DOCSLIB.ORG

Feministaction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feministaction feministACTION NEWS FROM THE NATIONAE ACTION COMMITTEE ON THE SIATUS OF WOMEN March 1988 letters CONTENTS Morgentaler Decision... «. «. Victorious Nurses Grateful for Support A Tribute to Carole Geller 2 Annual General Meeting ..... 3 The Editor Reproductive Technology. .... 4 cease and desist order prohibiting the Organizational Review. ....._.. 4 - On penhalf of the United Nurses Strike. This directive was also fiater social Solidarity. ......... § of Alberta (UNA), I would like to filed as a court order. One hundred extend the deep appreciation we feel and four hospital Locals went on an COMMITTEE REPORTS to all of the women’s groups who sent illegal strike on January 25. Ten Employment (Bonnie Robichaud) . 6 us letters and telegrams of support thousand Alberta nurses exercised draining & Education. ...... 6 during our recent strike. From coast their right to strike for an improved Committee in Support of to coast, NAC member groups sent offer. Native Women f messages of solidarity to UNA, and The strike lasted 19 days. In that Justice. ...... letters demanding ftair treatment to time, we were charged by the Attor- Canadian Foreign Policy. ..... 8 our employers and to the Alberta ney-General with criminal contempt. Survival of the Planet. ......9 government. We were found guilty and fined Visible Minority & Immigrant In particular, we extend our $250,000. A second criminal contempt Women. ..........,..2., thanks to Rebecca Coulter, NAC charge tor continuing the strike after Employment (Mary Pitawanakwat).10 Alberta representative, for the liaison being found guilty will be heard on work she did between NAC and UNA, February I/. Both unlimited fines and REGIONAL REPORTS and for the personal work she did in unlimited jail sentences are for the Newfoundland & Labrador ... .i! the strike. judge to determine. About 200 Nova Scotia. kw we ee ee TY AS you are aware, United Nurses individual nurses were personally Prince Edward Island. ..... .]] of Alberta has been engaged in a charged with civil contempt along with New Brunswick. .........]2 bitter dispute with the Alberta their 25 or so Locals. Sixty-two of Quebec. ......... 412 Southern Ontario..... 13 riospital Association (AHA). these nurses and many of their Locals saskatchewan. ...... 13 We began bargaining in October have been found guilty and are being Aiberta. ............ .44 of 1987, and at that time the hospital sentenced. Fines range from $250 per Northwest Territories. ..... .]4 employers tabled proposals encompas- individual to $1,000 per Local. More South-Central sing massive takeaways including a 3 than 2,000 nurses have been dis- British Columbia. ....... .15 per cent wage rollback, loss of ciplined by their employers, and 150 or Northern British Columbia seniority rights in layoffs, scheduling more have been terminated. & Yukon. .....4.4.4.2... .,.)]5 concessions, and takeaways in sick On February 10, our negotiating leave, worker's compensation and committee was ready to sign a Cover photo: Lorna Rapson Ferguson disability benefits. Memorandum of Settlement to secure a lilustrations: Dawna Gallagher in 1983, our hospital nurses were collective agreement. The AHA agreed specifically named as “essential” in the to all our back-t kK infamous Bill 44 which is now part of full amnesty, reinstatement, no further Vol. 3, No. 2 the Labour Relations Act of Alberta. charges -- but refused to revoke their March 1988 As such we have not had the legal application for the cessation of dues right to strike since 1983. deductions tor six months. On Feminist Action is published eight UNA’s position is that our February 11, they conceded on this times a year by the National Action members alone will decide if or when demand and agreed to deduct dues. Committee on the Status of Women, we will go on strike for an improved Our negotiating committee signed a 344 Bloor St. W., Suite 505, Toronto, offer. In the face of the employers’ memorandum of _§ settlement. On Ontario M5S |1W9. offer of October, UNA members February 12, UNA members voted on (416) 922-3246 (T.D.D.) decided to hold ae strike vote on whether to continue strike action. In January 22. Before this vote was the face of the second criminal Subscription rates: individual $15.00: held, the AHA applied to the Labour contempt charge, civil contempt Institutions, U.S. & Overseas $25.00. Relations Board (LRB) for a cease and sentence, and escalating terminations, ISSN 0831-3377 desist order to prohibit the strike the members voted overwhelmingly to vote. return to work with a negotiated Editor Elizabeth Amer All 104 attected UNA Locals collective agreement, an intact union, Publications voted on January 22, 1n defiance of a dues deduction mechanism, and full Co-ordinator Maxine Hermolin the cease and desist directive of the amnesty. By February 15, all 10,000 Translation’ Gilbert Bélisle 1RB - a directive later filed as a nurses were back to work. court order. An overwhelming strike UNA did not go on strike to We welcome your announcements and mandate enabled the negotiating change the labour laws of Alberta. We local news. However, we regret that committee to call a strike tor January struck for a negotiated collective unsolicited manuscripts cannot be 25. The