The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Canada belongs to all Canadians and we should be equal, one and all, regardless of culture, language or ancestry. It does not belong to a handful of Quebec malcontents with a pernicious, The granting of a "distinct society" status for French Canadian whether inside or outside of Quebec is too important and too final a decree to be decided by soâ€"called experts or our selfâ€"serving In your November 1 issue, the front page headline read, "Future of Quebec hinges on recognition of ‘distinct society‘. The article quoted several local political experts from our uniâ€" versities and our local MP Andrew Telegdi. Mr. Telegdi brushes off "distinct society" status as merely token by stating, "It‘s more symbolic than anything else." May 1 suggest to your readers, as well as Mr. Telegdi, that there is nothing more final, or more sepâ€" arating than declaring French Canadians as "distinct". To them and their separatist firebrands and their political leaders, that decree once invoked, forever reverses the outcome of the battle on the plains of Abraham and gives them the victory. To the majority of French Canadians the notion of "distinct" status goes far beyond lip service platitudes and symbolism. In both the Meech and Charlottetown proposals, the number one (1) priority on the list of demands for constitutional change was "distinct society" recognition. If it is that important to them, then why are we "other" Canadians being urged by our wishyâ€" washy politicians to accept it as mere symbolism? Throughout the Quebec referendum campaign, Quebecers were urged to vote "no". It was a clear message, emblazoned upon a multiâ€"colored background placard/banner that read "le Sepa (Non) Ration. As a TV viewer of proceedings of the win by the "no" side, 1 found it disgusting, discriminating and blatantly contradictory on the part of Daniel Johnson on the podium, surâ€" rounded by the le Sepa (Non) Ration placards to be urging Canaâ€" dians to accept French Canadians as a "Distinct Society". What outlandish hypocrisy. He‘s urging Quebecers to vote ‘no‘ to sepâ€" aration and in the next breath, he‘s telling them to demand "disâ€" tinct" status which indeed will be in itself a fact of separation. Quebecers spoke, although with a slim majority, that they wished to remain in Canada as equal partners. To confer upon French Canadians "distinct society" status is to separate them from the rest of Canadians and to implicate them as racists. Jacques Parizeau was castigated by Canadians alike for his referâ€" ence to big money and the ethnic vote for being the cause of the win by the "no" side. His remarks were branded as racist and destructive. Just as French Canadians in Quebec spoke out in the referenâ€" dum and the result accepted as a democratic right of expression, non French Canadians spoke out against "distinct society" class status at Meech and Charlottetown and likewise their wishes must be respected and democratically upheld. Webster‘s dictioâ€" nary defines the word "distinct" as separate (unmistakably sepâ€" arated from anything else), marked or definite. The word "distinction" is defined as "marked difference with special breeding or eminence". It has a connotation of seniority and conferring of class, as in first class or second class. Anyone who supports the notion of a "distinct society" for Quebec is every bit a racist and as destructive as Jacques LETTERS Eâ€"FoRcE \ PRECOR 91 \ . ::# ) sSALE am, | Motorized Treagimill miz‘ vz?lcans 7 [ s t t %»” s ' e o n | ‘ 288 AZL 1I848 HEX DUMBELLS J J | & : [1 Jj PW S842 Victoria §- g; ad« I ‘ C Kitchen Riders :2# EL Nothing symbolic about _ distinct society status $148 Parizeau and his pseudoâ€"march for Quebec sovereignty. It is glaringly apparent that Quebec already has its sovereignty and has had it since 1972 when it refused to implement bilingualism and further solidified its sovereignty when it refused to heed the order of the Supreme Court of Canada on its restrictive, represâ€" sive and draconian language laws imposed by Robert Bourassa. It was George Orwell, the author of Big Brother, 1984, that also wrote the book and script, Animal Farm. It was the superior aniâ€" mal, the pig that was in charge and master of all. It was the pig, whether in rank or file, that told the other farmyard animals that all animals were equal, however some were more equal than othâ€" ers and thereby defended their status of superiority, rank and class. 