Conference kaosws::canada

              <<< KAOSWS::$1$DUA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CANADA.NOTE;1 >>>
                         -< True North Strong & Free >-
================================================================================
Note 629.0        Info request from out of country (Referendum)       No replies
KAOFS::D_STREET                                      19 lines  27-OCT-1992 10:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     I am out of the contry, and would appreciate some input in regard to
    the reactions and next steps indicated by the various factions in the
    constitutional debate. I did catch C-SPAN2 which had the CBC coverage
    starting at 11:00pm EST. I watched reports that most provincal leaders
    will refuse to negotiate until after a federal election, and the
    natives are reading this as a refusal of Canadians to approve their
    package of reforms. I turned it off when Mulroney came on to thank
    Canadians for participating in democracy abd other such drivel.
    
    
     Please keep those notes and comments comming.... The coverage here in
    Boston is more concerned with their own election troubles, so not much
    time (hardly any really) is spent discussing Canada.
    
    
    						Derek.
    	    				(in the land of no medicare)
    
    (P.S. What coverage there is, is very acurate)
    

    No it was ...
    
    Quite decisively in the west...
    Ontario so close to equally split it was incredible
    Quebec about 57% no
    The Maritimes, apart from Nova Scotia definite yes
    Nova Scotia borderline no.
    
    Everybody is now trying to interpret what the no means ... and
    it is clear that the no vote is being interpreted in a multitude
    of ways ... with the politicos trying to read our minds and 
    very badly too.
    
    Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard have declared that this no vote opens the
    door to the path for Sovreignty for Quebec, when, from the fact that
    it was not a resounding no, is an awfully big leap.
    
    Native leaders have definitely taken it as a slap in the face, reading
    the no as a rejection of their needs when it seems most unlikely that
    is true.
    
    The general concensus is that it is time to put the worries of the
    constitution on hold for now and focus on the economy.
    
    Like Meech, the general comments heard last night by all the
    commentators was that this again was not a rejection of Quebec
    per se, but rather of a bad overall deal for all the provinces.
    
    There was a lot of banter on the deux nations incompatibility with
    the western view of an almost US type federalism.
    
    Stuart

    The other thing that the analysts were spouting quite regularly is
    that it is clear from the result that we do not trust our political
    leaders or the other elitist groups that run the country.
    
    Amen!
    
    Stuart

As far as the Quebec vote is concerned, everyone is saying that if you
factor out the federalist NO vote, the allophones' NO vote, and NO votes that
were plainly a message of discontent with Mulroney, the separatists are still
a minority.

In any case, I'm glad to see Ontario voted YES just to defeat Garry's NO vote
and my sister in law's (she's anti-Quebec) NO vote.

Mario

    
    I'm calling for a recount in Ontario. :^)
    
    Ben

    I watched the coverage for about 1/2 hour (I couldn't stand any more)
    but when they kept on flashing the various NO/YES voting percentage
    across the screen, I noticed that the numbers never added up to
    100 percent.  The ranges were from 98.7 to 99.8 percent for the
    various provinces.
    
    Was the descrepancy due to spoiled ballots  ?
    
    Mike.

    
    That's what I heard. (ie: spoiled ballots made up the difference.)
    
    Ben

    If I recall correctly (haven't checked the papers for final counts):
    
    	Nationally:   No:  54%
    		      Yes: 45%
    
    Pieter
    

    my two cents (2 sense?) say that I shouldn't have been able to see
    results until after 11 p.m. central time, in order to allow the western
    polls to close.  To hell with Freedom of Press, the Western people
    shouldn't be influenced by what the easterners do.  I certainly
    could've waited until this morning to hear the results.
    
    Doug
    

       
       The SRC people could use a lesson or two in significant digits:
       
                Baie des Corbeaux
                  OUI     NON
                    5       2
                 71.4%   28.6%       
       
       And what's her name, the one with the big red hair who _never_
       lets the person she's talking to finish an answer, she really has
       to find a more suitable position (I'd suggest prison guard).
       
       --Mr Topaz

    re .9
    
    You may have noticed that the CBC Newsworld channel (available I
    presume from coast to coast) did not broadcast the election results. 
    Instead they rebroadcast the Blue Jay victory parade much to my
    delight.  They constantly noted on the bottom of the screen that due to
    electoral laws they could not broadcast eastern Canada results.
    
