Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTimes Advocate, 1992-10-21, Page 5Times -Advocate, October 21, 1992 ." Page S Yes or No... It's up to You tette: to Eftito Views of Alliance Quebec Dear Editor: ' Alliance Quebec is a community organization representing English- speaking people from all parts of Quebec. We represent a community that has been discussed, cited acrd -mistreated in a variety of ways in the recent constitutional past. We have a lot at stake in these constitutional discussions. And that is why Alliance Quebec has put three years of diligent ef- fort into developing a consensus for constitutional re- form across Canada. We are trying to build a better place for our community in Quebec and in Canada. We have explained our situation and what the exi- gencies of living in Quebec are. The important, and pressing concems of English-speaking Quebecers are nu- merous. Some of our concerns are constitutional, and some are not. How- ever, they are all focused around the fact that we want to be able to as- sume a rightful, secure and participatory place in a changing Quebec societj . We maintain that distinct society recognition goes along with a parallel recognition of the English-speaking community in Quebec. As residents of this province, and as Canadians, we know that Quebec is a distinct so- ciety. We also know Canada has two official language communities. We have no hesitation in saying that recognition of both of these realities is required. In the Charlottetown Agreement, for the fust time in Canadian history, we have achieved a balance of these two ideas. "Distinct society" recog- nizes Quebec and the "linguistic duality" provision in the proposed Cana- da Clause recognizes the important and participatory place of the English- speaking community in Quebec. This a significant step forward for us. It is a clear indication of a funda- mentally changing dynamic in Quebec society. It is said that politics is ordinary people being acted upon by extraordi- nary forces. In this case those forces are the div gent needs of individual Canadians. Furthermore, it is said that politics .s people making difficult decisions in imperfect situations. The Charlottetown Agreement is certain- ly one of them. The extent to which this agreement is a step forward is reflected in the breadth of consensus that was reached. This agreement meets with the ap- proval of leaders form all parts of the country and representatives of a cross section of our society. Alliance Quebec is encouraging all English-speaking Quebecers to sup- port this agreement. Furthermore, we believe members of the majority French-speaking community in Quebec should support the Charlouetown Agreement. We feel that the agreement will best equip them to realize their dreams and to face their challenging future within Canada. We believe the same is true for all Canadians. We believe the Charlotte- town Agreement is the combined vision of all Canadians at this moment in our history. You can't help but support that. Yours sincerely, Robert J. Keaton, President, Alliance Quebec From the desk of Nklik- MP Murray Cardiff On October 26th, 1992, you must answer a very important ques- tion: "Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be re- newed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 199?" Individually, Canadians are being asked to decide how they feel about their country. Together, they are being asked to decide its fu- ture as a nation. Over the past two years, all levels of government have been con- sulting Canadians about their views on the Constitution. In the Cana- da Round of constitutional talks, people from all walks of life were asked what they wanted their Constitution to reflect. In fact, the agreement reached in August is the result of the most extensive pro- cess of consultation ever held by a Canadian government. That process included the Citizen's Forum on Canada's Future, in which some 400,0(X) people took part, and six national policy con- ferences. Hundreds of other people and groups took part in commit- tee hearings and task forces in the provinces and territories. And thousands more wrote letters to their govemmenes. Federal, provincial and territorial leaders, along with the national Aboriginal leadership, have met regularly since last March and kept Canadians informed every step of the way..As the honourable John Turner said in the House of Commons on September 10, "...lt hap- pens to be the document (Charlottetown Consensus) resulting from hours and days and months of strenuous negotiations finally culmi- nating with our democratically elected leaders from every part of the country agreeing on this consensus. For that reason it deserves our support" The agreement they reached at Charlottetown is good for Canada. It is fair and reasonable for all provinces and for all regions. Every part of the country will benefit if it is approved as the basis for re- newing our Constitution. The agreement will help keep us united and strong. 