AHA once again obtained a continued on page § eereturoed. feminist ACTION SUPREME COURT DECISION TURNS DEMONSTRATION INTO CELEBRATION by Robin LeDrew Reproductive Choice Committee Chair in a free and democratic society the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the State.” As women’s groups prepared Justice Wilson did not deny the to decision in the Morgentaler State all interest in the developing case, we scarcely allowed ourselves to fetus, however. She judged that the consider the possibility of victory. But fetus should be seen tn “developmental on January 28, ##demonstrations and differentia! terms" and that it was planned across the country turned up to the legislature to determine the mito celebrations. Dr. Henry Mor- point at which the State’s interest gentaler was acquitted, Section 251] of becomes compeiling. the Criminal Code was thrown out, in spite of this and other reter- and the Supreme Court made a more ences to possible future limitations to conclusive defence of our rights than women’s autonomy, pro-choice groups we had dared to expect. had cause to celebrate. Not only was However unexpected, the Supreme Dr. Morgentaler free, not only were Court decision was the only logical the clinics legalized, but the larger conclusion to an =Mhistorical process issue Of women’s right to life, liberty which included the universal Declara- While this law was a compromise that and security of the person was affirm- tion of Human Rights of 1948, the did not meet women’s needs, it set a ed. [he Supreme Court decision was a U.N. adoption of the Convention on it} ing Sec- victory indeed. the Elimination of All Forms of tion 7 of the Charter which guarantees But by the evening of January Discrimination Against Women in 1980 everyone the ‘right to life, liberty and 28, it was clear that we would not be and its Canadian ratification in 1981, security of the person.” abie to rest on our laurels. B.C. was and the Canadian Charter of Rights of As the judgement written by Chief the first province to break the euphoria 1982. In finding the federal abortion Justice Dickson pointed out, "Forcing by announcing that medicare would law to be 1n violation of the Charter, a woman, Dy threat of crimina! sanc- still only cover abortions approved by the Supreme Court considered four tion, to carry a fetus to term unless committees im accredited hospitals. decades of international pressure for sne meets certain criteria unrelated to ihis position was later modified, but women's rights. her own priorities and aspirations, is a at this writing even a victim of rape Much of this pressure came from protound interference with 2 woman's Or incest cannot get an abortion co- the efforts of the Canadian pro-choice body and thus an infringement of se- vered by medicare in B.C. lobby. CARAL and many provincial curity of the person.” Ontario and Quebec represent the pro-choice groups have been in the The judgement of Madame Justice other end of the spectrum, but there front lines of this struggle for years. Bertha Wilson was particularly far- are still problems. In Ontario, abortion Dr. Morgentaler 1s a hero and many reaching. She pointed out that the committees were disbanded and some other doctors deserve thanks for their "right to liberty contained in Section medicare funding for clinics was as- support, but millions of Canadian 7 guarantees every individual a degree sured, but at unreasonably low levels. women can take credit for this of personal autonomy over important in Quebec, where hospitals and some victory! decisions intimately affecting his or clinics have performed medicare-funded The legal groundwork tor the her private life. Liberty im a free and abortions for years, the Quebec Coali- Supreme Court decision was set in gemocratic society does not require tion for Free Choice is now pressing to 1969. Then the abortion law was re- the State to approve such decisions, make abortions available in all 168 formed to recognize that the interest but it does require the State to respect clinics and is calling for more women’s of a pregnant woman could take pre- them. A woman’s decision to terminate health centres. cedence over the interest of the State her pregnancy falls within this class Manitoba will also have a clinic, in protecting the fetus when “the con- of protected decisions... The decision but its funding is unclear. The rest tinuation of the pregnancy would be whether or not to terminate a pregnan- of the provinces are less progressive, likely to endanger her life or health.” cy IS essentially a moral decision, and Last but not least, Justice minister March 1988/1 feminist ACTION Ray Hnatyshyn announced that the federal government would draft a new A Tribute to Carole Geller abortion law and that for Ottawa, new legislation is an “urgent priority." by Fleurette Osborne What can NAC and its member groups do/ We must oppose any at- tempt to re-criminalize abortion, inclu- arole Geller, former executive Nothing expresses her attitude ding.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brief by Professor François Larocque Research Chair In
