derome@cs.toronto.edu (Philippe Derome) (10/24/89)
Je reproduis ici un article de La Presse, 21 octobre 1989 (sur Meech) Il est a` noter que ceci a e'te' publie' avant les demandes officielles de Gary Filmon et de Frank McKenna. An English translation would require too much time on my part. Les (sic) sont mes annotations. Psychiatres demande's Il y a des jours ou` on se demande s'il ne faudrait pas retirer le dossier constitutionnel des mains de politiciens pour le confier a` des psychiatres, ou, mieux, a` des psychothe'rapeutes spe'cialise's dans les brouilles conjugales et les complexes d'infe'riorite'! Commenc,ons par le de'but de la chai^ne. Les Que'be'cois anglophones se sentent rejete's par les francophones. Les Que'be'cois francophones se sentent rejete's par le Canada anglais. Les gens de l'Ouest se sentent rejete's par le Que'bec et l'Ontario. Les Ontariens se sentent rejete's par les Ame'ricains. Quant aux minorite's franc,aises, elles se sentent rejete'es par tout le monde en meme temps. Bref, nous voila` jusqu'au cou dans la dynamique du rejet... Et pour couronner ce magma d'impressions et de pre'juge's, quelques symboles, qui sont au de'bat constitutionnel ce que l'affichage e'tait au de'bat sur la langue: la <<socie'te' distincte>>, la re'forme du se'nat... * * * Le super-symbole de l'Accord du lac Meech est cette reconnaissance du caracte`re <<distinct>> 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. Personne non plus n'a la moindre ide'e des raisons pour lesquelles ce dernier l'invoquerait, quand il peut si facilement se soustraire a la Charte des droits fe'de'rale par la clause de'rogatoire (dite <<nonobstant>>), laquelle n'a, rappelons-le, rien a` voir avec l'Accord du lac Meech. La clause du caracte`re distinct, en somme, n'aura peut-e^tre aucune porte'e concre`te au Que'bec, et encore moins dans les autres provinces. Mais le symbole est la`, et plus le temps passe, plus il grossit. Au Que'bec, on y tient comme a` une concession minimale, un petit signe de bienvenue, une fac,on de sauver la face. Au Canada anglais, on y voit toutes sortes de choses qui n'ont aucun fondement dans la re'alite': on y voit l'expression du me'pris du Que'bec envers des provinces pas assez inte'ressantes pour e^tre juge'es <<distinctes>>, on y voit le premier pas vers l'e'clatement du pays, etc. * * * Dans l'Ouest, et, a` un moindre degre', dans les Maritimes, le symbole, l'ide'e-fe'tiche, c'est la re'forme du se'nat, auquel la classe politique s'accroche machinalement me^me s'il s'agit d'une ope'ration fastidieuse qui, a` supposer qu'elle soit mene'e a` terme, pourrait faire du Canada un pays a` peu pre`s ingouvernable. 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 <<majority rule>>? Depuis quand la repre'sentation ne doit-elle pas e^tre proportionnelle au nombre d'habitants? On e'voque, e'videmment, l'exemple ame'ricain -- chaque E'tat a deux se'nateurs, le South Dakota autant que la Californie... Mais on oublie que le se'nat ame'ricain n'a pas sa source dans l'ide'ologie de'mocratique. Un peu comme la Chambre des Lords en Angleterre, il a e'te' conc,u comme une fac,on de contrebalancer le pouvoir populaire: les se'nateurs, qui a` l'origine e'taient des notables nomme's et non pas e'lus, et dont le mandat a toujours e'te' plus long que celui des membres du Congre`s, avaient pour fonction implicite de tempe'rer l'ardeur des <<congressmen>> e'lus. le se'nat ame'ricain est aujourd'hui e'lectif, mais on n'a pu toucher aux <<droits acquis>> des petits E'tats en e'liminant ce vestige de l'esprit monarchique que constitue la parite' des sie`ges. Il est bien e'vident, en tout cas, que M. Bourassa ne pourra s'engager a` souscrire a` une re'forme du se'nat substantielle, a` supposer que les provinces re'calcitrantes en fassent une condition pour l'adoption de l'Accord du lac Meech. Le Que'bec, avec six millions d'habitants (sic), de me^me que l'Ontario, qui en compte huit (sic), ne peuvent accepter de voir leur repre'sentation se'natoriale e'gale a` celle de provinces dont la population va d'un demi-million a` trois millions. Ce pourrait e^tre acceptable, a` la rigueur, si le se'nat ne devenait qu'une sorte de nid a` patronage sans pouvoirs re'els. Mais les partisans de la re'forme veulent e'galement e'largir, pluto^t que de re'duire, les pouvoirs du se'nat. On voit d'ici le portait d'un pays surgouverne', ou` abonderaient les frictions entre... non pas deux, mais trois paliers de gouvernement. Trois paliers de gouvernement (sans compter les conseils municipaux) pour 25 millions d'habitants! Non, mais vraiment! On se souvient des impasses auxquelles ont mene', durant les mois pre'ce'dant les e'lections de 88, le bloquage (sic, blocage) de projets de loi conservateurs par le se'nat libe'ral. Des se'nateurs dote's de la le'gitimite' e'lectorale