Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTimes Advocate, 1992-10-07, Page 4Page 4 limes -Advocate, October 7, 1992 Publisher: Jim iaeoke v News Editor: Adrian mane «n. Bushness Mantlger. Don Smith nn Composition Manager: Deb lord to non latter smiler addresees $20.00 pies $2.10 G.S.T. Oetsido 40 miles (85 ken.) or wry totter earlier address WNW 40 Nies (65 lon.) addressed Opinion. ..., _, 1 Publications MRN $setatretion Number 0386 SLBfiCRLPTIAN RATES_ CANADA I ' "C Outside Canada $88.00 1111111111211113111111111 Do we need council's opinion? T hree cheers for Grand Bend deputy -mayor Cam Ivey. While sitting across from fellow council member Phil Maguire Monday night, Ivey said a referendum in Cana- da is not necessary. What promoted Ivey's comments was a suggestion by Maguire that the vil- lage take a recorded vote and officially say as a council it supports a YES vote in the October 26 referendum. Among other things, Ivey argued that the elected national politicians should be deciding the fate of the country and it shouldn't be up to a vote for all. But that wasn't Ivey's best point which was quickly agreed upon by councillor Ed Fluter. And that was, that the village council is a representative of the Grand Bend voters and should not be trying to influ- ence them to vote either YES or NO. Don't get them wrong, Maguire should be commended for displaying a great deal of concern for the fate of this country. We need more of that. Coup- cil did take up his suggestion and decid- ed they officially supported the YES campaign. But taking an official stand on an issue on which everyone is asked to make his or her own choice does not seem to be the duty of a municipal council. While councillor Bill Uniac said the villagers look to them to provide leader- ship, the purpose of the referendum is so we all have to make up our own minds on this. Fluter summed up the discussion quite well on Monday night when he said, "we represent the constituents of the community and we have no idea how they feel. It's something that should come from individuals, outside of poli- tics." A council elected to decide municipal matters should not be dictating a stance on a federal issue. But as it stands, their position on the issue has been noted by Grand Bend residents, who can then draw their own conclusions. F.G.G. NO to the destruction of Canada PEreR'S POINT is a humour .column, and my faithful readers expect me to pull their leg regu- larly That's what I usually try to do. However, once in a while I am compelled to take my funny hat off and talk to you seriously. Please forgive me: in this week's column and for the fol- lowing two weeks, I will not be flippant, but serious and sincere. I feel so strongly about the pres- ervation of Canada that 1 will come to my point bluntly and directly. I will vote NO in the referen- dum on October 26th because I do NOT want Canada to be de- stroyed. And I .fear that .the .ac- ceptance of the so-called Char- lottetown Accord - really the Charlottetown Charade - would spell the end of the Canada 1 love. I will vote NO because the proposed changes in our Consti- tution would fundamentally al- ter the political, cultural and so- cial fibre of our nation. We are the envy of the world. Wc have welcomed people from every region of the globe and offered them a home and safe harbour. Why did .they choose Canada? Because this country has a world-wide repu- tation for political stability, a high standard of living, a fair so- cial system, a rich cultural mo- saic. They did not come to Onta- rio or Manitoba or Nova Scotia. Thcy came to Canada. Canada was meant to have a strong federal government. When Canada was upgraded 'from colonial status to nation- hood, the intention was to build a country with a strong central government. Virtually all impor- tant powers were assigned to thc federal government in Ottawa, while the provinces had jurisdic- tion only over relatively minor regional affairs. To allow the preservation of the French language and culture in Quebec, certain special ar- Peter's Point • Peter Helsel rangements were made in that .province. What has happened to the principle of a strong federal government? Over the years, federal authority has been whit- tled away, often to please Que- bec. Because Quebec wanted and received more and more special consideration, the other provinces wanted and received more and more powers, too. YES vote: the end of Canadian unity The constitutional deal worked out in Charlottetown, in August 1992 would virtually end the unifying role of the fed- eral government. Canada would deteriorate from a federal state to a loose union of