    The regular CBC channels kept welcoming their affiliates from each
    province as their polls closed, so I think your concern is addressed. 
    In other words the people in BC did not start seeing results from
    the EST zone until their polls had closed.

    re .9
    
    No province saw results from a province east of them until after the
    polls closed in their province.  News was blacked out according to
    federal law.  In fact, the two CNN cable channels we get here in Ottawa
    were also blacked out - they dislayed a message that they were
    complying with the law.
    
    Regards,
    
    Garry

    I find it interesting that a deal so widely accepted by "our elected 
    representatives" was rejected so widely by US.
    
    Just goes to show you how severely out of touch most politicians are
    with the people they are suppose to represent.
    
    And the main two politicains that rejected the deal are the ones that
    are so outspoken that they don't care what the public thinks.
    P.E.T    &   P.M. .I can't stand PET but I've got to give him credit
    for his stand on this. As for PM maybe now he'll get the respect 
    (outside of the west) that he deserves.
    
    IMOO
    
    Brian v
    
    

    I think the people are out of touch as much as the politicians are.
    I've heard a lot of dumb reasons for voting NO, not the least of which
    was voting No because of the metric system....

    One analyst said that this referendum became a lightning rod for
    discontent. The politicians picked a bad time to do this.

    Also, the deal was not widely rejected. A lot of Canadians wanted this
    to work, including me. A 45 - 55 split does not a clear message
    make....

    Perhaps we need a war to bring us together. Right now we're fighting
    the enemy within.

    Glenn

    Could someone have a go at explaining what this means for Canada ?
    
    Thanks,
    Wayne

    You just hit the nail on the head here Wayne.  No one knew exactly what
    a yes vote or a no vote would mean for Canada in reality.  A yes result
    was probably as unknown as a no.
    
    Technically, the no vote means status quo.  Canada is still governed
    under the basis of Trudeau's repatriated constitution, and for Quebec
    under the British North America and Quebec Acts.  (Although in practice
    Quebec, while not a signatory to the repatriated constitution has used
    it in its dealings with the rest of the country and vice versa.)
    
    Now what it means in reality is dependant on exactly how much is read
    into the meaning of the no in the various regions of Canada and how
    much the public believes the politicians doing this.
    
    Stuart

    Quebec, while "not a signatory" to the Constitution, is governed by it
    like every other province (though of course its status has always been
    "distinct" in various ways.)
    
    -Stephen

    Re: .16
    
    Stuart,
    
    What is the basis for you saying that Quebec is still governed by the
    BNA act?
    
    Regards,
    
    Garry
    

    well it's been a couple of days now since the referandum....so far
    the country has not fell apart and the dollar is on the upswing....
    I guess the yes campain was just full of it.
    it never fails...when you run out of reasonable and logical agruements
    for your case you resort to fear mongering and blackmail.
    
    so far the only group that I've heard is really ticked off is the 
    natives. practically told us to expect more ocka situations.
    
    Brian V
    

What this means to me as a Canadian:

First of all, Mulroney will be ousted in the spring, which I believe is
the latest possible time that he can call an election.  Bourassa has said
that he could win a Referendum against Separation now or in the spring.  I
believe him.  Those ^&&#%&$%^&$^ separatists are raving about how they now
have the mandate of the people.  They'll blow their load now and when the
big question is asked of the Quebec people, the PeQuists (sp?) et al won't have
any more lies to use as ammunition for separation.  We'll have to go through
another couple of years of this separatist mumbo jumbo, but the only good thing
to come out of this referendum is that the rest of the country has shown that
they just don't care to listen anymore.  Finally Quebec will have to make its
choice.  Canada or Quebec?  This is the question.

Now our question.  Who will be the next Prime Minister of Canada?  I, by the
way, voted NO not to oust Mulroney (Bum) but because I don't think that the
Charlottetown Accord was a fair document to all Canadians.

Don

    Hey Don, 
    
    	You seem to think s�paratisme is NEWS!  The fact that Qu�bec wanted
    to separate from Canada has been going on since Canada was formed (from
    the first TWO nations, then).  Qu�bec (Le bas Canada) voted by a VERY
    slim margin to join Upper Canada and almost didn't make it as a
    province in 1867, there were s�paratistes then and there are
    s�paratistes NOW.  If you don't like it, just listen to Much Music.
    
