Xref: utzoo can.politics:2009 can.francais:96
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: <1740@maccs.McMaster.CA>
Date: 23 Dec 88 11:28:31 GMT
References: <1988Dec13.133220.28851@lsuc.uucp> <4321@hcr.UUCP> <809@auvax.UUCP> <230@electro.UUCP> <2521@looking.UUCP> <560@cavell.UUCP> <10@rsoft.UUCP> <2052@van-bc.UUCP>
Distribution: can
Organization: Worldwide Phlogiston Cartel
Lines: 16

In article <2052@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes:
>
>I agree.  What I'd like to know is whether it would be possible to challenge
>the validity of the notwithstanding clause in the supreme court. Anybody
>like to comment.

Declare the Constitution itself to be unconstitutional?  Wow, what a concept.

>Also, I would like to propose that Federal civil servants be required to 
>use only English in their jobs if they are outside of Quebec. Again you can
>tie this to withdrawal of the Quebec law.

Why?  They're not required to use French only in Quebec.  Federal
institutions do not fall under provincial jurisdiction anyway: e.g.,
post offices and other federal buildings in Quebec have always had
bilingual signs.