**********************************************************************
CONSTN92.H00 = Summary of Constitutional Proposals 1992
**********************************************************************

Under this title I recently submitted a 12 page document to Joe Clark and the provincial premiers. Although much of the document is philosophical in tone, there are three specific points which I wish to emphasize:

(1) The necessity of removing the present and future constitutional discussions from the political arena and placing them in the hands of specially created constituent assemblies. A constitution provides the framework for the efficient operation of any organization or society. In a true democracy, it is the people who define the ground rules by which they wish to be governed. A country where politicians unilaterally change their powers ceases to be a democracy. In my view the present process can be derisively described as constitution of politicians, by politicians and for politicians.

I therefore propose that the Governor General, in co- operation with the Lieutenant Governors, be made responsible for the establishment of National and Provincial Constitutional Councils. These Councils would set out the goals, terms of reference and timetable for present and future constitutional amendments. By definition, politicians are in a "conflict of interest" position. They can provide comments and advice, but they must not be in a decision-making position.

(2) The danger of creating first and second class citizens by injudiciously limiting concepts such as "minority language rights" to French and English only.

Consider the following excerpts from the Beaudoin-Dobbie Report: "The special responsibility of Quebec to preserve or promote its distinct society". It is the responsibility of the inhabitants of Quebec and not the government of Quebec to promote their distinct cultural heritage. This phrase should be generalized to read: "The responsibility of the inhabitants of each province to develop and promote the distinct character of their cultural heritage", or "The responsibility of the members of each ethnic group to develop and promote their cultural heritage".

Next, consider the phrase: "a profound commitment to the vitality and development of official language minority communities", or "that fosters the vitality and development of the language and culture of the French-speaking and English- speaking minority communities". These are not minority languages at all! It is absurd that the dominant languages in Canada are afforded protection in the constitution! The corollary is that all other languages are not protected and are therefore slated for extinction. This is constitutionalized ethnocide! This phrase must be reworded to read: "a profound commitment to the vitality and development of the languages and cultures of all ethnic communities".

Should these racist proposals be entrenched in the Canadian constitution, I do not look forward to spending the rest of my life as a second class citizen in the country in which I was born.

(3) The recent proposals by Joe Clark and the provincial premiers for a new Triple-E Senate are desirable but do not go far enough. In my view, the Senate should act as a liaison between the federal and provincial governments by being responsible for monitoring both federal and provincial legislation. Fifty percent of the Senators should be female. Rather than having an equal number of Senators, I would prefer that each province and territory be accorded senators according to the cube root of its land area. On this basis, the North West Territories would have 22 senators, followed by Quebec with 16, most other provinces about 12 and Prince Edward Island would have 4 senators. There would be a total of 140 senators from 70 constituencies, each represented by one female and one male.

Such a scheme would help decentralize decision-making powers to the more sparsely populated areas of the country.

In conclusion, I would like to quote the final paragraph of my 12 page document:

"Finally there is the question of morality and love. No society based on immorality and hatred can possibly survive as a free and democratic nation. Unless Canadians approach the constitutional crisis with a positive attitude of goodwill towards fellow Canadians, all the written rules, regulations, rights and freedoms will be of no avail. In my estimation, it is these two ingredients which are most lacking in the present constitutional debate."

William Zuzak, Ph.D., P.Eng.

**********************************************************************
CONSTN92.H00 = Summary of Constitutional Proposals 1992
**********************************************************************