    BRIEF BY PROFESSOR FRANÇOIS LAROCQUE RESEARCH CHAIR IN LANGUAGE RIGHTS UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA PRESENTED TO THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES AS PART OF ITS STUDY OF THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES REFORM PROPOSAL UNVEILED ON FEBRUARY 19, 2021, BY THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OFFICIAL LANGUAGES, ENGLISH AND FRENCH: TOWARDS A SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES IN CANADA MAY 31, 2021 Professor François Larocque Faculty of Law, Common Law Section University of Ottawa 57 Louis Pasteur Ottawa, ON K1J 6N5 Telephone: 613-562-5800, ext. 3283 Email: [email protected] 1. Thank you very much to the honourable members of the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages (the “Committee”) for inviting me to testify and submit a brief as part of the study of the official languages reform proposal entitled French and English: Towards a Substantive Equality of Official Languages in Canada (“the reform proposal”). A) The reform proposal includes ambitious and essential measures 2. First, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages for her leadership and vision. It is, in my opinion, the most ambitious official languages reform proposal since the enactment of the Constitution Act, 1982 (“CA1982”)1 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”),2 which enshrined the main provisions of the Official Languages Act (“OLA”)3 of 1969 in the Canadian Constitution. The last reform of the OLA was in 1988 and it is past time to modernize it to adapt it to Canada’s linguistic realities and challenges in the 21st century. 3. The Charter and the OLA proclaim that “English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.”4 In reality, however, as reported by Statistics Canada,5 English is dominant everywhere, while French is declining, including in Quebec.
    [Show full text]
  • CONSTITUTION-MAKING AS INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS a Case Study of the 1980 Canadian Constitutional Negotiations Adam D
    CONSTITUTION-MAKING AS INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS A Case Study of the 1980 Canadian Constitutional Negotiations Adam D. McDonald1, University of Waterloo The Constitution Act, 1982 is a document that profoundly changed the Canadian political landscape. It brought home the highest law of the land; it provided Canadians a mechanism to change their Constitution; it created a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, entrenched within the Constitution, out of the reach of one government. Perhaps its most important legacies, however, are the seemingly permanent isolation of Quebec and the primacy of place in Canadian history it gave Pierre Trudeau. This paper will examine the constitutional history of Canada with a view to determining what made the 1980 negotiating sessions successful when the sessions that led to both the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord were not. It is important, however, to note that the word “successful” is used in the sense that an agreement was reached. Unlike Meech and Charlottetown, the repatriated constitution did not have unanimity among the participants. The question that comes to mind is this: if the governments did not really agree in 1981, why was a Constitution ratified? More importantly, are there lessons that can be drawn from this agreement that can be applied to the failed accords of the Mulroney era? In order to complete this examination, the paper will be divided into two parts. In the first part, Canada’s constitutional story will be told. This is a necessary part of any examination of the constitutional negotiations, for without knowing what the players wanted historically, one cannot see what was changed by the 1980s.
    [Show full text]
  • 1866 (C) Circa 1510 (A) 1863
    BONUS : Paintings together with their year of completion. (A) 1863 (B) 1866 (C) circa 1510 Vancouver Estival Trivia Open, 2012, FARSIDE team BONUS : Federal cabinet ministers, 1940 to 1990 (A) (B) (C) (D) Norman Rogers James Ralston Ernest Lapointe Joseph-Enoil Michaud James Ralston Mackenzie King James Ilsley Louis St. Laurent 1940s Andrew McNaughton 1940s Douglas Abbott Louis St. Laurent James Ilsley Louis St. Laurent Brooke Claxton Douglas Abbott Lester Pearson Stuart Garson 1950s 1950s Ralph Campney Walter Harris John Diefenbaker George Pearkes Sidney Smith Davie Fulton Donald Fleming Douglas Harkness Howard Green Donald Fleming George Nowlan Gordon Churchill Lionel Chevrier Guy Favreau Walter Gordon 1960s Paul Hellyer 1960s Paul Martin Lucien Cardin Mitchell Sharp Pierre Trudeau Leo Cadieux John Turner Edgar Benson Donald Macdonald Mitchell Sharp Edgar Benson Otto Lang John Turner James Richardson 1970s Allan MacEachen 1970s Ron Basford Donald Macdonald Don Jamieson Barney Danson Otto Lang Jean Chretien Allan McKinnon Flora MacDonald JacquesMarc Lalonde Flynn John Crosbie Gilles Lamontagne Mark MacGuigan Jean Chretien Allan MacEachen JeanJacques Blais Allan MacEachen Mark MacGuigan Marc Lalonde Robert Coates Jean Chretien Donald Johnston 1980s Erik Nielsen John Crosbie 1980s Perrin Beatty Joe Clark Ray Hnatyshyn Michael Wilson Bill McKnight Doug Lewis BONUS : Name these plays by Oscar Wilde, for 10 points each. You have 30 seconds. (A) THE PAGE OF HERODIAS: Look at the moon! How strange the moon seems! She is like a woman rising from a tomb. She is like a dead woman. You would fancy she was looking for dead things. THE YOUNG SYRIAN: She has a strange look.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Reform in Canada and the United States