1t will let us put our problems with the Constitution behind us, so we can focus all our attention on building a brighter future for our young people. In short, a favourable conclusion to the referendum, will give us the political and economic stability we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The agreement represents honourable compromise on the part of 17 different parties representing a wide range of interests. It is that spirit which has marked our history and which has helped make Canada, according to the United Nations, the best country in the world in which to live. Before you help decide the future of Canada on October 26, it is very important to inform yourself about the agreement and what it means. The text of the agreement is being made available to all Ca- nadians, and I urge you to read it, as well as, the Fall 1992 House- holder I just recently sent to your home . I am confident that after you do, you will make a well informed decision. 1+1 Letters to Editor Vote 'No' and make It count, says Zurich man ZURICH - A Zurich man and member of the Reform Party says he has many reasons for voting 'No' next Tuesday. One of them is the all -or - nothing format of the referendum itself. "1 would rather vote on the individual questions," said David Schilbe. "Why would they give us a package?" Schilbc is also critical of the government's stance on the outcome of the vote, saying that since the referendum is non-binding, the government will find a way to push a new constitution through, regardless of the outcome. Schilbc notes that since there wasn't a referendum called on the original Meech Lake Accord, he can only assume that the influence of the Reform Party has convinced the government that the public needs to be consulted on major national issues. His main disagreements include the Canada Clause. "How can you give equality for provinces when you give certain areas distinct society status...that's a contradiction in itself," claimed Schilbe, who also said he has grave doubts that the new "triple -E" senate can really be effective when defeat of a bill means it goes back the House of Com- mons and can eventually be pushed through. Ontario and Quet : were originally dead against the triple -E senate, said Schilbc, meanin the concept must have been weakened to suit those provinces. "What Bob Rae did was he cut off his right arm to leave his left arm working," he states. Schilbe also.says the referendum won't mean an end to years of constitu- tional wrangling as some leaders have promised. He refers to MP Murray Cardiff's statement on the issue: "'There may be improvement in it (agreement) as the decadePunfold'," reads Schilbc. "Decades, give me a break." Schilbe agreed that the referendum does give a basis to work out a con- stitutional reform, but added "by doing this, the people will not have the chance to work out the bad points," he said, in reference to the locked -in number of senate scats, Quebec's percentage of commons seats, and the number of judges on the Supreme Court. Schilbe said the country should always be governed by representation, and this agreement does not allow for future growth in British Columbia, Alberta, or other provinces. Schilbe disagreed with the prime minister's predictions the country could fall apart if the agreement fails. He said Quebec's separatists aren't interested in taking power away from other provinces, as this agreement does, they only want separate language laws, and some institutions - things other Canadians likely would not disagree with. Schilbe also disagrees with the principles for aboriginal self-government as set out in the deal. He said there is no guideline for what such a gov- ernment would cost or who would be paying for it. In all, Schilbc says he is not just siding with Reform Party leader Pres- ton Manning. He has studied the agreement for himself and found it lack- ing. "That's not why I'm against it. because I'm a reformer. It's just a bad and unresolved deal for the government," he said. Schilbe also encourages people to cast their votes properly and not to spoil ballots as a form of protest. "Please do not spoil your ballot, because if you do, it means you're upset with the situation...that means two votes for the 'Yes' side," he said. What does 'Yes' or 'No' vote really mean? Dear editor: What does your 'Yes' or your 'No' vote really mean`' Does 'yes' mean that all doubt is set to rest and we can get on with the issues that truly matter to Canadians? Does 'no' mean that all our politi- cal leaders will resign, and we'll divide inevitably into four or five countries? Combined with all the logic and reason we can possibly bring to this discussion, we now add emotion. It started with the Prime Minister who said that those who vote 'No' are enemies of Can- ada.. What nonsense! Even he must now realize that many decent, loy- al, thoughtful Canadians will vote 'No' on Monday. He is right inso- far as there arc people in Quebec who -want to break up this country. Parizeau's philosophy blatantly stated is an 'independent Quebec financed by the rest of Canada' But there arc also English- speaking Canadians who say that this is the last straw; Quebec will never be satisfied; let them go. 1 have read, listened and watched a great deal over the last few weeks. I have talked, asked questions and been preached at. 1 have done a great deal of thinking and have made several observa- tions -before coming to the conclu- sion that satisfies mc. 1. If any one says he doesn't have enough information to make an informed decision, he's been ig- noring TV, radio, newspapers, fli- ers and talk in the street. Talks have gone on for 10 years and re- ports arc issued daily if not hourly. You may indeed be confused be- cause of the unknown, but you have all the information you need. realizing that a great deal of 'frac tuning' will be done if the referen- dum passes. 