Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | Share

Fathers for Life Site-Search

Site Map (very large file)
Table of Contents
Children—Our most valued assets?
Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
Child Support
Civil Rights & Social Issues
Family Law
Destruction of Families
Divorce Issues
Domestic Violence
Gay Issues
Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
Help Lines for Men
Law, Justice and The Judiciary
Mail to F4L
Men's Issues
The Politics of "Sex"
Our Most Popular Pages
Email List
References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001


Much to celebrate in No vote

Canada dodged a bullet when we rejected entrenching whiners' rights


Much to celebrate in No vote: Canada dodged a bullet when we rejected entrenching whiners' rights

Sun 27 Oct 2002
Page: A18

Ten years ago Saturday, Canada dodged an enormous bullet -- the Charlottetown accord.

By a margin of 7.4 million to 6.1 million, Canadians said No to that elite-driven mishmash of special interest pandering in only the third national referendum in our history. They -- we -- said No decisively -- 54 per cent to 45 per cent (one per cent of ballots were spoiled) -- despite one of the most expensive and blatant propaganda campaigns in our history. Or perhaps because of it.

The Yes side outspent the No side by a ratio of 12 to 1 in perhaps the best Canadian example ever that big money does not taint the outcome of elections, at least not a lot. In addition to the millions spent by the official committees, Ottawa spent tens of millions more than usual on government advertising. There were extra tourism ads that summer and fall boasting about Canada's natural beauty, culture and nightlife ('Moose Jaw: You'll come for the scenery; you'll stay for the cabbage rolls and after-hours leather bars.').

There were special ads honouring our peacekeepers and ads commemorating our selection by the UN as the world's finest country in which to live. The appearance of these commercials during the campaign was not coincidental.

Every establishment figure, or so it seemed, every parliamentary party (Reform, with just one seat, was not, as yet, a recognized caucus), every major business and cultural group backed a Yes. Actors, cowboy crooners and opera tenors, comedy troupes, retired hockey heroes, academics, rock bands, poets and entrepreneurs all flogged the elite line, ad nauseam: Charlottetown was good for Canada. Its rejection would destroy us.

How could it not be so? All the really smart people were on board. Only Reform and the National Action Committee for the Status of Women stood opposed among nationally recognized organizations.

Even that year's World Series figured in the campaign. The Blue Jays won two days before the vote, bringing Canada its first-ever major league title. Commentators predicted the victory would "unite Canadians from coast to coast," and push the Yes side over the top. The tickertape parade was scheduled for voting day and given live national coverage. And Prime Minister Brian Mulroney flogged the Jays as hard has he could as heroes for "all Canada."

Still the deal flopped.

With its recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, its social charter and its codification of group "rights," it would have permanently placed one province ahead of the rest, entrenched welfare as a constitutional right and forever permitted politically powerful groups who like to see themselves as perpetual victims -- aboriginals, feminists, visible minorities, gays -- to trump everyone else's rights to freedom of speech, association, property and conscience.

Of course, since 1992, Canada's courts have pretty much entrenched the entire group rights agenda -- some groups are just more equal than others -- via judge-made law. But absent the amendments Charlottetown would have foisted on the Constitution, there at least remains the faint hope that future, less intrusive and activist courts can be persuaded to roll back the most egregious aspects of this agenda.

Negotiators for the Alberta government who I knew and admired at the time (and admire still), such as then-deputy premier Jim Horsman, bitterly proclaimed after the successful No vote that Senate reform was probably off the table for good. Premier Don Getty -- who was no good on fiscal matters, but not bad on the Constitution file -- said "I was there and I know how tough it was (to get Ottawa and the other provinces to agree to an elected Senate), and I don't see it coming back."

Seven years later, in the winter of 1999, standing in a hotel conference room in Ottawa at the first United Alternative assembly (the precursor to the Canadian Alliance), I watched a mostly Reform party crowd adopt a 2-E Senate plank in the vain hope of attracting central Canadian Tories to their new entity. This appeasing dilution was proposed by Triple-E Committee founder Bert Brown and seconded by elected senator-in-waiting Ted Morton. And as I watched the third E being flushed away for the sake of political expediency, I recalled Getty's foreshadowing and wondered if he wasn't being shown to be prescient.

Still, it is unlikely the third E would ever have been achieved through Charlottetown, either. The Senate in the accord was weak and the veto of future constitutional changes post-Charlottetown was strong. I remain convinced Charlottetown would have given us, in perpetuity, a partially elected Senate, with diminished powers, and a seat allocation that favoured Atlantic and Central Canada.

I still recall with great joy and relief the night the accord died.

Lorne Gunter
Columnist, Edmonton Journal
Editorial Board Member, National Post

Index to some of Lorne Gunter's articles

On global Warming

On other issues

whiterose.gif (6796 bytes)The White Rose
Thoughts are Free

Posted 2002 09 04