semi- independent provinces. The au- thority for important national in- stitutions, such as the Canada Council, National Museums, the National Film Board, the CBC, thc National Library, the Na- tional Archives, etc. would gradually pass from Ottawa to the ten provincial and two terri- torial governments, and the fa- cilities themselves would be de- centralized. Remember what Robert Bourassa told Quebecers L l!ti, r 1.) after the accord was reached: "This is just the fust step in our quest to gain new powers." Slowly but surely, other consti- tutional changes would be de- manded. Other areas of jurisdic- tion, such as employment and immigration, would be handed over to the provinces. What would be the result? Canada would cease to exist as a unified, homogeneous nation, the country would become far more decentalized than even the United States. The provinces would be in charge, while the federal government would be re- duced to operating national de- fence, foreign policy and other services deemed uprnfitable bj the provinces. Quagmire of semi- independent states As long as each province has a responsible, democratic govern- ment with a strong will to re- main part of Canada, such a sys- tem might work. But there is absolutely .no guarantee that all 10 or 12 provincial governments of the future will always adhere to democratic principles. On the contrary, if we accept the Char- lottetown deal, the risk would be extremely high for Canada to end up in a quagmire of semi- independent states with widely differing philosophies, social policies, and cultural priorities. This would spell the end of Canadian unity and stability. In each province the politicians would put provincial interests before the national interest. Es- pecially the poorer provinces would eventually realize that amalgamation with the United States might offer a more viable alternative than remaining with- in such a weakened and ineffec- tive Canada. Referendum info from MPP Dear Editor I would like to inform the peo- ple of Huron County that my of- fice in Clinton can provide infor- mation on the constitutional referendum. Feel free to call 482- 3132 or 1-800-668-9320. It has come to my attention that the toll-free number provided by the Government of Canada is very busy. Several people have come to me saying they we finding it difficult to get through, yet would like to have some inforntatiort. Because of this, I will be pleased to provide the ser- vice. Thank you to the people of Hu - ren County who aro showing an in- terest in this debate. I feel this agreement will create a framework on which we can build our country of Canada. On October 26, I w!(1 be voting YES. I would urge you to do the same. Sincereyaws, Paul Knopp MleP . Hwon '''Men are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely." ... Thomas Maoauley PaUMMd foot Wedmss sjet 424 Ma Exeter,ote., 'i1 pohen 419435 3 id estlM LSI 130 by JAY. E o tr e.T. 08106211111114 Silhouettes and shadows Canadian politics...yes, that is a rather redundant pair of words. Canadians are all poli- tics and very little action. We often criticize the Ameri- cans for voting too much for style and not enough substance. On the other hand, I think we try too hard to find substance where there is very little. Yes, I'm talking about the referen- dum. Who isn't? We're all familiar with the "Flora effect". When Flora MacDonald challenged the likes of Joe Clark and Brian Mulron- ey for the Conservative leader- ship, she went in with all kinds of support. Support that some- how wafted away when it came time to cast the ballots. We haven't yet put the term "Peterson effect" into general usage, but we should. David Peterson's Liberals were a sure thing in 1990. A poll -topping government only needed a rub- ber stamp of approval from the voters for a few more years of power. "Where's the catch?" cried Ontario, and the NDP ran roughshod over the polls. Brian Mulroney, I suspect, is wondering if he is running into a "Peterson effect". A Constitu- tional agreement, widely hailed by the premiers and the feds, needs only a nod from the pub- lic to keep everybody happy. "But where's the catch?" cry 27 million Canadians, and we've all got our reasons why the Charlottetown Accord is a secret bid to undermine our wills. Hold that thought ... By Adrian Harte The funniest thing of all, is that if we do vote "no" on Octo- ber 26, the government won't have the foggiest idea why. Some will have been Quebec separatists, others will be those who delight in the idea of get- ting rid of La Bells Province (ever hear of foreign aid?l. Some will have voted "no" be- cause of the arguments of Pres- ton