Xref: utzoo can.francais:155 can.politics:2872 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!ria!uwovax!gerard From: gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) Newsgroups: can.francais,can.politics Subject: Re: article sur Meech paru dans la presse Message-ID: <3981.254483ac@uwovax.uwo.ca> Date: 24 Oct 89 19:45:48 GMT References: <89Oct24.101451edt.3666@neat.cs.toronto.edu> Distribution: can Organization: University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., Canada Lines: 68 In article <89Oct24.101451edt.3666@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, derome@cs.toronto.edu (Philippe Derome) writes: > Je reproduis ici un article de La Presse, 21 octobre 1989 (sur Meech) An excellent article, I think, and I agree with a lot of it. Some remarks, though. [I'll write this in English, as I do not want to force my interpretation of French onto those who really know the language.] > Le super-symbole de l'Accord du lac Meech est cette reconnaissance du > caracte`re <> du Que'bec. S'il y a quelque chose de vague, c'est > bien cette clause-la. Aucun juriste ne sait ce que cette disposition > donnerait concre`tement si elle devait e^tre invoque'e par le gouvernement > que'be'cois. The vagueness of the concept of Distinct Society is one of its main problems. Indeed, no one knows what it means. One can see this in two ways: 1) because no one knows what it means, no one can use it; 2) because no one knows what it means, it can be used any way one would like. It is this latter interpretation that is the root of the problem with the clause. We do not need another non-withstanding-type clause. Added to this, only Quebec gets the designation DS. Granted, Quebec is probably more distinct from any other province than the other provinces are from each other, but I don't think it is good for any group to set one member apart as distinct from the others, given the general human characteristic of discriminating between "them" and "us". We should also note that a lot of the opposition against Meech has to do with how Canada as a whole functions (e.g. the clause on federal spending, who appoints senators, and so on), and opposing that has nothing to do with anti-Quebecism. > [on an EEE senate] > Les petites provinces re'clament un se'nat ou` chaque province aurait le > me^me nombre de sie`ges. C'est en soi une proposition farfelue: que > fait-on de la <>? Depuis quand la repre'sentation ne > doit-elle pas e^tre proportionnelle au nombre d'habitants? I have never quite understood how anyone can believe that PEI will get as many seats in any kind of senate as Ontario. "Elected" does not necessarily mean that each province gets to elect the same amount of senators. "Equal" has so many interpretations that it is virually meaningless. And "Effective"? Effective in what, out-legislating the House of Commons? I fully agree with the article: linking the EEE mess with the Meech Lake mess is so ridiculous that it is hard to say anything sensible about it. > Ayant battu le candidat conservateur pilote' par le > premier ministre Getty, le <> albertain de'clare repre'senter sa > province plus encore que le premier ministre provincial, puisqu'il a e'te' > e'lu non pas dans un comte' mais a` travers tout le territoire! Well, he does have a point, doesn't he? :-) > Et si la the'rapie ne re'ussit pas, he' bien, ceux qui trouvent ce > psychodrame invivable pourront toujours de'me'nager a` Beyrouth, Leipzig > ou Soweto, la` ou` l'on a la chance d'e^tre a` l'abri de ces pe'nibles > proble`mes constitutionnels! Ah yes, the relativity of it all. Let us not forget that the perceived problem always equals the real problem divided by its relative importance. This is known as the Law of Conservation of Discontent. -------------------------------------------- Gerard Stafleu (519) 661-2151 Ext. 6043 Internet: gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca BITNET: gerard@uwovax