From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: RE: The Can. Chrtr. of Rts. & Frdms.
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:56:32 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 3042

From article <01OCT92.18859941.0066@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, by CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94):
> In article <1992Oct1.090611.26401@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>
>>Para. 23(1)(a) of the Can. Chrtr. of Rts. & Frdms. is not in force in
>>Quebec. = Para. 59 of the Constitution suspends this particular provision
>>in Quebec. WITH NO TIME LIMIT! :-(((((((((
>>
>>Look at the list of subjects discussed in the Ch'town report. Isn't it
>>significant that they could discuss forestry, tourism and mining but
>>couldn't even mention the word "education"? :-(((((((((
>>
> Perhaps it's significant, but it's certainly not surprising.
> Education has always been a provincial responsability.  The
> only exception to this in the 1867 constitution was a provision
> for the federal government to intervene to protect the rights
> of religious (not linguistic) minorities.  The Manitoba schools
> question of the 1890s and the resulting Laurier-Greenway agreement
> showed that Ottawa was not prepared to vigorously exercise this
> provision.
> 
> Section 23 of the 1982 Charter was clearly intended to modify the
> "Quebec clause" of Bill 101 and replace it with a "Canada clause."
> Other provinces were affected, too, but this section was obviously
> aimed at Quebec, and imposed on it against its will.  Although I
> am in favor of increased access to linguistic-minority schools,
> I think there are legitimate objections to the way this clause
> was implemented in 1981-82.  Quebec adopted a clause in 1977 which,
> though you and I may not like it very much, was perfectly within
> its powers.  Then Ottawa and the other provinces got together and
> decided to change the rules of the game over Quebec's objection.
> And this change was not one that just incidentally affected Quebec;
> it was specifically aimed at it.

S.23 was written specifically to correct the section of Bill 101 regarding
access to minority langauge schooling.

The Supreme Court said that this was because of Quebec's immigration
conscerns at the time.

Statistics have not supported the arguments put forward for restricting
access; immigration deals have been signed.

There is _NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON_ for this restriction to remain in the 
constitution.

It IS a constituional issus while it remains in the text thereof.

> 
> Given that one of the goals of the current round is to "satisfy"
> Quebec, and given that this province guards jealously its fields
> of jurisdiction, and given that many other provinces are less than
> enthusiastic about improving their French-language schools, it can
> hardly be surprising that education isn't mentioned in the Ch'town
> Accord.

That's right.

A damn good reason for rejecting it, right there!

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.politics:7686 soc.culture.canada:7082