Saturday, October 10, 1992 @ OurWiEWwS AdrianRAESIDE Dave McCullough Publisher Scott David Harrison Editor Mickey Read Composing Room Foreman Warren Chernoff Accountant Mary Ann Fullerton Circulation Manager Paying the price ust when we thought the oJ istamons Price Waterhouse report was dead and buried, the final bill has come in. oat Brace yourself Castlegar, the city is about to tap into its never-ending public purse to pull out an additional $2,943.64 for a 35-page document that it tried to keep secret. Pencil in the GST and PST, and we can add an extra $382.67 to the final price tag. Imagine, you and your neighbors paid an additional $3,326.31 for a report that originally cost $24,000 because city hall tried to sweep it under the carpet like some kind of dust ball. ; To make matters worse, our city councillors expect us to believe that this long, drawn out process was a useful exercise in open government. Nice try folks. The Price Waterhouse report was never meant for release. It was only through the prodding of The News and a defiant stand by Coun. Kirk Duff that Castlegar was forced to For a document that is rm marking my ballot for Canada I guess it’s safe to say supposed to bring us together, the Charlottetown Accord is sure tearing us apart. The debates range from Quebec is getting too much, to Quebec isn’t getting enough. Why, if you want to quote Moe ‘Got-My-Foot-In- My-Mouth’ Sihota, Quebec enlist the help of Murray Rankin. The $3,326.31 we are paying Rankin is a clear waste of taxpayers’ money. It is a needless expenditure when you consider the council of the day could have released the report from the beginning and accepted its many truths. Clearly, the council of the day erred in its effort to keep the Price Waterhouse report out of the public eye. And, like good little citizens, we are expected-to clean up this financial mess without second thought. “lost.” Wrong, Canada lost... or, at the very least, we are one ‘no’ vote away from losing a country I care dearly about. Don’t accuse me of fear- mongering or being a brow-beater because that’s not my style. Instead, I’m a realist and, as a realist, I know the death of the Charlottetown Accord will be the death of Canada. It may not happen over night, it may not happen in a year, but it will surely happen if we allow narrow-minded, self- centred, closet-bigots to destroy a flawed s.D.HARRISON and oneness. Harrison | 3 Comparison | time to read every piece of but functional deal which promotes unity — that I will be endorsing the Charlottetown Accord, proudly hitching my wagon to the yes side. There are several reasons for my support of the Charlottetown Accord and it’s got nothing to do with the continual rhetoric that is invading my home, my job and my free time. Instead, I’ve taken the literature, attend public forums and talk with just about everyone I know. By no means am I an expert on the Charlottetown Accord, but nor amI a neophyte. In fact, the reason I support the package is not for the package itself but for the people it represents — Canadians. See, I think I’m lucky. I have travelled from coast-to-coast, living in New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. please see HARRISON page 7 StreetfTALK Burt Camp Publisher Emeritus L.V. Campbell Aug. 7, 1947- Feb. 15, 1973 Laurie Moore Castlegar “Yes. Hockey is a big part of my life.” Steve Fuchs Castlegar “I had thought about it. I like watching hockey.” John Wilman Celgar via Kimberley “It’s a good possibility, being that there’s little to do.” “No. ’'m not the interested in sports.” Question: Will you be attending any Castlegar Rebels hockey games this season? Robert Becker Celgar via Surrey Lynn Barker Castlegar “I listen to them on radio, but lightest bit am a I have no idea.” TOF iedinto® vahvw FES vin @ Saturday, October 10, 1992 ‘ OtherVIEWS: Please address all letters to: Letters to the Editor Castlegar News P.O. Box 3007 Castlegar, B.C. V1iN 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 9 a.m. and 5 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 toll E E ae ITO 3a Canadians must look at the whole picture It’s a complex world and made even more so by a citizen’s obligation to decide how to vote in the upcoming referendum on the Charlottetown Accord. Voters in the West Kootenay, as elsewhere in Canada, are using a number of methods to reduce these complexities to simplistic terms which make it easy, but wrong, to decide “No”. Here are some examples: 1. “Negative cherry-picking” method: What we call the “Aha” method of deciding, that is, looking for something in the agreement with which you can disagree (Aha! I’ve found something I dislike) and then jumping on it to the exclusion of everything else. 2. “Settling Political Scores” method: If such and such a politician is associated with this, I don’t want it. E.g. “If Mulroney is behind this it must be bad.” There are ways to settle scores with politicians you don’t like but voting “no” in the referendum is not one of them. 3. “Ignorance-Is-Bliss” method: I don’t know enough about this deal, therefore, I’d better vote “no”. Never has any subject been so exhaustively discussed and written about so this is a hollow excuse. 4. “Follow-the-so-called- leader” method: If Rafe Mair or Pierre Trudeau is against the accord, I should be too. Be careful with this one. Look behind their opposition to their real agendas. 5. “Don’t-Try-To-Push-Me- Around” method: Voting “no” because someone from the “yes” side gets carried away with their rhetoric displaces the real issue which is “what is in the best interests of the country?”. 6. “Preston Manning” method: Based on disguising deep- seated bigotry towards Quebec and rigid right wing ideology in a self-serving rat’s nest of nit- picking and fabricated self- deluding scenarios in order to rationalize a “no”. 