    Jean
    

    The identity of the Quebec nation was relinquished when they joined Canada.
    From that point on, it was a PROVINCE. Like Man., Sask., Albt., B.C.,
    and Nfld. Do you really think that all of these provinces joined Canada
    With an understanding that Quebec would be equal to all the other
    provinces combined (2 nations) ? I think not. Should not Nfld. get the
    same consideration since it was a "distinct" entity for much longer
    that the province of Quebec. Also what about the "nations" that were
    here long befor the white folks started dominating them with language
    and culture. As usual, the rules that are used by Quebec to their
    advantage, are suddenly unaceptable when applied to other groups who
    have the basis to make the claim. (ie. Quebec can seperate from Canada,
    but no part of Quebec can seperate from Quebec) I happen to believe the
    experssion "What is good for the goose is good for the gander"
    
    						Derek
    
    (PS. If you haven't noticed, this NO vote (accross the country) has
    really p$%#$ me off)

    Regarding the separation of Quebec and its identity. 
    
    Simply...let Quebec separate. It would be a shame to loose the color
    that their spirit adds to the country but it would save the country
    billions in constitutional affairs, duplication in the public
    service, bilingual bonuses and financial "grease" for the squeaking
    wheel.
    
    Quebec polititions, like a teenagers at age 19, think they know 
    everything because big brother(or sister)France planted the seed 
    " long live free Quebec"! The polititions picked up on the back
    handed degaulle remark and designated it as their cause. They,
    like Muslims, Palistinians et al, now have a cause and carry it
    as their scar that was inflicted by the hand of others(because the
    Plains of Abraham battle was almost a complete and total massacre 
    if the British hadn't been merciful).
    
    However.......
    
    If only common sense prevailed. From border to border, we are
    all one citizenry and we are all imigrants but as time passed
    and we all melted into the pot, the pot produced...Canadians!. 
    
    Like a previous note stated. Your passport citizenship reads 
    "Canadian", not French-Canadian, English-Canadian, Irish-Canadian, 
    Indian-Canadian, German-Canadian etc, it reads simply "Canadian". 
    It equals one country, one border, one common
    assimilation. The rift created by culture segragation is like
    a football team trying to win a game. The quarterback is
    French and the rest of the players are of various decendencies.
    However, the quarterback will only pass or hand the ball off to
    french culture players because the others are not of
    the same cultural distinction. 
    
    The distinct society reference is true. Quebec is certainly distinct.
    So are the larger, more culturally visible Italian, Chinese, Japanese
    and East Indian ethnic groups who ahve learned to "play ball". 
    In reality, Quebec is no different than any of these others including 
    the plain, boring English(who are not really boring afterall).They
    are equal. Nothing more, nothing less! They and we, all of us,
    are Canadians! 
    
    Interestinly, most Quebec residents are quite happy to live in
    Canada as Canadians. They only ask to be left alone to embrace their
    heritage. Its only the radicals, educators with influence and a cause,
    vote seeking polititions who are giving and cultivating support
    for their own longevity, not necessarily best interests for the
    good of the counrty. Refering to the analogy of the football team,
    Quebec, like the quarterback, decided to change direction and run 
    toward his own goalpost and declare a score....why?...because someone
    planted a fleur-de-lis in the stadium garden and to score towards its
    direction promotes his cause!
    
    Enough Said!
    
    A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian just like roses!
    
    Written by a Canadian who has pity for Quebec and its inability to
    be a team player.
    
    BD @KAO

    To the best of my knowledge, neither the BNA act nor the Quebec act
    (both Acts of the British Parliament) were actually repealed ... they
    were superceded by an act which gave the constitutional affairs to
    Canada.  So, if you have a non-signatory to the Canadian constitution
    then they must, by default still be under the earlier constitutional
    arrangement vis the BNA and Quebec acts.
    
    It is all very well to tell Quebec to separate, but with a significant
    number of non-separatists in the province, chances are that civil wars
    will ensue.  There will not be federal mediation to stop crises like
    Oka, and the aboriginals insist that only a small amount of land was
    actually ceded to Quebec.
    
    Will the rest of Canada actually stand up to a separated Quebec and
    tell them that they cannot ride on Canada's shirt tails for their
    economy ?  Will the USA extend free trade to Quebec ... from all
    comments I have seen, chances of that are small ?  It looks that
    economic turmoil could result.
    
