Xref: utzoo can.politics:2006 can.francais:95
Path: utzoo!lsuc!maccs!gordan
From: gordan@maccs.McMaster.CA (gordan)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.francais
Subject: Re: Notwithstanding clause -- truly a sad day for Canada
Message-ID: <1737@maccs.McMaster.CA>
Date: 23 Dec 88 02:32:51 GMT
References: <1988Dec13.133220.28851@lsuc.uucp> <4321@hcr.UUCP> <809@auvax.UUCP> <230@electro.UUCP> <2521@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: gordan@maccs.UUCP ()
Distribution: can
Organization: Worldwide Phlogiston Cartel
Lines: 18

In article <2521@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
>
>We should scrap Meech Lake.  A province that would do this over something
>as trivial as the control of signs deserves no place in the constitution
>of this country.  That's how strongly I feel about this.

Well, perhaps you're exalting the constitution a little too much here.
The notwithstanding clause is no historical accident -- it is an
integral part of the constitution.

Make no mistake -- if there had been no notwithstanding clause, our
fundamental charter would still be the BNA Act.  Ironically, it was
English-speaking premiers like Peter Lougheed and Sterling Lyon who
withheld their approval for patriation and insisted on such a clause
over Trudeau's objections.

Is it Meech Lake that is fundamentally flawed or is it the Constitution
itself?