INSIGHTS Friday, April 17, 1992 — North Shore News -—- 7 Ss CRT Comments from an ‘ordinary Canadian’ THE CONSTITUTIONAL conferences have come to an end, and now it is time te assess their accomplishments. The outcome that is most ap- parent to me is the incredibly distorted influence brought to the process by the representatives of the publicly funded political ad- vocacy groups claiming to repre- sent all of the women of Canada. Before listing the considerable achievements of those groups in suppressing the legitimate aspira- tions of Western Canadians, let’s look at the philosophy that per- meates the political establishment in this country. It is a philosophy that is fundamentally paternalistic in its design, condescending in its delivery and discriminatory and demeaning in its application. This philosophy is based on two assumptions. The first is that a group, al- though often not elected by those it claims to represent, nevertheless has the right to greater access to and influence on politica! deci- sion-making processes than do individual (ordinary) Canadians. Secondly, as specifically related to women’s groups, there is an assumption that we are a homogenous group of people who, by virtue of sharing the same gender at birth, are therefore * in need of a lifetime of support systems. TL adamantly oppose the right of any of these women to claim to understand, least of all represent, my political opinions. It was extraordinarily frustrating to observe these con- ferences from the confines of my living room, aware that I have neither the resources nor the net- work to participate, and yet my taxes are paying to support organizations that have incredible influence and with whom £ strong- ly disagree on many issues. Why isn’t there a National Committee On The Status of By Margot Furk Contributing Writer Men? Why were there no men speaking on behalf of all the meit in Canada at these conferences? The reason is that they consider themselves individuals, with distinctive needs and worth. Iam not suggesting that there are no inequities or that there are not serious economic and social issues that need to be addressed. However, they must be considered in the context of providing equal opportunity, not artificial tax- payer-subsidized support systems. Affirmative action, pay equity, equity employment, increased welfare and other similar pro- grams hurt the people they are in- tended to help. They don’t teach . self-sufficiency. We need significant changes in the income tax act to allow full deductibility of family expenses ‘incurred for the purpose of pro- ducing income.”’ We need a justice system that recognizes women as individuals. We need changes to pension laws to recognize family work as pensionable. We need men to assume their Cull 50% responsibility for the well-being of the children they fa- ther. And we need better education and retraining programs to help people become productive. Allof these initiatives must be approached from the philosoph- ical perspective of providing ecjual opportunity, not special programs. Returning to the outcome of the Constitutional conferences, it is my observation thai these overly effective women’s advocates: (1) Shifted the focus from equal regional representation on an AS THE Constitutional debate rages, Canadians are having to take a hard jock at the way the country Is structured. The News recently polled North and West Vancouver residents to find out thelr views on Senate reform. We asked 410 people 23.6% were undecided. "Do you think Canada needs. an elected Senate?” The majority, 58.8%, were in favor of the idea. 17.6% said “no” and _ , 7% Tne second question was "Should there be equal repre- sentation from each province regardless of population?” 53.2% said “yes,” 28.8% said “no,” and 18% undecided. The were third question was “Should there be guaranteed representation for aboriginal groups in the Senate?” Over half (64.9%) said “yes,” only 15% said “no,” and 20% were undecided. elected Senate to representation by “social groups’’ with 50% of the seats allocated to women. (2) Convinced the participants that the “rest of Canada”’ outside Quebec wants a strong certra! government and no devolution of powers to any provincial govern- ment except Quebec — i.e. *‘asymetrical federation,’’ or, in simples terms, special privilezes. (3) Rewoved many of the eco- fonuc ytion proposals from the tabie ard relenilessly attacked the remainizg “common market” proposals as political. (4) Promoted the inclusion of a social charter in the Constitution in order to entrench guarantees of cradle-to-grave security programs. The net effect of these efforts is the potential so-ialization rather than democratization of the Ca- nadian constitution. 1 offer the following comments as a different and, I believe, wide- ly held perspective on these issues: (1) An elected Senate with unequal regional representation and designed to reflect ‘‘social diversi- ty”? will not redress the prodlems of a geographically diverse and expansive nation that currently suffers from a severe case of regional alienation. Having two elected bodies that are controlled by the central Ca- nadian political elite will only magnify rather than eliminate the sense of frustration. Introducing a quota system for electing 50% women senators is a fundamentally flawed proposal that assumes women cannot achieve electoral success without guaranteed access. (2) The proponents of esymetrical federalism have misread the public mood in Western Canada. They don’t understand that Westerners have the same moral and ethical right and desire to control their cultural and language traditions as do the Quebecois. By suggesting that these con- cerns are somehow more impor- 46 Introducing a quota system for electing 50% women Senators is a fundamentally flawed proposal that assumes women cannot achieve electoral success without guaranteed access. 