Federalism
To the Editor:
May I be permitted a few lines of space to say a few words about the impasse we now have where constitutional matters are concerned? Canada is nothing if it is not a federal state which was brought into being by men who spoke both English and French and realized that they needed the strength of French Canada if they were going to unite British North America. …
French Canada and English Canada are both of country-wide extent. They are so interlocked that any attempt on the part of one province to secede will tear apart the fabric of both with endless, unhappy results.
Read Also
Rural emergency room closures continue to be vexing problem
Staffing issues are at the root of disruptions and closures in hospital emergency departments, both in rural and urban Canadian locations.
Some of the Fathers of Confederation were unwilling to face this fact with the result that, while minority rights were guaranteed in the province of Quebec, everywhere else they were not. Since 1867, there have been battles over language and education rights in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, to mention only the most notable.
English Canada has been saying one thing and doing another ever since Confederation.
French Canadians everywhere have been driven more and more onto the defensive. It is not at all remarkable that the people of Quebec have more than once considered the possibility of secession. Let us face facts.
If the province of Ontario, with a good-sized province of French Canadians in its midst, cannot declare itself a bilingual province, if the province of Alberta cannot permit the use of one of our founding languages in its legislature, if in several provinces French Canadians have to fight for the maintenance of schools where they can educate their children in French – if all these things are true, there is no moral justification for Confederation to continue and we might as well call it quits.
It is not a question of dollars and cents. It is a question of deciding whether we want to be a federal state or not.
If we do, we cannot do it without French Canada. If we do, we must stop putting French Canadians on the defensive. The needed decisions can only be made at the provincial level, since the mistakes we made were made at the provincial level.
It is my belief that if we tell French Canada in practical ways that we are proud of it and happy to be associated with it, the people of its largest part will cease to talk about secession and we can all enjoy a great country which is one of the best in the world.
– Allen Ronaghan,
Edmonton, Alta.
Left, right
To the Editor:
Conflicting scenarios of the NDP were revealed in the April 17 issue of The Western Producer.
National NDP leader Alexa McDonough, like a typical honest person in a realistic manner, is concerned that governments tend to favor corporations in a manner which demeans and impoverishes the common people. A few pages on, readers learn of the Saskatchewan NDP government who by their actions unlike its predecessor the CCF through publicity and economics favor corporate-sized units.
Instead of securing small farm operations, their latest move is granting of economic incentives to those who “upgrade” and expand their hog operations, an example of turning democracy into corporatism. No wonder hog numbers and producers have been declining.
Common sense dictates that if total agricultural production is to increase and social stability is to become a reality, steps must be taken to economically discourage large farm units.
Alexa McDonough blames the right-wing political element; however people like the writer have difficulty with that outdated misleading concept.
Historically the governing party sat to the right of the House Speaker, while the opposition to the Speaker’s left.
In Saskatchewan’s last 50-year history, the Liberals and Conservatives were mainly left-wing parties. It would be more accurate to categorize parties as favoring the common people or the corporates. …
– Stuart Makaroff,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Property rights
To the Editor:
I would like to ask your readers to consider another political issue, property rights.
Many people have been adversely affected because property rights are not entrenched in the Charter of Rights. I understand when Trudeau and the premiers shaped the Charter there was one clause dealing with strong property rights.
However, the NDP premiers objected, saying this would interfere with the “social programs” they had in mind, so this clause was not included.
I became interested when I lost the sale of my land for very good money because I am in a “Sour Gas Setback Area.” In my province, Alberta, there is no protection, no compensation, no mention of Sour Gas under the “Surface Rights Act.” Alberta has been able to use this discriminatory and inadequate legislation partly because the Charter does not set the standard.
The Gun Act and the B. L. Land Reserve Act are an example of other things affected. Neither could operate exactly as they are if the Charter included property rights.
Recently Mr. Justice Francis Muldoon in his decision on the barley growers and the CWB noted there was no protection from seizure of property under the Charter.
If any readers of this Forum have an interest in this subject, why don’t we all ask this question when your friendly local politician comes asking for your vote: why aren’t property rights included in the Charter?
– Leo Bishop,
Balzac, Alta.
Candidates
To the Editor:
A few years ago a young lady in high school alerted me to the way politics operates in today’s world. I was determined to vote for a certain candidate having been assured he was a responsible man, etc.
The school she was attending invited the candidate to speak to them. My prize candidate arrived with his leader. He said Howdy and left his leader to the talking. When questioned by any of the politically knowledgeable girls, he referred to his leader.
My young friend assured me “He’s just a dummy.”
On further investigation, I found that she was right.
That’s what happens in our politics! A few sharpie leaders make a pitch on TV etc. and the rest ride in on their Coat Tails.
