Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: the new Constitutional Deal
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:15:59 GMT

CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.175347.24421@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>ph3@unixg.ubc.ca (Michael Hamilton (phys 306)) writes:
>>>
>>>I remember when M. Bourassa used section 33 of the Charter to pass the sign
>>>law in Quebec, he said that if Meech had been law, he would have used the
>>>Distinct Society clause instead. (The Distinct Society clause, I suppose,
>>>would not have the politically difficult 5 year expiry date in the
>>>Notwithstanding clause.) I, up to that point, was unaware that the Distinct
>>>Society clause in Meech was worded strongly enough to allow suspension of
>>>"equality before and under the law" (Charter, Section 15(1)). I have also
>>>heard, from some French politicians, that the Distinct Society "equivalent"
>>>in this recent "deal" is not strong enough, so the eventual DS clause might
>>>have some effect on suspension of some Charter guaranteed rights, such
>>>that Quebec can suspend the icky ones permanently to preserve their culture.
>>>This, I think, is a fairly Canadian thing to do. (Imagine, however, if people
>>>had gone for the Vander Zalm initiative that EVERY province is a distinct
>>>society. Ouch.)
>>
>>I don't understand why it should be OK for Quebec to suspend Charter
>>guaranteed rights in the name of cultural preservation, but not the other
>>provinces. For example, why should it be fine for Quebec to pass a sign law
>>in order create a French exterior in Quebec, yet BC could not do so in
>>order to create an English exterior in the face of serious Asian
>>immigration? Does BC's culture not deserve the same considerations as
>>Quebec's?
>>
>The notwithstanding clause applies equally to all provinces.  Any
>province could use it to "defend" their culture.

But a potent DSC would allow Quebec to "defend" its culture without even
the slap of the wrist that the use of the NWC would cause.

>The distinct society clause, in any proposed version I have seen,
>does not explicitly give Quebec the power to suspend rights.  It
>instructs the courts to interpret the Charter taking into account
>Quebec's status as a distinct society.  The courts might decide
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>this status justifies suspending rights.  Then again, they might
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>not.  I don't think anybody really knows what the effect of the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>distinct society clause would be.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And that is the crux of the problem. It is not obvious what the DSC will
do, and it is also not obvious what it is supposed to do. It would appear
that Quebec expects it to be quite powerful since that province is
investing much time and energy in securing it and making it as broad as
possible. On the other hand, CSQ politicians play down its possible
strength; for example, have you ever heard a CSQ politician say that a DSC
would make passing a law like bill 178 easier. This is in stark contrast to
Bourassa who expects that a DSC would provide smooth sailing over the
trampling of individual rights. Who's right?

[BTW, Tom omitted the part of the article where I say I am playing
devil's advocate. I am *not* advocating a sign law for BC as it would
appear above.]

-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.general