7. “What’s-In-It-For-Us” method: Using only parochial self- interest in deciding how to vote. E.g. B.C. may have one less seat than its technical entitlement in the House of Commons in the year 2036, therefore I’m saying “no” to the whole deal. 8. “Civil Service Syndrome” method: This agreement may mean some adjustment or uncertainty in my workplace and therefore, ignoring the overall good of the country, I’m voting “no” to protect my turf. If we as Canadians demonstrate in this our first modern era referendum that we cannot separate extraneous Turf political grievances from the core issues at stake, (i.e. the best overall interest of the country as a whole), that we cannot see the big picture, but instead seize on parochial or partisan targets in deciding how to vote, the whole process will have been a failure and Canada will be much worse off for it. If we cannot successfully bring to a close this period of constitutional change, we have little chance of coping with the demands of a new country. Undoubtedly there are other questionable methods of voting “no” that we haven’t included and we would like to hear from you. If you have suggestions that could be added to the above list, please telephone us at 365- 2566 in Castlegar. Bruce and Nancy Ketchum West Kootenay Yes For Canada Referendum Committee It's time to consider the ‘yes’and ‘no’ positions In order to vote on Oct. 26th, we should balance the arguments on the ‘No’ side against those on the ‘Yes’ side. From the ‘NO’s’ we hear: 1. Quebec will never be satisfied. 2. B.C. will not achieve representation by population because Quebec is guaranteed 25 per cent of the House of Commons. 3. The Senate, though largely elected and equal, will be ineffective. 4. The accord will result in a hierarchy of rights where some groups will be stronger than others. 5. There is no good reason for the requirement of unanimity to change national institutions, while all else can be changed under the 7/50 formula (that is, seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population). 6. A vote for the no will mean the status quo for five years or more. 7. The accord will increase, not end, the constitutional negotiations. 8. No unpleasant economic consequences will flow from a no vote. eee From the YES side we hear: 1. The accord fills the huge gap in our constitution, that is Western alienation, 150 years of injustice to the Native population and the absence of a constitutional guarantee for the continued existence of the French fact in Canada. 2. B.C. will by 1996 have seven more seats and will be within 95 per cent of representation by population. This has never existed before, as smaller provinces have been over-represented and larger under-represented. 3. By a typical Canadian compromise, a deal has been reached between conflicting interests with trade-offs on all sides. 4. All future negotiations will be among members of the same constitutional family and not those left out, as in the past. 5. It is true the separatists in Quebec will never be satisfied, but they will lose their strongest argument, namely that Quebec has been left out of the constitution. 6. Quebec considers it was rejected when it was left out in 1982 and again with the failure of Meech in 1990. A third rejection by a no vote in B.C. or any other province would put them on the road to separation. 7. Some believe that the separation of Quebec would soon lead to some provinces joining the United States. 8. In Quebec, Robert Bourassa is being accused of caving in to the rest of Canada. With the fourth fastest growing province, the 25 per cent guarantee is symbolic only, since there is no likelihood with immigration and a rising birthrate this provision will be of any use to them. 9. An elected Senate with special powers over taxation of resources, control over language and culture, and the right to approve major federal appointments, will have actual, as well as great persuasive power. 10. There will be a great deal more political instability arising from a no vote than a yes vote, with the consequence that foreign investment monies will go elsewhere and our recession will worsen. 11. The no side offers no constructive alternative to the Accord. eee So let each of us consider the above and make our choice, but in doing to let us employ those two Canadian virtues... tolerance and goodwill. B.W.F. McLoughlin Policy Chair Friends of Canada Vancouver Harrison continued from page 6 Most of my moving around came in 1983 thanks to a now- dead program called Katimavik. A Canada-wide youth program, Katimavik brought together young Canadians from coast-to- coast in groups of 12. My group consisted of four French- speaking Canadians and eight Anglophones. For nine consecutive months we ate, worked and lived together, earning $1 a day. The money meant nothing compared’ to the life experiences Katimavik gave me. I entered the program as a rednecked British Columbian, refusing to look east of the Rocky Mountains. That crusty ‘to-heck-with-you’ attitude persisted for about two days — the first time I actually spoke to a Quebecer. I quickly discovered the French enemy that I had grown up believing was out to get me was out to get nothing but respect for a language, a culture and a way of life. (Quite similar to Natives, when you think about it.) Following Katimavik, I shocked my friends and family by moving to Quebec to learn the language. I did. But I also learned a lot more during my six-year stay — namely that you can’t believe everything you read, especially when it’s coming from the mouths of politicians. Which brings me back to the Charlottetown Accord. It’s not the best deal ever created, but what is? More importantly, it marks the first time in Canadian history that the federal government, 10 provinces and Native leaders have reached a consensus. And I fear it may be the last time. When we hit the polls on Oct. 26, we should remember what we are voting for. We are not voting for British Columbia and against Quebec, nor are we voting for Preston Manning and against Brian Mulroney. We are voting for Canada — a nation that could flourish if we let it and could die if we allow it.