2. There really are decent people on both sides of the issue, and so personal invective has no place in the debate. 3. Too many people look at the Constitution with a 'what's in it for me attitude - 1 didn't get enough.' 4. The criterion that we shouldn't be having a vote all all is dramatically overshadowed by the forces that say we should have a voice in inc final decision - it is too important to leave to the politi- Cians. Giving the people a right to express themselves is a major risk, .„but it is an opportunity to reveal your strength as well. 5. It's really very easy to find foolish reasons to vote 'No': i) 'single-action .self-serving shriekers' with one issue have lost all credibility; a) the National Action Com- mittee for the Status of Wom- en don't see women's 'rights' addressed; women have the sante 'rights' as men - there's absolutely no need for special guarantees; Western social evolution has placed -women in leadership positions and elected them to roles where they wield power. b) gays claim they are ig- nored; c) minority groups claim their rights are not addressed; d)- the sovereignists say they didn't get enough; some Eng- lish-speaking Canadians say they got too much; ii) some say, "I'm against it be- cause Brian Mulroney's for it." This issue is too big for petti- ness. He's for it, and so are all the leaders of all the major po- litical paries. 6. There is a strong, solid voice on the 'No' side, based on the fun- damental principles of democracy as we know it. Simply put, no group, individual or province should have special status. Our tra- ditional view of democracy is threatened by clauses in the pro- posed Constitution. Presently our country and provinces arc divided into constituencies with one person voting for whom he believes is the best candidate, and the voice of the people as reflected in their repre- sentative is (or should be) supreme. Now representatives may be select- ed based on sex, and an appointed court of 9 judges will rule in the fu- ture on many of the clauses and could easily over -ride the will of Parliament. 7. The reasons to vote 'yes' arc difficult to articulate, All provincial and federal leaders, like most politi- cians of all parties, certainly the ones I've met, mean well, are thoughtful and sincerely want what's best of the country. They argued, compromised and finally reached a consensus, the first in Ca- nadian history. All approached the bargaining table with, I'm certain, a fixed bottom line but with the com- ments of the people from the three cross -Canada tours ringing in their ears. After reading the document, 1 see that all had to give up some- thing.: i) the West got an effective. elected Senate which Quebec and Ontario opposed; ii) Quebec got a statement on its distinct society and a guar- antee of 25 percent of the seats in Parliament which many pre- miers opposed; iii) natives got the promise of self-government which Quebec and others opposed but many chiefs.believe did not go far enough; iv) the Federal Government isn't as strong, but it retains the important powers it should. Alter weighing all arguments, 1 conclude that in spite of personal reservations, the unknown negative reaction to 'No' vote is too great, and I don't believe for a moment that Quebec is holding us hostage - what did it get that's going to affect you or your grandchildren? A 'No' vote cannot possibly force these leaders to negotiate a 'better' deal tomorrow. I believe that for good or bad, it doesn't get any better. The perceptions cause me a great deal of concern. A 'No' vote will probably be interpreted in Quebec as a rejection of them. A 'No' vote will suggest to the world that the Country's next step is disintegra- tion. (It might suggest the sante thing to many of us). The 'No' sup- porters will see the vote as a rejec- tion of Quebec's final 'ultimatum' and say, in effect, "If you want to leave, what are your terms?" Inves- tors will probably see us as a poor risk, and we are all presently expe- riencing the effect of investor doubt. A 'Yes' vote will reinforce the notion, to which most of us subscribe that we do have some- thing good here and that Canada is, what the rest of the world believes, a tremendous country with oppor- tunity, a respect for cultural diver- sity, optimism and a wealth of spir- it second to none. After a lot of thought, I'm voting 'Yes' on Monday. I hope you'll join me. Bruce Shaw Mayor, Town of Exeter 4 Vote "no" on October 26 Dear Sir, How many more times must English speaking Canada give in to Quebec? Whenever Quebec wants some