Editorial

‘he opinions expressed in this column do not necessarily eflect those of the staff of this production or the Student Jnion.

be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28,1992?

r/ou... :

\cceptez-vous que la Constitution du Canada soit

enouvelée sur la base de l’entente conclue le 28 aout 1992?

‘) 0 you agree that the Constitution of Canada should

here it is, fellow Canadians: the question we’ll be asked in he referendum vote in all its bilingual glory. The referen- um is fast approaching, October 26 to be precise, and we all ave to make up our minds as to whether or not we approve

f the proposed constitutional changes. It’s a big decision,

ut unfortunately, it may end up being simply the latest ina cemingly interminable series of frustratingly futile at- ‘mpts to redefine the constitution of our country.

he referendum question is unquestionably difficult to nswer, buta reluctant *‘yes’’ vote would probably be the ‘Sser of the two evils. The new deal definitely has prob- ‘ms: contentious issues are every where, including transfer f powers to the provinces (which many fear will weaken ederal power and undermine the standards of current ational programs if provinces are given the option to \dividually control them), aboriginal self-government vhich many fear will further erode Federal authority and irther burden taxpayers by creating a third level of govern- ‘cnt within Canada), and concessions to Quebec such as a larantee for Quebec of 25% of the House of Commons seats perpetuity and three of the Supreme Court posts, not to cation a veto option on bills concerning French language 1d culture, and black-and-white recognition of that old lcech Lake chestnut, ‘‘Distinct Society.’’ There’s more ‘an a few controversial points in this deal.

should keep in mind, though, that dispute is a natural

‘tt of compromise, and a compromise is the one thing that 's deal most definitely is. If we think back a bit we can

€ that this deal, flawed or not, was the culmination of

ars of debate, negotiation, and research, and it was en- tsed by the most impressively wide array of elected Presentatives of Canadians that any constitution of ours

‘S ever enjoyed. You can’t really get a much stronger ‘Asensus than the one this deal got, and it leads one to onder: what the blazes do Canadians want from the consti- ‘on anyway? There’s no way to give every group every- . 'ng they want, realistically speaking, so we can’t expect Tfection. This deal gives at least some consideration to °St of the major players, and while it may not be perfect

* ve never had a perfect constitution in the first place, as ade obvious by the fact that we’re sitting here trying to ‘tsform our present constitution in a few dozen places. Do

we really want to waste a few more million of the tax | payers’ dollars and what little patience Canadians may still have by going back to square one on this ghastly mess? How many constitutional corners can Canada paint itself into before it starts to run out of floor?

There may be a lot of voices against the new constitutional package, but think for a moment about who they are: the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party, the Partie Quebecois, the Confederation of Regents Party, N.A.C. ... what do these groups have in common? Answer: while some of them may be well-intentioned, they are groups who are more concerned with thier personal agendas than with the welfare of the country as a whole. Some of these groups would as soon spit

"How many constitu- tional corners can Canada paint itself nO 7

on each other as work together. What sort of Canada would be built by self-interested opportunists like Preston Manning and Jacques Parizeau? They offer no constructive option, and the new constitutional package is the only thing at the moment that does, warts and all.

The ideal thing would be for this whole fiasco to go away, to be conveniently forgotten so that we can concentrate on more pressing concerns like the economy. It seems to be too late for that, though; since we’ve opened this Pandora’s Box of a debate there may be no way to successfully close it until we reach some kind of decision. Of the two decisions we can make on October 26, a ‘‘yes’’ to the deal will at least give our elected representatives the go-ahead to work outa final resolution to the dilemma, while a ‘‘no’’ vote will simply dump the country back into a cycle of internal strife and resultant political and financial instability. A ‘‘yes’’ vote won’t automatically solve all our problems either, but it doesn’t have to. The ‘‘Charlottetown Accord’’ we’re voting on isn’t law yet, and if we have to we can tinker with it later even if it is made law, just as we’re modifying our present constitution; plus, in case you’ve forgotten, a referendum isn’t legally binding. It won’t automatically lock us into one plan forever, so we shouldn’t hesitate to make a decisive, positive step forward. Canada deserves that much.

Sean McQuaid Editeur

P.S. My Canada includes Flacons de Mais.