agree. We would be left with one united Canada, ready to face the
world. Internal strife would go on the back burner since all Canadians would
have agreed on something.

: 
: >  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.

The #1 Canada is not going to stay with a NO vote. Quebecers know this.
People in BC know this. Everyone knows this. A NO vote will lead to economic
turmoil, endless negotiations, potential separatism of provinces. Just a bad
thing all around. You can't bring back the status quo by voting either way.
It will cease to exist on October 27th. You may only choose the path to
follow.

NO -- endless negotiations, lack of ability to agree. Bickering between
      provinces. Economic turmoil. Lack of investor confidence. Inflation.
      Low dollar. Lack of political will. Lack of world confidence.

YES --Future looking country. Investors return. Dollar stabilises. Political
      confidence. World confidence. Economy the next problem to solve.

: 
: >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!
: 

If you know what it really means, you will vote YES since you would know that
YES is better than NO.  Agreement is, by definition, better than
disagreement.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Xref: sparky can.politics:7813 soc.culture.canada:7130