Manning, Bob Whits, or Pierre Trudeau - regardless of how unlikely it seems for that trio to be on the same side. Some will have voted "no" be- cause either Bob Rae or Brian Mulroney were ein the "yes" side. But the worst, absolute worst. reasons I have heard so far come from the civil servants who will Letter to Editor Alii be voting no because they fear increased unity will eliminate their jobs. A few will have even been so eccentric as to base their "no" vote on an actual analysis of the amendment document itself. They may conceivably disagree with the distribution of senate seats, or the weakening of feder- al power ih favour of the prov- roses. I doubt they will actually admit their reasons to their friends or family for fear of ridi- cule and public humiliation. There is, of course, only one true reason for voting "yes" on October 26. and that is to agree with the amendment formula, as drawn up - that Canada would be, as the premiers say, a better union because of it. This obviously will not fly with the Canadian people. Joe Clark was way off base when he said true Canadians will vote "yes". Trus Canadians are far too suspicious. It's the very na- ture of our system. The Ameri- can president only makes em- passioned speeches at media events. We sec our Prime Min- ister getting heckled like a night club comic on the Parlimentary channel . Theosaddest question is, if the referendum resales in a "no", will we need another one to find out why'' Government should listen Dear Editor: Wc, the people of Canada, con- sisting of cultures, races, colours and creeds from the world around us, standing shoulder to shoulder with thcorignatives of this land, do hereby declare any of all humanity .regard1sseo`thetr age, prosperity, gismo, language preference, or proximity and that this nation will stead united in its cause 10 defend the inalienable rights of all mankind, beteg life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- ness. We place upon our govern- ments, the responsibility to legis- late and administer laws that will govern this Ration in these gaols, to ensure Ibis equality and protect us from those who will not abide by this mandate, within the re- straints of fiscal and turf jgjal mer- it... It would be a relief to see our government listen to ihepeople of this country forae whole concept of refi� Th is to seek out, by public vole. the wish- es of the ,people in laws ort the goveridenment fads toothy io de - their own inun- datea. Ogee Oto. the vermor t Yliteleid be Wend to the reached •they will be bated by of a new goverrvnent and leader- ship. In order to receive a valuable cuoaensus, it is the responbility of the government to present both sides of the issue, so that we, as in- formed voters, can weigh the pros and cons, and make an informed decision. Our court system is bur- dened down with cases in which both sides of the case feel correct in their pursuit A judge must hear both sides of the debate and weigh the evidence that is placed before him/her to make a deci- sion. Why then are we, as a cow*y, being asked to vote on a constitutional package that at the outset is incom- Om in swum, with which the au - dues of this package, being govern- meatally funded, are providing us with only ibe pros and not the cons to this issue? I cart tell you maallOhY dist Ib its early as grade 6, lay .would only mark cam- " weft, not good intention. e aro Was given the impres- dMt a ",ago vote weans "no" to or a *pitying an maps- . %O de determine meal our hears lie widtin then maybe the question that should be asked is "Do you feel that Canada should remain as a ccwntry on its own or should we become additional states of the U.S.A.? My Lanswer would be that this country is worthy of existence, strong as a nation and has a viable future. Since we are going to the expense of having a referendum anyway, why not ask the opinion of the country on the issues of abortion, capital punishment And first and foremost, "Are we satis- fied with the efforts of the ext government?" and "Should an tion be called immediately?" The question that we are being asked will not end constitutional debate. A YES vote will insure;tbe need for an ongoing process of po- litical constitutional wrangling. Whether or not Canadians vote yes or no to the constitutional pp�kcnagge, we must signify that opch Canadian that does exercise their vote are proud Canadians, willing to standup and be counted. It Is our duty, herefore to be informed, to know what it is that we are vot- ing for. It is �gtst forwe have de into What is best for us, rather vetting for what will cause us the )gust amount of harm. SS Hwy DenHaan 8