From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Why vote NO! Was: Why vote NO?
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:29:09 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 6204

From article <BvEIEH.9py@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, by dbowman@shade
 Don A. Bowman wrote:-

> Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
> : 
> : The Canada Clause undermines individuals rights, entrenches the rights 
> : and perogatives of governments, and sets up a hierarchy of group or
> : collective rights...it basically fritters away liberty.
> 
> That is your opinion. Many prominent lawyers do not feel that way. There was
> a piece on the Journal last night in which a constitutional lawyer (I
> apologise, I cannot remember her name) felt that the Canada clause did no
> harm at all. Her reasoning was that since it is an interpretive clause, and
> that since the Charter of rights is very clear, it cannot detract from any
> rights or freedoms.
> 

Read it yourself.

It says "The Constitution of Canada, INCLUDING the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
the following fundamental characteristics: ..."

The "Canadians and their governments are committed ... " bit reads only
"attachement" in the French version. How will the courts interpret it?

- They will seek the reason for the difference. Now Quebec is recognised
as a "distinct society" with a "French speaking majority" (_NOT_ an
English speaking minority :-( ). "The role of the governmnent of Quebec to
preserve and promote the distinct society of Quebec is affirmed."

There is nothing to stop the Quebec government from introducing legislation
to preserve and promote its distinct, majority French speaking, society with
no worry about any "commitment" to the vitality and development of the
official language minority in Quebec.

They could, for example, pass a law that all business correspondence within
Quebec must be in French.

It would take years for the English community in Quebec to appeal this all
the way to the Supreme Court. The S.C. would then likely uphold the
legislation for the reasons indicated above. 

If the S.C threw the law out, Quebec still has the notwithstanding clause
which would stand for another 5 years. :-(

Please do not forget that "Education" was deliberately left out of this
package.

Both the federal and Quebec govs. have have made commitments to deal with
access to English schooling in Quebec for English mother tongue children.

The mother tongue criteria in the Can. Chrtr. of Rts. & Frdms. (s.23(1)(a))
still does not apply in Quebec (p.59). :-(

Read it for yourself!

> 
> : 
> : >  2. Quebec is hardly getting more power from a Distinct Society clause
> : >     when right now they totally ignore the constitution.

They don't totally ignore it - they already have the notwithstanding clause!

> : >  5. The transfer of powers is fairly minimal and shouldn't destroy national
> : >     programs in any significant way.
> : >
> : 
> : The transfer of powers is not minimal...the provision for bilateral
> : and multilateral agreements which limit the legislative and budgetary
> : powers of Parliament is open-ended.  The federal government can be
> : systematically dismantled with Charlottetown.
> 
> O sure. I guess.
> 

Read it for yourself!

> 
>    III 25
>           A framework should be developed to guide the use of the federal
>    spending power in all areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Once
>    developed, the framework could become a multilateral agreement that
>    would receive constitutional protection using the mechanism described in
>    Item 26 of this report. The framework should ensure that when the
>    federal spending power is used in areas of exclusive provincial
>    jurisdiction, it should:
> 
> ****       (a) contribute to the pursuit of national objectives;    *****
>    

Who are you kidding?  :-))

> : 
> : >  2. Will Quebec ever accept an accord without 'Distinct Society'?  NOT!
> : 
> : What really matter is the division of powers, not the distinct society.
> : Bourassa is using the distinct society as a constitutional insurgency
> : to get more power eventually.  If Quebec is offered the right deal
> : on the division of powers, the two words distinct society don't matter.
> 
> I think this is wrong. Anybody who has visited Quebec has realised that it is
> different. Their law is based on civil law, their culture is different, their
> legislature different. Different is not necessarily better or worse. Just
> different. What is wrong with recognising this? People who equate "distinct"
> with "better" are really not looking at the issue, they are just being
> emotional.
> 

IT IS WRONG IF IT DOES NOT INCLUDE GUARANTEES OF PROTECTION FOR THE MINORITY
COMMUNITY'S RIGHTS.

IT IS WRONG IF THE MINORITY COMMUNITY HAS NO WAY TO PROTECT ITSELF AGAINST
EXCESSIVE (AND RACIST!) LEGISLATION!

> We have elected constitutional craftsmen. Our Premiers. We elected them. They
> negotiated the deal. If there were multiple options, it would multiply the
> dissent. Just because you personally don't like this deal, and think we
> should remain in negotiations forever is no reason for the rest of us to
> believe this.
> 

Ivory towers?

> 
> Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Where do you get this erroneous thinking? A YES vote
> will bring unity. This is a surety. All the provinces have agreed to this
> deal. If all the provinces were to ratify it (a YES vote), all would, by
> definition agree. We would be left with one united Canada, ready to face the
> world. Internal strife would go on the back burner since all Canadians would
> have agreed on something.
> 

You are dreaming in technicolour if you think a deal based on the Ch'town
report will "bring unity" and end constitutional squabling.

> If you know what it really means, you will vote YES since you would know that
> YES is better than NO.  Agreement is, by definition, better than
> disagreement.

Now if you think a YES result will end disagreement you maust be living in
virtual reality. :-)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.politics:7564 soc.culture.canada:7031