Saturday, October 24, 1992 a OurViEWS ‘No’ forces celebrate n the days preceding a nation- [ve vote on the Charlottetown ee, the ‘No’ forces seem to be celebrating. Claiming to be the champions of democracy, these nay-sayers have successfully managed to put regionalism and self-interests above the good of a nation. The ‘No’ forces will win the battle over the Charlottetown Agreement when the polls close this Monday. ONOMIC COUSTITUTIONAL ENDUM AIGAWAY And they will win not because they effectively argued that a better deal is in the works, but because they installed fear in the hearts of ordinary Canadians by selectively intrepreting pockets of the Charlottetown Agreement to serve their own quasi-political ends. The Charlottetown Agreement isn’t a perfect document — anyone that has taken the time to read the 51- page legal text will admit that. But to dismiss the compromising efforts of 10 premiers, two territorial leaders, aboriginal leaders and Canada’s major political parties as a waste of time is a statement of malice. These leaders have presented us with an opportunity to unite a troubled nation if we choose to. Unfortunately, though, this won’t happen. On Monday, the Charlottetown Agreement will be defeated. And it will be defeated not because it couldn’t have worked, but because we didn’t want it to work. Conundrum no more, I’m voting yes I’ve solved my conundrum. that can only be bridged by Regular readers of this col- umn will recall that a few weeks back I wrote about how I had several concerns with the Charlottetown Accord. The problem was, I also had con- cerns with the absence of a deal. I called it the constitution- al conundrum and it had me leaning first toward the Yes side and then toward the No side. Well, it’s a conundrum no more. I am voting Yes on Mon- Comments from the Crossroads compromise. And this accord is as good a compromise as any. In fact, it’s my fear — I hate using that word be- cause it conjures up all sorts of images of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney ripping up a piece of paper (I bet that was really his grocery list and not the Charlottetown Accord), but there’s no other way to describe how I feel — that re- jecting this package will day. And far from holding my nose while voting on this new constitutional framework, I am a solid Yes supporter. In fact, I become more convinced of the deal as the debate wears on. That’s the irony. I thought the issues would be muddied by the tidal wave of information and free-time propa- ganda; by the downpour of politicians and spe- cial interest groups; by the media saturation. On the contrary, the issue became crystal clear: we have deep divisions in this country leave little room for compro- mise in the near future. Cer- tainly not in the next year or two. And maybe not in the next 10 years. Here’s why: The No forces’ demands in the West — in particular British Columbia’s de- mands — are almost the exact opposite of the No forces’ demands in Quebec. And as the respective No forces in Quebec and the West rally support, their positions be- come more entrenched than ever. please see NORMAN page 7 Street TALK Dennis Krahn Castlegar Kathleen Pinckney Castlegar “Yes and it has definitely helped me decide.” “Yes. I feel comfortable voting.” Bev Pinney Salmo “No. Anything I’ve read hasn’t been explicit enough.” Steven Ross Rossland “Yes. We’re being bombarded from all sides.” Question: Have you received enough information to vote on Monday’s national referendum? Laurie Wilson Castlegar “No. Pm not sure what a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ really means.” @ Saturday, October 24, 1992 OtherVIEWS |! Please address all letters to: Letters to the Editor Castlegar News P.O. Box 3007 Castlegar, B.C. V1N 3H4 or deliver them to 197 Columbia Ave. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and not longer than 300 words. Letters MUST be signed and include the writer's first and last names, address and a telephone number at which the writer can be reached between 9am. and5 p.m. The writer's name and city or town of residence only will be published. Only in exceptional cases will letters be published anonymously. Even in those cases, the name, address and phone number of" the writer MUST be disclosed to the editor. The News reserves the right to edit letters for brevity, clarity, legality, grammar and taste. Letters tow e ED ITO R Pedestrian concerns being ignored by city The following is a letter written to Mayor Audrey Moore on July 5 with a postscript added on Sept. 5. I mentioned this letter to Mrs. Moore at the Kiwanis Duck Race at Pass Creek Park on Aug. 2 and she said it had been referred to staff. As of this date (Oct. 20) there has been no acknowledgement of this letter other than my brief conversation with Mrs. Moore on Aug. 2. Have the problems reported on in the Price Waterhouse report really been resolved when a letter written over three months ago still hasn’t been answered. eee This letter is in regard to the traffic light at the corner of Columbia Avenue and Third Street, and is a letter I’ve been intending to write for some time. As you are possibly aware, if the light is in the countdown stages to changing and if a pedestrian arrives at the light and presses the pedestrian button, the light changes to allow vehicular traffic but not pedestrian traffic. (The pedestrian button has to be pushed some little time in advance of a light change.) This results in people crossing with the green light without benefit of the pedestrian signal. As well, it sometimes means (as it did on the afternoon of July 5) that people push the pedestrian button, see the light change to green (but not the pedestrian light illuminating) and they then wait, meaning they “miss” an opportunity to cross and have to wait while traffic goes against them before it again gives them the opportunity of crossing. My belief is that pedestrian traffic is heavy enough that the pedestrian light should be set to illuminate whenever the green traffic light first goes on. I’d appreciate the city’s thoughts after you’ve had a chance to look into this. Burt Campbell, Castlegar It’s high time for our officials to show responsibility The Ministry of Forests came to Glade recently to talk about watershed logging. Glade is a Scottish word meaning “a grassy place in the