    The arguments of "Canadian first" are to some extent red-herrings.
    The real criterion come in answering the Question ... Are you proud
    to be a Canadian ?  I couldn't care less if you call yourself French
    Canadian, Ukranian Canadian, Native Canadian, or Fred Smith ... the
    important measurement is showing pride in your country and be willing
    to stand up for it in one way or another (Note I didn't say fight for
    it ... that brings other emotions into play).
    
    I am British and Canadian.  I am proud of my British heritage, but I
    am proud to be a Canadian and wherever I am in the world, and I will
    stand up and say so.
    
    Stuart

    The point is that the constitution is not a treaty that provinces
    signed among themselves.  The Constitution Act of 1982 was an Act of
    the Canadian Parliament, which is the governing body of Canada,
    including Quebec.  
    
    The BNA Act was "patriated" without the unanimous consent of the provinces 
    -- Quebec dissented.  L�vesque went to the table thinking he could ally 
    himself with the western premiers to wrest new powers from the federal
    government.  Trudeau out-manoeuvred him, and managed to get the BNA
    Act, with the addition of the Charter of Rights, etc., under Canadian
    control.
    
    The fact that Quebec remains unreconciled to this is a political fact
    more than a legal one.  
    
    -Stephen 

    (The British Parliament also participated in this exercise, of course,
    passing legislation that transferred the BNA Act to Canadian control.)
    
    -Stephen

    To: Jean D.
    
    Please provide historical FACT that Quebec (or for that matter the
    other regions of Canada before 1867) was ever a NATION.  Quebec at best
    was a colony of France or Britain, but it has never been a NATION! 
    Deux Nation is a "made in Quebec" fantasy to further the idea that
    Quebec is equal to the rest of Canada - it has no historical or factual
    basis that I am aware.  Provide the facts and I'll be happy to state
    I'm in the wrong.
    
    
    Re: BNA, Quebec Act, 1982 Constitution etc.
    
    The are at least three decisions that say Quebec is covered by the 1982
    Consitution:
    
    1. The Supreme Court of Canada, as a result of a challenge from several
    provinces, said it was legal for Trudreau to patriate the constitution
    unilaterally.  They said it would be against "constitutional convention" 
    (I think this was their phrase) to do it if all provinces (or perhaps a
    significant number) disagreed, but it would be legal.  As a result of 
    this decision, Trudeau entered into further discussions in order to get 
    some provinces to agree and in the end 9 out of 10 did.  Quebec was 
    certainly subject to the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada before 
    1982.
    
    2. The Supreme Court stated Quebec was covered by the 1982 constitution,
    regardless of whether they signed it or not.  I can't remember how the
    decision came about but I'm certain this determination was made.
    
    3. Most telling though is that Quebec has invoked the "Notwithstanding
    Clause" that only came into existence with the 1982 constitution.
    
    
    Regards,
    
    Lockyer

    Gary,
    
    Yes, in Canada's terms, Quebec is a party to the constitution even
    though it is not a signatory.  The precedent of Quebec using the
    notwithstanding clause and certain elements of the Charter of Rights
    is an indication that it actually accepts that it is a party to
    the constitution, whether it signed or not.
    
    It would have been possible for Quebec to claim that it was a part of
    Canada under the terms of previous acts.  The fact that it has used
    the current constitution has to be considered the equivalent of being
    a signatory.  Rather like the idea that by signing and using a new
    credit card, you accept the terms and conditions associated with that
    card.
    
    So by precedent I have been shown that any reference now to earlier
    acts to define Quebec's existence in Canada is a red-herring (thanks
    to Stephen Burridge).
    
    Stuart

    Garry is right that the amendments made to the constitution in 1982 did
    not require Quebec's consent to be valid for all of Canada, including
    Quebec.  I think your references to Quebec being a "signatory" and
    indicating whether or not it's a "party to the constitution", Stuart,
    are still abit misleadiung.  I think it would take a unilateral
    declaration of independence, or something of the sort, for Quebec to
    have tha t degree of autonomy.
    
    Quebec's "lost veto" of 1982 is one of the things it has been seeking
    to regain in subsequent negotiations.  
    
    -Stephen

    I know what you are saying ... I just get the impression we are
    falling over the use of words ...
    
    Being a party to is not the same as being a signatory of.  One could
    say that by actually "using" the terms of the constitution that they
    did not physically sign, they have "virtually" signed it!
    
    Stuart