99 tant to a French-speaking Cana- dian than an English-speaking Canadian is insulting. The ad- vocates of a strong central gov- ernment have acceded to Quebec’s demand for the right to centrol its destiny within a federal framework. They have acknew!- edged that Quebec citizens want the provincial political power more than they want federal polit- ical protection. In the future, Western Cana- dians may deliver the same message. We’re tired of paying taxes to support a federal system that is unresponsive, inefficient and ineffective. (3) The proposals to intreduce greater economic effficiency into our federal system are based on the simple but powerful realiza- tion that without a healthy, pro- ductive and competitive business environment our country will not be able to produce the wealth to support even basic social pro- grams. Those who argue that this is a Machiavellian plot by the cor- porate community to undermine the rights of the ‘‘workers’’ or to strip social benefits from the disadvantaged have not advanced from the historic conflicts of the Industrial Revolution. (4) The introduction of a proposal to entrench a social charter in our Constitution was a very clever po- litical strategy to divert the focus of the debate away from the realignment of powers between federal ard provincial govern- ments and between regions, and move the discussion to one that focused on social diversity. It’s easy to understand why the premier of Ontario would be in- terested in doing this. First, it elevates his political agenda to higher moral ground. This puts the vonservative (small . “*c’*) participants on the defensive because they become so intimi- dated by the insinuation that they are not socially sensitive, that they begin to apologize rather than ad- vocate their positions. (i.e., triple-E senate, economic union, devoluiion of pewer to the pro- vinces, etc.) Second, by diluting the argu- ment for a triple-E senate, he has ensured the continuation of a concentration of power in central Cunada. Although I had hopeful expec- tations for the outcome of these constitutional conferences, my previous sense of alienation has been reconfirmed and more deeply entrenched. Our provincial government has failed in its duty to invite public comments and the federal gov- ernment has attempted to appease us with a process that has conde- scendingly invited the comments of approximately 100 ‘‘ordinary”’ Canadians. — Margot Furk is a chartered ac- countant and West Vancouver School Board trustee who lives in North Vancouver. Save district’s music programs Open letter to Robin Brayne, su- perintendent of North Vancouver School District #44: As parents of children in School District #44, North Vancouver, we are deeply concerned over the proposed cuts to our very valuable music programs. The new NDP government has proclaimed equal education for all, but implements this by cutting back our music programs. By giv- ing everyone ‘‘the basics,’’ they are depriving our children of a complete education. Is the school board aware that Transit hike Dear Editor: It would be appreciated if Mayor Dykeman would cease and desist scaring the public with almost repeated threats of transit fare hikes and funding problems. It seems that at least twice a year he comes out with some frightening news about funding problems, and one wonders just how badly our tax money is being managed and why the powers that 86% of elementary students in our district are presently enrolled in band and strings programs? What happens when you take away their opportunity to continue these programs? Many children will suffer because they cannot afford private instruction. Those of us who live in North Vancouver know the value of ali our enrichment programs: that is why we chose to pay more local taxes to our school board to fund these programs. in addition, we are currentiy individually paying for our children’s instruments and materiais. Does this not indicate the enthusiasm of staf?, students and parents for this kind of learn- ing environment? It is a known fact that North Vancouver has a very low drop- out rate. We believe that these enrichment courses encourage students to stay in school longer. We therefore urge you to re- examine: the effects these cuts will! have on our children’s education and retain our very fine band and strings programs. Concerned parents, Schoo! District #44 scares not appreciated be cannot communicate decently with each other instead of passing it through the media all the time and getting everyone alarmed, Another fare hike in less than a year is ludicrous and indicative of bad management. People are be- ing taxed to the hilt during this ‘economic depression we are in and already pay the highest transit rates in the country for a declining transit service. It is annoying and irresponsible that the media should always be the middleman in these transit funding disputes, as the taxpayer does rot deserve these scare tac- tics, or to know how bad the fi- nancial management is. I shell out over $1,000 a year to B.C. Transit, and can still not af- ford to use it daily. T.E, Peck West Vancouver