seront encore plus porte's a` obstruer un processus le'gislatif et administratif de'ja` terriblement lent. Le se'nat empie`tera e'galement sur la jurisdiction provinciale. Qui parlera pour la province? Le gouvernement provincial? Les de'pute's e'lus aux Communes? Les se'nateurs e'lus a` l'e'chelle de la province? L'aventure albertaine nous donne un avant-gou^t de ce sce'nario: le premier ministre Getty, ardent partisan de cette re'forme, s'est engage' a` proposer, pour le poste qui revient a` l'Alberta, une se'nateur e'lu... Or, l'heureux e'lu, aux termes d'e'lections ou` le tiers a` peine des e'lecteurs se sont donne's (sic, s'est donne') la peine d'aller voter, est un ge'ne'ral a` la retraite de 69 ans qui est a` l'extre^me-droite d'un parti extre^me-droite (le Reform Party). Ayant battu le candidat conservateur pilote' par le premier ministre Getty, le <<se'nateur>> 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! Mais e'videmment, ce projet de re'forme se'natoriale, qui tombera probablement le jour ou` on l'e'tudiera se'rieusement, cristallise des sentiments: comme le concept de <<socie'te' distincte>> est le fe'tiche des Que'be'cois qui veulent un Que'bec inde'pendant dans un Canada uni, la re'forme du se'nat est le fe'tiche des petites provinces qui envient les grosses provinces. * * * Bref, c'est le mode`le classique de la chicane de me'nage: chaque partenaire se sent mal aime', mal compris, chacun re'clame telle concession symbolique, et l'on se dispute autour de quelques mots-cle's, mais aucun n'est vraiment pre^t, a` ce qu'on sache en tout cas, a` signer demain matin des papiers de divorce. Psychiatres demande's! 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! Lysiane Gagnon Rapporte' par Philippe Derome
gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) (10/25/89)
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 <<distinct>> 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 <<majority rule>>? 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 <<se'nateur>> 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
msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) (10/27/89)
Ah, what the heck, I'll have a go at translating that article. (Somebody else can do the next one!) No complaints about minor errors, please, but I don't think I will have made any major ones. Philippe Derome, who posted it first, notes that when it appeared in La Presse on October 21, Gary Filmon and Frank McKenna had not yet made their demands. PSYCHIATRISTS WANTED by Lysiane Gagnon Posted by Philippe Derome Translated by Mark Brader There are some days when you ask yourself if the constitutional file shouldn't be taken from the politicians' hands and entrusted to the psychiatrists -- or better, to those pyschotherapists who specialize in marital fights and inferiority complexes! To start at the beginning of the chain, the English-speaking Quebeckers feel rejected by the French speakers. The French-speaking Quebeckers feel rejected by English Canada. The Western people feel rejected by Quebec and Ontario. The Ontarians feel rejected by the Americans. And as for the French minorities, they feel rejected by everybody at once. In short, we're up to our necks in the dynamics of rejection. And to crown this magma of impressions and prejudices we have the "Distinct Society" and Senate reform: symbols which are to the constitutional debate as signs were to the language debate. * * * The super-symbol of the Meech Lake Accord is this recognition of the "distinct" character of Quebec. If anything is vague, that clause is it. No jurist knows what the concrete meaning would be if the Quebec government invoked it. Nor has anyone the least idea of why they would do so, when they could so easily override the federal Charter of Rights with the "notwithstanding" clause (remember, that clause has nothing to do with the Meech Lake Accord). So, then, the distinct character clause may have no concrete effect in Quebec, and still less in the other provinces. But the symbol is there, and the more time passes the more it grows. In Quebec it's seen as a minimal concession, a small sign of welcome, a way to save face. In English Canada, all sorts of things are seen in it, with no foundation in reality -- it's seen as an expression of Quebec's distrust for the provinces not interesting enough to be judged "distinct", as the first step toward the breakup of the country, etc. * * * In the West, and to a lesser degree in the Maritimes, the symbol, the fetish, is Senate reform. And, mechanically, the political class attaches itself to it -- even though, if the fastidious operation were carried to term, it could make Canada next to an ungovernable country. The small provinces are clamoring for a Senate where each province would have the same number of seats. That in