One of the great Christian saints (I think it was Saint Francis) once clarified the meaning of the word "charity". He said that giving out of your excess to the needy is not charity but justice. Charity is something more. It involves giving of yourself. The word "democracy" is in need of similar clarification. Even though our understanding of democracy is not as complete as it should be, most Canadians agree it is the best way for us to govern ourselves. If democracy is what we choose, we should strive to perfect it. Democracy is more than the right of every citizen to vote. At its heart is a loving equality, a sensitivity to the fact that not only are you equal to everyone else, but they are equal to you. It was once thought that democracy was compatible with slavery. We now know that this is wrong. It was also thought that an acceptable democracy could exclude the voice of women. We know this is not right. As our understanding of democracy grows, we gradually recognize and accept more and more of its uncompromisingly just demands. Certainly the time has come to see that any one individual's slice of the pie must be limited. It is time we established a maximum income for Canadians. There is an enormous and arbitrary range in how our society rewards its members for what they do. An attempt to correct this inequality should be the basis for the social charter which eventually ought to accompany Canada's new Constitution. When constitutional talks resume, they must be directed by the most fundamental principles of living together. So far, all the political proposals for sharing power are restricted to the ambitions of various governments and special interest groups. There is no mention of the real sharing of real power among individual Canadians, which would involve a more equitable and fair distribution of wealth. The growing disparity between the rich and the poor makes it clear how undemocratic we have been, and how flimsy our grasp of democracy remains. If we truly embraced the fundamental equality which is the essence of democracy, a sensibly limited range of incomes would already be established. A maximum income would complement and relate to the chosen minimum income. A ceiling on incomes is easily justified. The work any one individual can do is limited. Any wealth he or she acquires after being paid to this limit is the product of the work of others. This is obvious. No matter how industrious or greedy, there is an upper limit to how much any one person can produce alone. A constitutional restriction on individual greed (and corporate greed) would not impede democratic freedom. It would enhance it. The freedom to amass huge fortunes, like the freedom to steal, means a loss of freedom to others and has nothing to do with democracy. We must come to see that unbridled capitalism is both undemocratic and a threat to democracy. The limit of fairness is necessary. From the heart of democracy come very simple questions (and democracy demands answers to them): Why shouldn't blacks have the same opportunities as whites? Why shouldn't females share the decision making with males? And why should doctors and lawyers reap more benefits from our collective life together than farmers and labourers? These are not difficult questions. Privilege is an order based on inequality and is therefore undemocratic. True democracy will elude us as long as striving to get more than our share is a way of life. To the detriment of our country (and the world), far too many believe it is a virtue to take increasingly more. And we live in a world where real people die of hunger in vast numbers every day. Ecologically, the Earth cannot sustain our acquisitive and life-threatening ways. We must change our attitudes. For starters, taking too much must be recognized as the criminal activity it is.