From: baby@info.polymtl.ca (Philippe Grant)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.followup
Subject: Re: Bill 178
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:08:56 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada

In article <920723278@veietto.uucp> fveillet@veietto.uucp (Francois Veillette) writes:

>     . This made a hole in the law and the Bill 178 patches it.
>
>   The Bill 178 involved a five years withdraw clause to be adopted,
>   which made big waves in Quebec and Canada.
>
>   The Bill could be resume by this: The highest court of Canada has
>   decided: this is illegal.  We don't know how to solve the problem,
>   let's be illegal for the next five years.  By the time we will
>   have found something to resolve it.

You are quite right.  The Supreme Court of Canada has deemed the law
unconstitutionnal, but our constituion allows a province to invoque the
infamous "notwithstanding clause" which allows a province to disregard a
Supreme Court decision for 5 years (I'm not sure if it's 4 or 5 years).  I
think it is very dangerous for provinces to have such power since it could
allow an entry port for a dictatoship.  It may seem far fetched for now,
but it is not known what state the country will be like in 5, 10, 15, 50
years...  Just imagine, a province decides to close down a newspaper,
arrest journalists, silence free speech.

More down to earth, it is clear that the notwithstanding clause is simply
an escape hatch for boneless politicians (read Bourassa) who have no clue
about what to do about anything.  Don't think I support Muldoon or
Parizeau.  Just remember that if he wants to, Bourassa can renew the
notwithstanding clause for another term, practically nullifying the word of
our highest court.  I say, if you don't wanna play by the rules, go play
somewhere else and leave us alone (read: seperate and be done with it
damnit!).

>   Today, the Quebec problem is still there, but we added the senate
>   problem, the distribution of power problem and the native problem.
>   This is an impossible task to solve all of them at the same time,
>   it is the challenge that Joe Clark has taken.

I often wonder if our politicians are all part of a conspiracy to focus the
medias' attention away from the issues that the people care about (jobs,
jobs, economy, economy, healh care...).


>   I must say I don't like the Bill 178 since the beginning, simply
>   because it is a patch and doesn't solve anything.  Beside it
>   has made the Anglophone community of Quebec angry by telling them
>   You don't exist anymore.
>
>   So I say to Steve Potter: I respect the English face of Quebec
>   and you have the right to fight for it.  I do not agree with
>   your opinion but I respect it.  You shouldn't care about
>   Bill 178, the five years are almost over anyway.  You should
>   care about the next step.  If Quebec separates from Canada,
>   we (Quebec) will have all the power over the language and
>   I think that we will give the place they deserve to the Anglophones.
>   If we stay with Canada, Quebec will continue to be defensive
>   about the growing Anglophone community.

>   --
>   Francois Veillette, Montreal CANADA
>   E-mail: fveillet@veietto.UUCP 
>   UUCP: ..!uunet!sobeco!comback!veietto!fveillet 

Thank you for a frank opinion.  I just hope that if Quebec seperates,
they'll have enough sense not to inflict the same kind of "domination" over
its minorities that Quebec suffered for so many years.  Two wrongs do not
make a right.  I am a francophone.  I've grown up in Montreal.  I've been
schooled in french, and I feal very lucky to have been exposed to 2
cultures, and I hope my children will experience the same.  My Canada
includes Quebec.

--
Philippe Grant                     |
Etudiant, Genie Informatique       | If it ain't broke,
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal    | DON'T FIX IT!!!
baby@info.polymtl.ca               | Including this signature!