What happens when those leaders are unscrupulous lots? I guess we know; in both the provincial and federal field, we have the results. When sharpies dominate the dummies we send to be their partners, we the taxpayers foot the bill and live with the results.
Get to know your candidate and get as informed and knowledgeable of the leaderships as possible. The person that is the most photogenic and TV and media manipulative and has the wittiest speech written, is not always the leader one should trust. Get a copy of the Blue Book, Red Book or Green Book they wave at you. If a candidate is not capable of facing an audience of constituents, that person is not the one for the job. …
Shaking hands, petting kids or shooting the bull as membership in a certain party is not a qualification for the job.
Chewing, spitting, swinging a bat or running bases doesn’t make a ball player. … Be a real Canadian and scout your team. Your kids’ future depends on how your team performs.
– Ben Gerwing,
Lake Lenore, Sask.
Today’s issues
To the Editor:
Leading up to the fatal destruction of the greatest ship ever built, the Titanic, were some of the greatest disillusions and false securities set up in the face of some very basic ignorances e.g. expansion of rivets at varying temperatures.
On the fatal day, the seas appeared exceptionally calm as well as being obscured by a very thin grey mist. A proven fact was that had the Titanic struck the iceberg head-on, it would have survived.
Is Canada, the greatest country in the world, being led to destruction by parallel circumstances? A false sense of security obscuring our vision by way of the wrong analogy of our problem in Canada.
Are there only two issues in the election? Jobs and a confusing balanced budget?
What about the Canadian marketing system, the transportation system, CPP, justice system, gun control, embassies, military forces, land claims, health, education, languages, cost of production, special interest groups, etc.
Isn’t it strange that prices of fuel went up when crude oil was in excess of $40 per barrel, but now that the price is just slightly over $20, where is the reduction in price?
Why does an X-ray machine cost in excess of $260,000? Why is a combine in excess of $225,000? Why do foreigners receive approximately eight percent for money Canada and the provinces borrow, but Canada receives about three percent for Canada Bonds?
Why is it that in the ’50s and ’60s, I could name my job whereas my children can’t buy a job?
– Emmanuel Oystreck,
Yorkton, Sask.
Liberal record
To the Editor:
Loss of the Crow Benefit, give-away of the National Railway, rural rail-line destruction, poor to no movement of grain on branch lines, gun control, GST still and forever, cut-backs for the poor unemployed, pushing these people on welfare, the Saskatchewan taxpayer footing the bill, millions of dollars for health education cut off.
We have been abandoned – no voting power.
Supporting the Liberals – I think not.
– Herb Dunser,
Medstead, Sask.
What kills?
To the Editor:
What is actually killing Canadians and where are our tax dollars being spent to help alleviate this problem? The following are some of the mortality statistics for 1994 in Canada showing the leading causes of death.
- Every seven minutes one Canadian dies of heart and circulatory disease (78,573 deaths).
- Every nine minutes one Canadian dies of cancer (58,311 deaths).
- Every 29 minutes one Canadian dies of respiratory system diseases (18,342 deaths).
- Every 68 minutes one Canadian dies of diseases of the digestive system (7,679 deaths).
- Every two hours one Canadian commits suicide (3,749 deaths, one quarter by firearms).
- Every two hours one Canadian dies of alcohol and drug abuse (3,463 deaths).
- Every three hours one Canadian dies in a motor vehicle accident (3,188 deaths).
- Every 15 hours one Canadian is murdered (596 deaths, one third by firearms).
The 1994 mortality statistics are broken down to show what is killing both men and women.
For example, HIV/AIDS kills one man every six hours but only one woman every three days, while breast cancer kills one woman every two hours.
Suicides also occur more frequently among men with one death every three hours and one woman every 11 hours. The mortality statistics also show how confused the present Federal Government are about where to get the best bang for taxpayer’s bucks.
Breast cancer killed 4,995 women in 1994 and the government responds with $20 million over five years. Compare this to the fact that 1,209 Canadians (101 women) were killed with firearms (suicides, homicides and accidents) and the government responds with $85 million over five years. Where’s the logic there?
Maybe it should be suggested to the government that our Taxpaying Dollars be put to areas where it would do more good. Some suggestions are: Cancer Research, Women’s Crisis Centers, Suicide Prevention Programs, Family Counseling Centers, Addictions Abuse Counseling Programs, Domestic dispute resolution programs, Health Care, Education and so many more it’s impossible to list. …
This new tax (Bill C-68) against firearm owners, dealers, manufacturers, collectors, museums, the movie industry, shipping companies and hunters from the United States will effectively kill a thriving industry worth billions of dollars to the Canadian Economy. The hunting activities alone in 1991 contributed $2.76 billion to the Canadian Economy.
So let’s get together and tell our politicians where to spend our tax dollars.
– Dennis Rex, Vice President,
