Wednesday, October 21, 1992 @ PAGE | FE ET I INtON S OurWiEWS One major mistake f Canadians are looking for [ass in the Charlottetown Agreement, they need to look no further than the federal government itself. About as popular as a pitbull in a playground, Brian Mulroney’s major error was allowing the Charlottetown Agreement to go to a referendum. He didn’t have to. Mulroney is looking to score political points with the Charlottetown Agreement in the misguided hopes that his Progressive Conservatives can recapture the Canada-wide enthusiasm that allowed them to steamroll over the Liberals in 1984. He can’t. The Charlottetown Accord is bigger than Mulroney. How and why he allowed the first constitutional package that our nation’s leaders have agreed upon to become his political football is unexplainable. Canadians should not have been given a vote on the constitutional agreement. Instead, the nation’s leaders should have rejoiced with the accord they reached and implemented a new constitution with next to no fuss. By allowing the agreement to go to referendum, Mulroney is allowing political parities, special-interest groups and Canadian detractors to pick apart the package to serve their own ends. The Charlottetown Agreement is the epitome of compromise. Sadly, though, regionalism and selfishness will likely determine its outcome. | Street TALIK Adrian RAESIDE Just when I thought it . ~ als al ss for Castlegar Don’t mistake this as an was going to be a lazy winter, the best possible thing has happened. On Saturday, Castlegar elected a renegade to fill its vacated council seat — Douglas William Green. I wish I could say I was surprised by the election of Green, but I’m not. See, I voted for him. As did 716 other locals who managed to squeeze the byelection- RCMP building vote into their Saturday schedules. S.D.HARRISON Harrison Comparison an indictment of everyone on city council, because I truly believe the majority of our councillors are well- meaning citizens. I just think they are overshadowed by our dominant and dynamic mayor and our oft-political city administration. It always amazes me how many things get rubber- stamped at each council session without a passing My decision to endorse the Coalition Unaccepting Rash Bureaucracy candidate was an easy one actually. It had nothing to do with Renee Read or Dave Gairns, both of whom I thought were well suited for the job. Instead, it had everything to do with our present city council and its neverending attempts to appease an increasingly impatient community. glance. Why, in the 11-plus months I’ve been in Castlegar, I can only recall two things being debated in an open public forum — streetlights and the water- pressure problems in Meadowbrook and Highland Drives. I’m not asking for a knock down, drag ’em out fight, I’m just asking our council to hash things out in a public forum instead of compromising behind closed doors during in camera sessions. please see HARRISON page 7 Feb. 15, 1973 ~~ , Don Innes Castlegar “Demolish but let people get what's useable out before.” Peter Boshko Castlegar “It’s much cheaper if they remove the houses.” Question: What should happen to the homes now standing where the new bridge is to be built? Jean Brady Castlegar “I would certainly rather see them moved.” Surjit Gill Castlegar “They should move them elsewhere.” Dinah Lutze Castlegar “Auction what can be auctioned and then demolish.” @ Wednesday, October 21, 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 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 tcoWHE EDITOR ‘Yes’ campaigners using empty arguments The letter from Bruce Ketchum was typical of the type of arguments being used by the yes forces to build their case, (The News, Oct. 10). It had absolutely nothing to with the content of the Charlottetown Accord. I can, however, understand their frustration in trying to defend this indefensible document. Let’s look at the content. B.C. gets four néw seats in the House of Commons. Under the current federal distribution rules, it would have received additional seats in 1994. While B.C. is getting these four new seats, Ontario and Quebec are each getting 18. The net result of this is that B.C.’s percentage of representation drops from 10.8 to 10.7 while having 12 per cent of the Canadian population. The four western provinces combined have one million more people than Quebec and yet they have one less seat in the House of Commons. For the western provinces to be treated equal to Quebec’s one MP for every 74,000 people, the west needs 16 more seats than it is getting. The yes people have discovered that if they include the senate seats with each province’s House of Commons seats, it makes it look like B.C. gets more. The new Senate proposed by nine premiers and Joe Clark was to be made up of eight senators from each province. They were to have veto power over many areas of legislation with a 70 per cent majority. Quebec said no and the rest of Canada said how. about this instead; We will drop the Senate seats to six each, take away their veto power and give Francophones a double majority vote and guarantee you 25 per cent of the Commons seats forever. That is not compromise Mr. Ketchum, that is total surrender. What the yes people are promoting is a racist document which gives special privileges and provisions to people based on their race, culture, language and sex. To defend this they accuse Preston Manning of bigotry. How can he be a bigot when he promotes a Canada where every province and every citizen is equal? When Mr. Ketchum ‘can’t find anything positive