Conference kaosws::canada

    My understanding is that this was part of the Meech Lake accord.

    The Notwithstanding clause is part of the constitution, as patriated
    in 1981.  It is unrelated to the Meech Lake Accord.
    
    Several provinces have invoked this section of the constitution
    to pass legislation ruled unconstitutional by the courts.  Typically,
    it is used when the province claims that individual rights are
    subservient to collective rights.  This is needed if we are to avoid
    the abuses of collective rights we see coming out of US courts (an
    observation, not a criticism).
    
    The decision by the government of Manitoba was taken because they
    felt that the abuse of minority language rights in Quebec violated
    the spirit of the Meech Lake Accord.  There were concessions to
    Quebec in the Meech Lake Accord, and many of the other provinces
    feel betrayed.  It is also ironic that Quebec is invoking a clause
    in a constitution it has not signed.
    
    One other factor to consider is that the P.C. government in Manitoba
    is a minority.  Both opposition parties are agaist Meech Lake, and
    the defeat of the Meech Lake legislation mat have brought down the
    government.  Premier Filmon was in a difficult position, and Bourassa
    has provided an easy way out.
    
    The Meech Lake accord is far too important for Quebec to run the
    risk of its defeat.  Bourassa has placed himself in a difficult
    position for several reasons:
    	1) He did not deal with this issue when he was elected 3 years
    ago.  Had he removed the unconstitutional sections of Bill 101,
    the political ramifications would be overshadowed by the accomplishment
    of the Meech Lake Accord.
    	2) He did not consider the political environment outside Quebec.
    There was considerable opposition to Meech Lake in English Canada,
    and this move will be painted as abuse of the 'distinct society'
    part of Meech Lake.  If the Accord can be saved, it will happen
    only after an ammendment protecting minority language rights.
    	3) The failure of this accord will seriously damage the
    relationship between Quebec and Ottawa, as well as between Bourassa
    and Mulrooney.

    Of course, the danger of not getting Quebec into the constitution
    is increased nationalism in Quebec, and increased PQ support
    
    Glenn

    After having read .2, I still have to ask the question asked in
    .0 - Why do we bother letting the Supreme Court of Canada make a
    decision on an important issue, if the province has the power to
    override the court's decision?
    
    I agree that Bourassa made a decision he felt was right for Quebec,
    but I don't believe he understood the federal ramifications of his
    actions. 
    
    But to be fair, I also believe the Filmon acted out of haste, and
    not giving the issue the necessary 'think time'.
    
    When a decision is made by the Supreme Court, is it not the duty
    of this court to consider the individuals involved?  Should they
    not be the ones to always be aware of the 'Notwithstanding Clause'
    when making these types of decisions?
    
    It is IMPORTANT for Canadians to realize that we have two national
    languages - English and French!  Bill 101 was a drastic measure
    to ensure French Language Rights.  The Supreme Court has said it's
    too extreme, and you can't FORCE business's to have French only
    signs on the outside.  But Bourassa has said that Quebec CAN force
    and WILL force businesses to have French only signs.
    
    French language is an important part of our Cultural Mosaic (you
    remember, not the US melting pot, but the ability for cultures to
    be retained and grow within Canada ?).  However, culture can NOT
    be forced.  And that's exactly what Bill 101 did.  
    
    Before the premieres' can agree to sign a Meech Lake accord, they'd
    better understand where they stand on the issue of 'What does the
    decision of the Supreme Court mean to us?  Anything?'
    
    
    
    Dave

    re: .3
    
    Actually, all provinces except New Brunswick and Manitoba have ratified
    the Meech Lake accord by passing the required legislation.
    
    With regard to your concern over the override of the Supreme Court,
    the Court is supposed to interpret what has been writen in the
    Constitution.  If governments feel that the written letter of the
    constitution is interfering with the spirit of the constitution,
    the provinces have reserved the right to override the Court's decision.
    This can be accomplished by invoking the notwithstanding clause,
    or by making an ammendment to the constitution (which requires approval
    of the necessary number of provinces, and the federal government).
    The notwithstanding clause was a comprimise designed to get the
    provinces to agree to patriation of the constitution.  Thank Mr.
    Trudeau for that mess.
    
        Of course, this leaves the constitution open to abuse, and many
    provinces are arguing that has happened in this instance.  The Court's
    job is only to interpret what was written; those same lawmakers
    can change the constitution if they want.  It's the same as auditors
    coming into the office.  They compare your documented procedures
    to your actual procedures, and point out differences.  But the managers
    can just change the documentation to fit the procedure.
    
    I predict that we'll see a change in the notwithstanding clause
    to prevent this from happening.  But before we can change the
    constitution, we need Quebec to sign.  For Quebec to sign, we need
    the Meech Lake Accord.  To get approval for Meech Lake, we'll need
    a change to prevent the effects of Bill 101.  Vicious circle, eh!
    
    Glenn

    re: .3 (Gendron)
    
    Listen, modem-breath, its like this:
    
    The courts are referees and the Prov./Fed. Parliament & Legislatures
    are the League. You & me are in aisle 123456 section zz too far
    away to see the nuances of play, but able to grasp the general game
    flow. The various governments are the players (and sometimes also
    are League officials simultaneously). The news media is Howie Meeker,
    those in the VIP box are big business, etc. etc.
    
