From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: On the Canadian Politburo
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:39:09 GMT

Excerpted from an op-ed in The Globe and Mail, Sept.28, 1992, page A15,
from "Debating an agreement that's really no agreement at all"

by Tony Hall (an associate professor of Native American Studies at the
University of Lethbridge)

[without permission]

"The texture of the documents pieced together at Charlottetown is a
perfect reflection of the process that produced it. ....

This was the boldest display ever of unfettered executive federalism.
This was the pivotal point in a campaign to construct a thick wall
of constitutional words around a justisfication for Canada that would
leave largely unaddressed most of the deeper questions about the sources
of our country's political sovereignty.

For those with and especially cynical twist of mind, this was Canada
of the first ministers, by the first ministers, and for the first
ministers, with a second tier of Indian, Inuit, and Metis
representatives added to improve the saleability of the ultimate
product.

At worst, the deal can be seen as a raw power grab by its non-aboriginal
authors.  Consider the implications of developing the 'common market'
within Canada through the following proposal:  Section 6 of the deal
says that 'First Ministers would have the authority to create an
independent dispute-resolution agency and decide on its role, mandate,
and composition.'

Clearly a main responsibility of this new agency woud be to harmonize
Canada's internal commerce with the technocratic design of the North
American free-trade zone.  While it is not my purpose to argue trade
policy, I do seek to underline the unprecedented character of the
constitutional powers that the first ministers seek.

At present, first ministers have no constitution authority independent
of the legislatures and the parliament in which they sit.  If this deal
were to be ratified in its present form, first ministers could claim a
broad mandate to assert a new kind of autonomous authority over trade
regulation, with no reference whatsoever to any legislative bodies in
this country.

Now this would be closed-door, executive rule with a vengeance.
Moreover, this power grab would violate the first provision of the
proposed Canada Clause, that 'Canada is a democracy committed to a
parliamentary and federal system of government.'

The first ministers are not presidents, and Canada is not a republic.
Executive authority remains vested in the Crown; it is obtainable only
by way of sanction from our parliamentary institutions.  If the first
ministers seek to overturn the most basic constitutional principles of
responsible government in Canada, they should tell us openly.

Whose influence is being sacrificed to accomodate the expanded sphere of
first ministers' autonomy?  Whose interests are being subordinated to
the demand that every premier that his government must have a veto over
future changes to national institutions?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Gerald
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6955 can.politics:7423