1t is a shame and a disgrace and a mockery of democracy that constitutional matters of this country are treated like a back room, clandestine, poker game, full of illusion and sleight of hand. Time and time again, Canada has been the laughing stock of the international community when it comes to our internal matters and the demands of French Canada. Joe Clark, a voice from the past, who so vehemently opposed the apartheid and racism of South Africa, speaks once again openly in Canada to recognize French Canadians as distinct. With all due respect, what a contradiction that he should be in favor of contributing to racism and creating a form of apartheid in Canada. Canada‘s aboriginal people (referred to as "first nation people" does not have the same clout and authority as does the term "distinct society"). They and they alone rightly and justly deserve "distinct society" status. Why should Canadians of other racial and ethnic origin become second class citizens to French Canadians? The matter of conferring singular class status is unconstituâ€" tional, blatantly racist, divisive and pernicious. Woe betide Jean Chretien and his liberal pro French majority in Ottawa, should he pass a parliamentary resolution of "distinct society". He will most certainly evoke the wrath and anger of the majority of Canadians and serve to split and further divide our country. It is not his decision alone to make. The constitution belongs to all Canadians regardless of racial, linguistic or cultural origin and demands that any changes be made by way of a free vote of all Canadians and anything less than that is a denial of our democâ€" ratic privilege and right, opening the door to fascism and totalâ€" itarianism in Canada. In his article of November 1, Doug McCready muddies rather than clarifies the debate on wards versus atâ€"large elections. McCready may have it right when he argues that councillors bring with them certain extra costs. The problem with his viewâ€" point is that his totting up of such costs has little to do with the benefits to be found in any system of representation. While some costs can be plainly ascertained and measured, benefits do not fit easily into a formula. Furthermore and unfortunately, McCready‘s contribution to the debate about wards is underâ€" mined by his cavalier discussion of some central issues. Consider his claim that "wards themselves are not the best McCready column only muddies ward debate h se w i 20001000 Het i tatate 579â€"8721 way to govern." Put aside the illiteracy (wards do not ‘govern‘, T they are a way of selecting representatives). What does & McCready tell us about how he determines what is "the best & way to govern?" He gives hardly a hint, except to say that wards 2 are "favored by people who wish to give representation but they § add to the parochialism of decisionâ€"making and tend to add to 3 cost of government." d Accountability, clarity of choice, fair mirroring of voter‘s intentions, costs of being a candidate, size of constituencies must all be considered when contemplating a system of repreâ€" sentation. Another consideration is to give voice to various parts of society. Let me illustrate the complexity of the "benefits" of systems of representations. A former Kitchener councillor who had served in both atâ€" . large and ward systems in an interview with me identified a cruâ€" cial element. As a presumably popular and wellâ€"known atâ€"large councillor, he regylarly topped the polls but he rarely received a call from a constituent. But when he became a ward councilâ€" lor, citizens called steadily. His explanation: ward residents knew who their councillor was and expected representation. If not satisfied, they believed they could replace him. He had no fear of defeat in the atâ€"large system because voters found it difâ€" ficult to identify him with any particular set of grievances Name recognition could override dissatisfaction. But in a ward system his name was easily attached to matters important to voters; so he paid a lot of attention to his callers A few years ago, when Waterloo had an atâ€"large system, a number of residents in a particular area were extremely upset with a city council action â€" or lack of it. But they could find no councillor to take up their cause. They felt unrepresented. A ward councillor, at a minimum, would have been obliged to explain the council‘s thinking â€" or his/her own. A ward counâ€" cillor would have had to meet the issue headâ€"on and might have taken up their cause. McCready appears to throw the word "parochialism" into the debate because of its negative connotations. Any political sysâ€" tem is built on compromise between competing parochialisms But atâ€"large systems, as McCready acknowledges, result in cerâ€" tain people not being represented. Perhaps the issue is not one of adding to existing parochialism but rather, identifying what kinds of parochialisms are there in politics and deciding what kinds of parochialisms we want. A councillor for example, who approaches every issue from the perspective of organized labor is parochial; so is the councillor who can‘t see beyond the ward‘s horizons. What kind of parochialism do we electors want? Business groups seem to have few problems finding access to city hall, regardless of how citizens elect their representatives But citizens may have nearly insurmountable difficulty in gainâ€" ing access to government when politicians, elected on an atâ€" large basis, do not have to pay attention to the citizens. l suggest that the "economics" of wards is inconsequential compared to the "politics". Wards, undebated in the 1994 municipal election, despite the fact that an "advisory" vote on the number of wards was being held, deserve a fair hearing. McCready did not use his space to make a helpful contribution. +Â¥ % 040 6 6 Department of Political Science University of Waterloo V Gu 4 * IIALLLILLLLE . db APAL €l|| (xe Peter Woolstencroft