to say about his side, he resorts to tactics used by many of the yes people. The smoke screen approach where he accuses the opposition without foundation in order to cloud the issue. He also uses the old tried and true method of fun with figures where he combines assorted figures until he manages to come up with the figure that he needs. To the public I can only say, don’t take my word for what is in the accord, and certainly don’t take Mr. Ketchum’s word. Read it for yourself and make your own decision based on fact, not emotion. I believe your decision will then be very clear. Jim Gouk, Reform Party of Canada, Kootenay West-Revelstoke Quebec has to count its losses before ‘no’ vote Regarding the proposed constitutional agreement. In my opinion, a yes vote on this agreement will not end but will perpetuate the discord and disagreement between Quebec and the rest of Canada. According to the latest polls, the next election in Quebec will see a separatist government in power, who are not prepared to accept the conditions of the proposed constitutional accord. It would make far more sense for a new government in Ottawa, which'should be in place by next year, to deal with a government in Quebec. The basis for discussion would be the cost of separation for both sides. On the one side, an independent Quebec would lose the Canadian armed forces, the RCMP, federal transfer payments, thousands of jobs in the federal civil service, and the guarantees of the Canadian dollar. Under these conditions the rest of Canada has much to gain and very little to lose. In addition to the above-mentioned savings there would be other cost reductions. With a sovereign Quebec, the French language in the rest of Canada will no longer have special status, and related costs, but will revert to an equal footing with the dozens of other ethnic languages in our unique and special country. In order to maintain and expand this most valuable asset, every ethnic group that makes up Canada would be encouraged to retain and expand the language of their origins. At the same time, in order to strengthen and cement our common bond, our education system in the English language should be made available to all Canadians through our schools, colleges and universities. If Quebec wishes to become unilingual French, this is their choice. However, considering the costs, should they wish to remain in Canada, they would be more than welcome to participate in building a better and stronger country. A no vote at this time would be the beginning of a permanent solution to our national unity problems. N.T. Oglow, Castlegar Exactly what are our leaders trying to accomplish? What a strange predicament we now see developing over the business of the referendum. If it were not so costly it would indeed be quite comical. All of our leading politicians — including the Prime Minister, both leaders of the opposition and all of the provincial premiers — have lined up on the “yes” side of the fence while a great many grassroots Canadians are lining up to say “no”. Our diverse crew of politicians are all in the same boat on this issue — a sinking boat in my opinion. Why are these “honorable” gentlemen bowing to the wishes of ethnic minorities while conveniently choosing to forget about those who form the Canedian majority by far? Why should we agree to become third class citizens in our own land? Are these devious gentlemen acting in the best interests of all Canadians or are they trying to endear themselves to certain minorities? Are they trying to get their names in the history books? There is an old saying to the effect that “any fool can make a simple thing complicated but it takes a stroke of genuis to make a complicated thing simple”. Alas! It is the former case that prevails in Canada now. H.F. Killough, Castlegar Harrison continued from page 6 Enter Doug Green. His selection to city council signals a new era in Castlegar politics. Provided he sticks to his pre- election guns, Green has promised to provide open debate — something that is sadly lacking in those all-too- comfortable council chambers. His affiliation to CURB must not be overlooked. Sometime ago I wrote an editorial saying the rejection of Green could signal the rejection of CURB and everything it stood for. Fortunately, that won't happen. For those of us — and I include myself — that have ever wondered if CURB was a legitimate force on Castlegar’s civic scene or just a bunch of self-serving hotheads, the upstart citizens group can now point to the 45 per cent of the popular vote their candidate received Saturday. That vote was real, as real as CURB itself. There are some out there who will try to dismiss Green’s confirmation as a fluke, as though a byelection means ‘nothing because he will only serve a one-year term. To that I say hogwash. Green’s nomination is a clear signal that citizens — the 35 per cent of us that cast ballots, that is — are tired of Castlegar’s status quo. By endorsing a renegade, against-the-grain fellow like Green, voters are saying that the day and age when our civic leaders could tap us on the head, flash a smile and escort us to the door are over. Thankfully. I wish Doug Green luck. After all, as my candidate of choice, I’ll be expecting a lot from him. And so, too, will the 716 others that x-ed their ballots in his direction. Let’s not kid ourselves about Doug Green. For him, the easy part is over — he’s been elected. The bigger challenge will come the first time he openly opposes a council decision. Only then will Castlegar find out if the choice it made was the right one.