    What's my point, you ask?
    
    Good question ... thought I had one.
     Oh well, back to sleep.
    
    Scooter

	I think that standards should be designed the way the constitution
    was. That is with a built-in nonobstant clause. I could imagine the great
    presentation it would make: we would explain in details how strictly
    we adhere to the standard, mainly to its nonobstant clause. 
    This deep respect to the standard could easily be justified
    by the better performances of the proprietary product!
    At least it would allow us to compete on differences.
    And believe me, it is difficult to explain that we are better than
    the other guy because we are more identical...well, I'm getting
    confused...(what was this topic about, anyway?)

    The notwithstanding clause that was invoked was in the 'Quebec Charter
    Of Rights', not the Canadian Constitution. The Supreme Court made
    its ruling based on the Quebec Charter Of Rights it did not refer
    to the Constitution's Charter Of Rights And Freedoms. The Quebec
    Government threw away their own charter of rights and went against
    their own policy in order to win the next provincial election.

    I think the province should have VETO power over the supreme court.
    Why should a certain number of old MEN in the supreme court have the 
    almighty say in the rights of Canadians. 
    The goverment is the people and the people decide whats best. IN
    this case the Quebec Liberal goverment decided to go with a language
    bill or in other words the people of Quebec did. 
    Therefore, if the people of Quebec don't like it, then they should
    complain to their representatives.

    The provinces do have the power to VETO any ruling of the Supreme
    Court. All they have to do is pass a new law. This is the reason
    we have federal and provincial parliaments. 
    
    As has been mentionned, the Supreme Court only rule whether the
    law created by a body is in fact legal and can be enforced under
    higher laws created by the same, or a higher institution.
    
    An analogy could be a municipality passing a by-law permitting speed
    limits of 100kph in a school zone. The provincial law, a higher
    body, does not permit this and so the municipal law is invalid.
    
    Similarly, the provincial and federal Charter of Rights prohibit
    the declaration of unilingual signs in any province, therefore Bill
    101 was unenforceable. It would be just as wrong for any province
    to declare that all signs must be in English, or Ukrainian, or Chinese.
    
    The province has done exactly what you want. They have passed a
    new law requiring French signs outside and allowing bilingual signs
    inside. We now have to wait for the appeals to see if this law will
    also be ruled unconstitutional.
    
    Roger

re: .10 (et al.)

This is all very interesting, and confusing.

A quick question:
    
>    The province has done exactly what you want. They have passed a
>    new law requiring French signs outside and allowing bilingual signs
>    inside.                        ^^^^^^^
     ^^^^^^
    
Does this mean required "outdoors" and allowed "indoors", as in a
business establishment, etc.?

Thanks,

Kip

    re .11
    
    The restrictions that are to be (are being ?) enforced by the Bourassa
    government are such that the OUTDOOR signs (ie. as in business signs,
    street signs,...) MUST be in French.  Indoor signs may be French
    or English (or whatever, I suppose).  
    
    It is only pertaining to outdoor signs.
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Just as a note for those of you who do not get Canadian newspapers,
    and want to follow this issue, three ministers in the Bourassa
    government have resigned over this issue (yes, they were all English
    speaking).
    
    
    
    Dave

    However, one English cabinet minister in Quebec did not resign but
    has chosen to remain in cabinet. It is expected that the new
    legislation will pass today.
    
    re .11
    
    I forgot that this is being read by a lot of non-residents. The
    legislation is being referred to as the _outside/inside_ solution
    which calls for outdoor signs to be in French only which indoor
    signs may be bilingual. There is still no option for English only
    signs. To muddy the waters even further, Bourassa has said he might
    entertain requests for creation of areas of special interest, ie
    predominantly English towns, where they might allow bilingual outdoor
    signs as well.
    
    They are creating a dog's breakfast in Quebec with a result that
    is unsatisfying to either the French or English speaking Quebecers.
    
    Roger

I understand that the Province de Quebec wants the free trade
with the Americans. Are they going to make the same stipulation
for Americans; "notwithstanding"? Or if they go after business
from the Asian market, they will not allow Asian languages on the
outside?

cal hoe who_is_wondering_if_Quebecquois_have_dug_their_own_hole_deeper

    Quebec does not care what kind of sign, or language you use in
    conducting your business in another province, state, or country.
    
    They are only interested if you want to open an office in the province.
    Then they have legislated language that you will use to identify
    yourself.
    
    Roger

Sorry to show my ignorance, but I'm getting a little confused with all of 
this Bill 101 talk. I haven't been in Canada since I graduated from McGill
in 82.  I thought that 101 had died a slow death with the election of Bourassa
and the Liberals.  Since Bourassa was pro-business and the new business oriented
Quebec was on the horizon, 101 was to have faded away with Camille Laurin,
Rene Levesque and the rest of the PQ. The province was to have been more 
amenable to doing business in English or any other language. In fact, I 
seemed to recall reading something like that in Fortune magazine in the 
early 80's. 

Anyhow, I seem to recall that there was a ton of controversy then.  Is this 
just a rehashing of the same issue?

Thanks for your help in keeping me up-to-date. 

Warren

    RE: -1
    
    Bill 101 is alive and kicking.