Trudeau gets it, Schafer doesn’t

Dear Editor,

Once again, Mr. Schafer has failed to understand the realities of the Canadian experience. Canada is a multicultural state: that is a fact. It is, therefore, essential when making assumptions and constructing political recommendations, to comprehend the real.

But I suppose this is why Mr. Schafer admires Lucien Bouchard. Like Bouchard, Mr. Schafer is an illusionist. Trudeau was adamant in this portrayal of Bouchard, saying he, "went beyond the limits of honest and democratic debate," during the 1995 referendum on sovereignty.

I will not be as critical towards Mr. Schafer as Trudeau was Bouchard, but nevertheless, it must be pointed out that Mr. Schafer’s unfavorable portrayal of multiculturalism is based on a misguided thrust of patriotic fervor, which frankly has no room in the Canadian context.

Trudeau understands Canadian reality. He, unlike Mr. Schafer, figured out that "uniformity is neither desirable nor possible in a country the size of Canada" and "what the world should be seeking, and what we in Canada must continue to cherish, are not concepts of uniformity but human values: compassion, love and understanding."

Hence, his argument pertaining to Trudeau’s brand of multiculturalism, which he says does "everything humanly possible to make Canada acceptable to every foreigner" is skewed for a variety of reasons. It fails to realize that all Canadians, except those indigenous to Canada, were the benefactors of an accepting Canada.

The brand of assimilation Mr. Schafer speaks of does nothing but create strife and animosity between groups. Inevitably, conflict will be the result of intolerance that assimilation breeds. History has proven this time and time again.

Mr. Schafer’s assertion that Trudeau "disrespected" Canada’s institutions is wrong. Bringing home our constitution, implementing bilingualism, fighting Quebec separatists and entrenching a Charter that protects the rights of all Canadians is ample evidence required to validate Mr. Trudeau’s love of Canada.

Neil Cruickshank

---

Wilf’s weary

Dear Editor,

I don’t know a whole lot about the ownership of Wilf’s, but would I be incorrect to assume the Student’s Union has partial ownership of it? If so, I wish to announce my profound dissatisfaction with the service I received there recently.

It was two o’clock in the afternoon and the music was blaring, for reasons I’ve yet to fathom. When I politely asked the waitress to turn the music down, she replied that she’d ‘see what she could do.’ A very long time later, someone who looked in charge swaggered out of the bowels of the establishment to spin the little dial and shoot me a look of annoyance. Finally, my waitress short-changed me two dollars, and I was free to go.

I’m not trying to get anyone fired, and some of the waitresses are very polite However, I’m not the first person to express dissatisfaction with the service at Wilf’s.

Are the employees assuming that because we are all students they are somehow exempt from the requisites of courtesy?

I have worked in the customer service industry for four years, and if I had behaved in a similar manner, I would have been summarily executed to throbbing cheers of a lynch mob of restaurant managers.

If it’s our restaurant, run for the students by the students, then how about extending each other some courtesy.

Sam Varteniuk

---

Victoria never beat nobody!

Dear Editor,

I too have heard of the Liberal government’s plans to abolish the monarchy in Canada.

In fact, by co-oping as a Constituency Assistant for my local Liberal MP in high school, I have known this plan has been in the works for some time.

I find myself agreeing with Chris Schafer’s argument that dissolving the crown in our federation will, undoubtedly, deteriorate an already weak union.

There is a great danger in trying to create a national identity by ridding the state of institutions that have been our identity for the past three centuries.

My question is: What do we replace the Queen with? How would we go about electing a president that would represent all aspects of Canada?

If the Liberals had their way (which, I must point out they do not have the time, or momentum to pull off), would we be marching into the 21st century under the leadership of, say, President Pierre Trudeau?

Asad Kiyani argues the Monarchy is to blame for Britain’s repressive and colonial legacy. I’m sorry, I never read in the history books where Victoria (or her kin) jumped out of her carriage and proceeded to personally beat and oppress her various subjects.

The Monarch is not the head of government of Britain, which would be the body that Mr. Kiyani should be pointing his finger at. The United States has had its share of atrocities in history, does that mean it is time for them to think twice about their Republic?

I think before we allow the government to quietly give Her Majesty the boot, we should learn what it is that is being lost.

When people visit our country and ask why we have the Queen as head of state, that’s good.

Anything that causes someone to look into the history of Canada to find out why things are the way they are should be encouraged.

Nathan Tidridge

---

Health Act protects all

Dear Editor,

Chris Schafer’s Cord column (January 7, 1999) suggested Canada’s health care system is seriously flawed and unfair.

While our system is not perfect, he is oversimplifying to suggest we get rid of it altogether. Mr. Schafer suggested we increase the degree of privatization in our present health system so that we can have "choice."

But this begs the question: what will we be choosing from? Evidence from other nations (e.g. New Zealand) reveals that only those with high incomes will have the ability to choose high quality, efficient health care service. All other Canadians will then have no choice but to accept poorer quality health care with longer waiting periods.

Mr. Schafer said Economics 101 demonstrates that competition is good in the commodity-oriented marketplace. Maybe so, but is it in our best interest to consider health care a commodity?

He goes on to make the comparison of our health care system to Bell’s long distance phone charges. Yet, we aren’t talking about long distance phone charges here; we’re concerned with health and people’s lives.

Privatization is not the answer to solving the problems and issues raised by Mr. Schafer in his article. Embarking on a privatized health system takes us down a slippery slope. In that context, health management companies and doctors will be further encouraged to emphasize profit over quality care.

What it all boils down to is a question of values. Canada was founded on values that were based on a belief in the common good and the equality of all of its citizens.

The Canada Health Act was designed to uphold these values by promoting the universality of health care in this country.

Ultimately, privatization of our health care system is supported by those views that place economic values over human values.

We need to be critical when examining issues like these, particularly when publishing our thoughts; an uncritical standpoint will give us all a distorted perspective.

Sherri van de Hoef