preferential treatment, which is most of the time. English Canada is made to look like the .bad guys for not wanting to give them everything that they demand. We are threatened with dire conse- quences if- we don't agree, this time it's the referendum. I don't believe that a "NO" vote will have negative effects on Can- ada's economy or on any other as- pect. All it means is put the sub- ject on the back burner for a while and have another go at it, if neces- sary. atter we've got rid of111 the Mulroney and recession prof - !ems. Quebec will keep on making de- mands well into the future, so I say that a "NO" vote will have a posi- tive effect in the long run. It will show Quebec that we have had enough and they can either accept their lot or leave. I would rather sec 4 Quebec as part of Canada, but not at any price. I know that there are lots of other Constitutional changes planned (some of these also undesirable), but to me, the unacceptable con- cessions proposed for Quebec, far outweigh the other topics by their importance. To the 'undecided' I say read Pe- ter Hessel's column "Peter's Point" in the TA and also go back a couple of issues. Vote No on October 26' Yours sincerely John Sanderson Exeter One Excuse for further wheeling and dealing? Dear Editor: Much as I value and respect Joe Wooden's saga- cious insights, I nevertheless disagree with some of his opinions as expressed in his letter to the T.A. on October 14 last. The issue central to my negative atti- tude towards the Charlottetown Accord is' one of which Mr, Wooden is better informed than most - EDUCA- TION. Presently education is the responsibility of each indi- vidual Provincial Government. As a result we have a situation where almost all provinces provide money, often substantial, to schools other than public or Ro- 'man Catholic. One province in this respect remains "unique": Ontario. Various Ontario Governments have consistently de- nied appeals by the Jewish Congress and the Protestant Independent Schools for their fair share of the educa- tional tax --dollar. The latest denial occurred this past August when the General Division of the Ontario Court again ruled in favour of the Government. However, it is interesting to note some of the state- ments made by Mr. Justice William Anderson at that time. He said, "I am much in sympathy with the posi- tion of the applicants. There arc few things which touch a parent more closely than the appropriate educa- tion of their children. To feel oneself at the disadvan- tage in giving effect to that concern produces a very real sense of grievance." At some other point Mr. Jus- tice Anderson stated that he sympathized with the par- ents of children of religious minorities and:that, in a le- gal sense, their rights were being dis- criminated against. In a poignant article entitled 100 1 Flowers Bloom - But Not in Ontario, Robert Sheppard recently wrote in the Globe and Mail: "The Ontario Premier and his fellow Now Democrats have been staunch proponents of something called a social charter, a new covenant that would en- shrine our common values as Canadians - what we owe to each other. But what exactly is such a cove- nant worth when a Government can elect to support the schools of one religious group. Roman Catholic, but not of another. And when it can even acknowledge the inherent discrimination, of the situation? It is for this reason that many Canadians cannot ac- cept the Charlottetown Accord. It would devolve even greater powers to Provincial Governments, thereb making education an even greater political football than it already is. As a foot note 1 would remind my fellow -Canadians on October 26 we are not asked to vote Yes or No (Oui ou Non) on the Charlottetown Accord. We are asked whether it should be the BASIS of a renewed Constitution. We have NO guarantee that any or all of the Accord will be incorporated. It could be an excuse for further wheeling and dealing. This is God's country Dear Editor: Be positive! I am proud of my heritage but also a proud Canadian. So knock it off with your multi culttuism, ca- tering to those who do not care to become fully Canadian. Politicians who also give in to the demands of special interest groups created the mess we are in today. Judy Rebrick calls the women a minority group while they mala up 52 percent of the population. Her group and those who follow her are in the minority because of L.C. deHaan Exeter her negative the Charlottetown agreement as the ways. Propagat- foundation which will bring hope ing a "No vote and give dignity to all p a who fits her to a T. are fortunate to call Canada their I am not advocat home. What ever language we ing that we should speak, let us be one in spirit and neglect groups or generous in our ways and have individuals and not look enough confidence to say "Yes" so after their needs and rights. we can truthfully say "this is God's We only have to look at our na- Country." Live sisters and brothers who were Sincerely, largely iporW in the past. They Adrian Kett, struggled too long for what was Box 11, 106 Clyde St. rightly theirs. a place at the table. Bluevale, Ont. NOG 100 Courageously they have accepted