i t PAGE SEVEN MEECH LAKE By the time you read this, our nation's political leaders, the prime minister and the 10 provincial premiers will have either ratified the Meech Lake accord or will have postponed their endor- sement pending further examination. I, for one, hope they opt for a sober second thought. This country lived with the inconvenience of not having its own constitution for 115 years, and it has lived with a constitution that does not have Quebec's blessing for the last five. Have we suffered because of it? Has the cost of living been higher because of it? Have our taxes gone up? What happened at Meech Lake was political posturing. To yôu and 1,·it means very little right now. I agree that a country that professes to be bicultural has an obligation to reach a meaningful accommodation with both cultures but if the effect of that accom- modation is to dismember the federal structure of our country, then the price is too high. When Brian Mulroney sat the premiers down at Meech Lake, he brought with him his skill as a labor negotiator. He talked them into giving a little here, a little there, a symbolic gesture or two - and, to his credit, he fashioned an accord that no one, not even many of the premiers, would have thought possible at the outset. BUT, these were not a set of labor negotiations. It was not an agreement which would last for one, two or three years only. It was not something in which the subtle wording could be taken to a labor board for interpretation (and we all know how rarely labor and management agree about what they've agreed to.) This was an agreement to change the constitution of Canada, the ultimate law of the land. And it appears (I say "appears" because nobody seems quite sure what they agreed to) that it would drastically alter the relationship of the federal government to the provinces. That the provincial premiers should agree to increasing their power is not surprising, but that the prime minister should be prepared to give its powers away is incredible. At the beginning of the meeting, there were several demands from Quebec that would have given it a special status in Con- federation. The other premiers were never going to agree to one province having privileges they didn't have. So, why not? Mulroney gave them all special status. Every sixth grade con artist knows that ploy - play up to their vanity, then move in with the pitch. But Mulroney was so intent on getting a deal - any deal- that he forgot the pitch. He forgot what the federal government is all about - a central governing authority acting for the best interests of all Canadians. So what did they agree to? No one seems too sure. The CBC's Journal last week interviewed several of the premiers and found that they all had different interpretations of what they thought they had agreed to. Just like a labor deal - both sides get up from the table, shake hands and spend the next two years arguing about what they agreed to. One of the premiers, Joe Ghiz of Prince Edward Islands, says that the courts can sort out the agreement. Talk about abdication of responsibility! If politicians don't know how to interpret the laws they create, then who's running the country - Parliament or the courts? Maybe neither - maybe anarchy snuck in the back door during Question Period. Besides, the courts are still trying to sort out what was agreed to five years ago when Trudeau brought the Constitution home. It has become an unfortunate trend for politicians to pass laws and then when those laws get challenged in court to pretend they really can't do anything about it - that it's up to the courts, who will make their rulings in due course. On some issues like abortion, our elected "representatives" leave ALL the dirty work to the courts - they stand four square for law and order but pretend they have no con-· trol over what the law says. À measure of what the federal government must have given away is the fact that all ten agreed to enshrining Quebec's rights when the same ten could not agree on amendments enshrining native rights only a few months earlier. Needless to say our original citizens are unamused by the irony and are prepared to fight the accord in court. More power to them! It seems to me that there is a relationship between native rights and francophone rights. French-Canadians may be the dominant people in Quebec but there are significant French minorities in every other province. Giving Quebec a special status in Con- federation ignores those minorities as well as the English people of Quebec. Our Constitution should recognize and enshrine the rights of French and native and English Canadians in all parts of the country without favoritism. To create areas of special status will lead to balkanization. What happened in Meech Lake was politics - the inclusion of Quebec in the constitution, though desirable, is more of a symbolic gesture. It is not something that needs to be hurried - if it takes another ten years, the country will be very little different for it. Mulroney's rush job has more to do with votes - propping up sagging support in Quebec - than it bas to do with francophone rigbts. This is a democracy and those guys at Meech Lake are supposed to be representing you and me. If you agree that this needs a lot more consideration and consultation than it's been given up to now, write your MP. His name is Scott Fennell and you can write to him postage free at "House of Commons, Ottawa." If you haven't time to write, send him a copy of this column with your name on it. Patent facts incorrect, says Fennell By SCOTT FENNELL MP Ontario Riding I would like to comment on an ar- ticle that I read in the Whitby Free Press earlier, written by Mabel M. McCabe. The article I am referring to initially discusses the changes in present society to years gone by, with a look at how society appears to be returning to old stan- dards. I do not have any problem with this. I became concerned when I read Mabel McCabe's statements about the Patent Act. I can understand Mabel McCabe wanting to advise her readers on any legislation that she feels they should be aware of. However, I take exception when I read totally in- correct facts being represented as the truth. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the regulations of the Bill, particularly as there has been so much incorrect information published. The Bill, an Act to amend the Patent Act, principally deals with patents on pharmaceuticals, and was passed in Parliament on May 6, 1987. The Bill amends the law by providing brand-name firms patent protection for their inventions, just as it is provided to most other in- dustries. Contrary to Mabel Mc- Cabe's statement, the Bill will not affect generic drugs that are already on the market at all, and generic copies of brand-name drugs will still be available in the future. Mabel McCabe states the Bill will have a negative impact on con- sumers as they will have to pay more for their drugs. However, the facts are just the opposite. This Bill contains excellent safeguards to protect consumer interest. Canadians will continue to benefit from generic drugs, and a board wil soon be established to monitor al drug prices. Canada has never had a board of this type before, so, in fact, the consumer will have more protection. As a result of numerous articles misrepresenting the facts regar- ding the Patent Act, as well as irresponsible statements by the Opposition parties, I received com- plaints from constituents stating that their drug prices are now rising and Bill C-22 is the cause. But the Bill had not been enacted at that time, therefore it was not causing the rise in these drugs prices. Since the Bill has now been passed con- sumers will have a board to review any rise in drug prices, and if the board believes that the price of a certain drug is too high - the com- pany will be told to lower the price. The goals of this Government when this legislation was drafted was to protect the consumer; to en- sure fair drug prices'; to make cer- tain that Canada plays a larger role in drug research; and that Canadians get the most bvenefit possible from the drug discovery process. We definitely believe that we have achieved this. Copy of letter from Whitby trustee Ian Brown in response to a. letter from Cathy Rowell of the Education Action Committee, a Whitby parents' group opposed to the Durham Board of Education plan for a new administration building. Dear Cathy: In response to your letter regar- ding the board's acquisition of a new administration building, I am pleased to provide you with the following information:.- 1. The need for a larger facility was identified in 1980 and bas been discussed and investigated several times in the last seven years. 2. The current building was built in 1960 for the Oshawa Board of Education only. It now serves seven municipalities within Durham. 3. 116 staff members are curren- tly accommodated at 555 Rossland Road, a facility designed for about 80 people. 4. Two portables have been erec- ted on the site and are occupied by staff. 5. 143 "central office" staff are located in four other facilities throughout the Region, creating problems of communication and coordination. These problems have a negative effect on the delivery of program to our students. 6. Rental costs are high. We do not view these expenses as beneficial to the system. 7. Overcrowding of staff in sub- standard accommodation is creating major probiems. The situation is not going to get any bet- ter unless alternate accom- modation is provided. I invite you to spend some time at 555 Rossland or in our rented space on Hopkins Street, or at the Sinclair office before you make any judgments about the adequacy of the working conditions in those facilities. 8. It is simply not the case, as you state, that "facilities and resources are severely underfinanced in ail areas of education." The 1987 budget provides for expenditures of $211 million, including $21 million for capital construction projects. The board has a program to upgrade libraries, general purpose rooms, academic resource facilities, and storage space in our schools. This program, is being followed. 9. It is not tenable to wait until ail pupil facility needs are met before addressing the needs of our staff. It is unlikely that the former will ever be accomplished to everyone's satisfaction. The need for staff ac- commodation is a separate matter from that of pupil accommodation. Both must be addressed concurren- tly. Proceeding with an ad- ministrative facility will not detract from the board's ambitious plans to provide adequate facilities for pupils. The accommodation needs of staff have not, as you suggest in your letter, been given priority over other needs. Sincerely, Ian Brown WHITBY FREE PRESS, WEDNESDAY, .JUNE 3,1987, PAGE 7 Trustee explains need for new board staff building