forest”. The ministry officials cleared the decks in the first few minutes, with this comment: “We are not here to decide whether to log or not to log in Glade Creek watershed. That decision was made a long time ago — we didn’t make it. This area has been. part of the timber supply area for years, meaning all of this area could be subject to logging.” In other words, “We are not responsible for this decision. Our goal here is to set up a technical committee with the residents to discuss how to log, not whether to log.” Maybe this committee will be able to delay this decision, or maybe they will only keep the residents busy while a road is being built into the logging area. The residents of Glade and Thrums also came to this meeting with a position — no logging in Glade Creek watershed. Many people voiced this position, in many different ways. But the residents of Glade were only given the option of a technical committee. Local MLAs Ed Conroy and Corky Evans were at the Glade meeting too, which is commendable. But they provided no comfort to the residents with their position: “We need the Glade residents and ministry officials to get together in a committee to discuss how to do this proposed logging right. We have to cut trees in watersheds now because all other areas have been cut over already.” Corky Evans ran down a list of other communities that also faced logging in their watersheds. Was anyone listening to the pleas for “no logging” in those areas? Atco Lumber representatives were also at the meeting, but they didn’t provide much comfort to the residents of Glade. They wouldn’t say whether the small cutblocks proposed would be all the logging in Glade Creek watershed, or just the beginning. There was a lot of talk of responsibility — who was responsible for the logging decision, who is responsible for policing the activities of the logging companies? The definition of “responsibility” is “to be answerable or accountable, the ability to meet obligations or duties.” Seems like no one at the meeting wanted to be responsible for the decision to log in Glade Creek watershed. Can we expect anyone to be responsible if damage to the water supply results from logging? As ordinary people become more aware of the “big lie” about the state of our forests after years of terrible logging practices, these people are starting to demand responsibility for these practices. Logging companies and politicians have been avoiding this responsibility for years. The response of ministry officials and our local MLAs now does not approach responsibility. Somehow the system has to respond to the very public input it seeks from the residents, and stop this logging. When asked what options the people had that opposed the logging of Glade Creek watershed, ministry officials cited examples of Hasty Creek (83 people arrested) and Lasca Creek (75 people arrested) as what could happen when residents reject a technical committee and take other measures. Some option! Do 300 Glade residents need to be arrested to get someone to listen? Will this change the decision to log? True responsibility here — to the Earth, to the plants and animals and people of Glade Creek watershed — would be for government officials and politicians to stand up and say: “We are going to reverse this decision.” True responsibility would be recognizing that water — the essence of life — is of priceless value in a clean state, and that the forests that keep this water clean should be protected in watersheds. Let’s stop playing God here! Thomas Munson ms Norman continued from pege 6 And the leaders — political or otherwise — touting those posi- tions cannot very well deviate from them without feeling the wrath of their followers. And why would they want to? These positions have won them support. So we are faced with a stale- mate. The West saying Quebec is getting too much; Quebec saying it is getting too little. Aboriginal people saying the ac- cord doesn’t go far enough in guar- anteeing sovereignty; non-natives saying the accord sets aboriginal people apart from the rest of Cana- dians. How do you reconcile these op- posing points of view, especially when both sides are digging in their heels? You don’t. And that’s what worries me. I simply don’t believe the No forces when they say they: can come up with a better constitu- tional package that will satisfy both Quebec and the West, both natives and non-natives. How can they satisfy one with- out creating dissatisfaction with the other? The Charlottetown Accord at- tempts to do that, with the support of all 10 premiers, the leaders of the two territories, native leaders, and the leaders of the three major federal parties, along with labor (the Canadian Labor Congress) and business (The Canadian Chamber of Commerce). That’s a significant achieve- ment in anybody’s book. So, the stronger the No forces become in this country, the more I believe this accord is a good deal. But that’s not the only reason. I’ve also come to realize that you can’t understand the accord in isolation. It’s all well and good to read the accord and legal text cov- er to cover, but more is required. For instance, reading the accord alone, you would believe that Que- bec is getting unique status with the promise of a minimum 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. Something no other province gets, right? Wrong? In fact, the present constitution guarantees a minimum number of seats to four provinces and two ter- ritories. And if we had strict rep- resentation by population — as some on the No side demand — most of the MPs would come from Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. When I was still trying to make up my mind about the new pack- age, I found the most persuasive arguments for the deal came from three people: Constitutional Af- fairs Minister Joe Clark, New- foundland Premier Clyde Wells and former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed. Each in his own way addressed my concerns: about Quebec’s dis- tinct society (undefined in the Meech Lake agreement, but de- fined in the Charlottetown pack- age); about aboriginal self-govern- ment (much of which is still to be negotiated — as it should be); and about the Triple E Senate (which Lougheed believes will be more ef- fective than most anticipate). So there you have it. Mark me ‘down for a Yes.