itself seems a farfetched propo- sition: what about "majority rule"? Since when should representation not be proportional to population? They invoke, clearly, the American example -- each state has two senators, be it South Dakota or California. But they forget that the American Senate's origins are not in democratic ideology. Somewhat like the English House of Lords, it was conceived as a sort of counterbalance to the popular will: the Senators, who originally were not elected but were appointed notables, and whose mandate has always been for a longer term than members of Congress, had the implicit function of tempering the ardor of elected "Congressmen". The American Senate is now elected, but nobody has been able to affect the "acquired rights" of the small states by eliminating that vestige of monarchial spirit, the equal number of seats. It is quite evident in any case that Mr. Bourassa could not begin to subscribe to any substantial Senate reform, supposing that the recalci- trant provinces made that a condition for the adoption of the Meech Lake Accord. Quebec, with 6 million inhabitants, as well as Ontario, with 8, could not stand to see their Senate representation made equal to that of provinces whose population runs from 1/2 to 3 million. It might be acceptable, strictly speaking, if the Senate become nothing but a patronage plum without real power. But the reformists want to enlarge its powers, not reduce them. You see here the portrait of an over-governed country, where frictions will abound between not two but three levels of government. Three levels of government, not counting municipal councils, for 25 million people! Really! Remember the impasses that were reached in the months before the 1988 election, the blocking of Conservative plans by the Liberal Senate. Senators given an electoral legitimacy will be much more impelled to to obstruct the already terribly slow legislative and administrative process. The Senate would impinge equally on provincial jurisdiction. Who will speak for the province -- the provincial government, its MPs in the Commons, or the Senators elected at provincial level? The Albertan adventure is giving is a foretaste of this scenario: Premier Getty, ardent partisan of this reform, is engaged in proposing, for the vacant seat in Alberta, an elected senator. The happy winner, in the terms of elections where hardly a third of the electorate went to the trouble of going to vote, is a general in the 69-year retreat of the extreme right of an extreme-rightist party (the Reform Party). Having beaten Premier Getty's Conservative candidate, the Albertan "Senator" declares that he represents his province more than the premier does, as he was elected in the entire province and not just in one riding! But evidently, this Senate reform project, which will probably come under serious study one day, crystallizes sentiments. Just as the concept of the "distinct society" is a fetish for those Quebeckers who want an independent Quebec in a united Canada, Senate reform is a fetish of the small provinces that envy the big ones. * * * In short, it's the classic model of domestic conflict. Each partner feels unloved and misunderstood, each one clamors for a a symbolic concession, and they argue around a few key words. But neither one is actually ready, as they know in any case, to sign divorce papers tomorrow morning. Psychiatrists wanted! And if the therapy does not succeed, well, those who find the psycho- drama unlivable can always move to Beirut, Leipzig, or Soweto, where they'll have the chance to be sheltered from these petty constitutional problems! -- Posted by Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto "The problem is that tax lawyers are utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com amazingly creative." -- David Sherman This article is in the public domain.
dre@myrias.com (Duane Eitzen) (10/28/89)
In article <1989Oct27.111414.3169@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >The happy winner, >in the terms of elections where hardly a third of the electorate went to >the trouble of going to vote, is a general in the 69-year retreat of >the extreme right of an extreme-rightist party (the Reform Party). Do eastern Canadians really believe that the Reform Party is extreamist? If somebody out there does, could you give some examples. Could it be thier belief that: 1) the government should cut spending. 2) that MPs represent thier ridings rather than blindly voting the party line. 3) that government contracts should be given out on technical merit. 4) that cultures and languages should not be artificially imposed or restricted (i.e. by government). I guess I should say that I don't belong to the Reform party, and certainly don't speak for them. This is just my impression of thier policies. dre.