Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Watch the Journal this week
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:50:19 GMT

Don Clayton (dclayton@bnr.ca) wrote:
>In article <1992Oct6.153557.23558@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>|> In article <1992Oct6.130526.991@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>|> >
>|> >All the consitutional pundits on this newsgroup should watch the Journal
>|> >this week, which is featuring discussions of components of the constitution 
>|> >with four constitutional lawyers.  It is very refreshing listening to 
>|> >informed debate on excerpts of the consitution, rather than the rhetoric 
>|> >from the politicians and the amateur speculations on this newsgroup.  
>|> >
>|> >The issue of whether the document creates a hierarchy of classes, as Trudeau 
>|> >claims, was generally refuted. The Canada Clause is a set of principles for
>|> 
>|> It most certainly was not...they had four people whose views spanned the
>|> range from seeing the Canada Clause as harmless, to Michael Bliss, who 
>|> essentially agrees with Trudeau.  Whether it was refuted depends on
>|> who you agree with...the concensus, if any, is that we really cannot
>|> know how the Courts will use the clause...the Canada Clause may be
>|> harmless, BUT IT MAY NOT BE as well.  
>|> 
>|> When it comes to constitutions as they bear on rights, I would argue,
>|> that we should worry about worst case scenarios...
>
>I agree with the Brian Ross - the 'hierarchy' argument had no substance.  Yes,
>the courts will decide for each case, but it seems to me that the Canada Clause
>is the best part of the deal - a perfect balance between the individuals and
>societies rights - a perfect reflection of Canada.

After Brian's post I took another viewing of the Journal episode in
question (I had taped it), since his  recollection of it did not quite
match mine. Bliss said:
1) the interpretation of the Charter must be consistent w/ the Canada
   Clause 
2) nuances of language important because the language must prioritize
   rights
3) we are bound to get difficult court cases where the various rights 
   collide
4) every word used in the Charter is an instruction to the judges when
   dealing with these difficult cases

At the closing he said (this is a direct quote):

"I think this discussion shows, so far, that human rights under the
Charter are going to be qualified by collective rights under the Canada
Clause and by the aboriginal order of government."

Thus, it would appear that Bliss believes that the Canada Clause, in a
sense, sets the pace of the entire Charter; and thus when a case involves a
human (individual) right up against a Canada Clause collective right, the
latter will be given the advantage; Ditto for aboriginal government. So,
he seems to indeed be supporting Trudeau's view of a hierarchy of rights.


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

Newsgroups: can.politics