    1 IMMIGRATION REFORM IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Mai Nguyen (York University) Garth Stevenson (Brock University) Paper prepared for presentation to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, June 4, 2008. 2 It is not surprising that most public policies in Canada and the United States are fairly similar, nor is it surprising that innovations in public policy have often occurred at about the same time in the two countries. Similar economic, social and cultural conditions in the two countries might be expected to produce such a result. It is also a fact, although not always acknowledged by Canadians, that American innovations in policy have often been copied in Canada within a few years. John A. Macdonald’s National Policy was based on policies implemented by the United States in the 1860s. More recent examples would include anti- combines legislation in the early 20th century, the largely abortive Bennett New Deal of the 1930s, P.C. 1003 of 1944 (modelled on the Wagner Act), the formation of Via Rail (modelled on Amtrak), the deregulation of the transportation industries in the 1980s, and even the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Immigration is one area of public policy in which the two countries have followed somewhat similar, although not identical, paths. Both accepted large numbers of immigrants from European sources during the century that followed the war of 1812. Both sought to limit Asian immigration by overtly discriminatory means beginning in the latter part of the 19th century. Both, by more subtle means, limited immigration from southern and eastern Europe in the first half of the 20th century.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study of the 1980 Canadian Constitutional Negotiations Mcdonald, Adam D
    www.ssoar.info Constitution-making as intergovernmental relations: a case study of the 1980 Canadian constitutional negotiations McDonald, Adam D. Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: McDonald, A. D. (2004). Constitution-making as intergovernmental relations: a case study of the 1980 Canadian constitutional negotiations. Federal Governance, 1(1), 1-23. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-47048-8 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer Basic Digital Peer Publishing-Lizenz This document is made available under a Basic Digital Peer zur Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den DiPP-Lizenzen Publishing Licence. For more Information see: finden Sie hier: http://www.dipp.nrw.de/lizenzen/dppl/service/dppl/ http://www.dipp.nrw.de/lizenzen/dppl/service/dppl/ CONSTITUTION-MAKING AS INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS A Case Study of the 1980 Canadian Constitutional Negotiations Adam D. McDonald1, University of Waterloo The Constitution Act, 1982 is a document that profoundly changed the Canadian political landscape. It brought home the highest law of the land; it provided Canadians a mechanism to change their Constitution; it created a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, entrenched within the Constitution, out of the reach of one government. Perhaps its most important legacies, however, are the seemingly permanent isolation of Quebec and the primacy of place in Canadian history it gave Pierre Trudeau. This paper will examine the constitutional history of Canada with a view to determining what made the 1980 negotiating sessions successful when the sessions that led to both the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord were not. It is important, however, to note that the word “successful” is used in the sense that an agreement was reached.
    [Show full text]
  • Concordia University Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Beyond Eden: Cultivating Spectacle in the Montreal Botanical Garden Ana Armstrong A Thesis in The Department of Art History Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Magisteriate in Arts at Concordia University Montreal, Quebec, Canada August 1997 O Ann Armstrong, 1997 National Library Bibliothèque nationale 1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington ONawaON KlAON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada Your hle Votre retersnce Our file Narre reterence The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in ths thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Abstract Beyond Eden: Cultivating Spectacle in the Montreal Botanical Garden AM Armstrong The Montreal Botanical Garden, a 180-acre complex comprised of over thmy outdoor and ten indoor landscapes located in the city's east-end, is the product of a Depression-era government funded Public Works project.
    [Show full text]
  • Historique Du Rapatriement Gil Rémillard
    Document généré le 23 sept. 2021 09:42 Les Cahiers de droit Historique du rapatriement Gil Rémillard La Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 : un premier bilan Résumé de l'article Volume 25, numéro 1, 1984 April 17, 1982, will be one of the most important dates in the history of Canadian federalism. On that date, the Canada Bill, voted several days before URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/042586ar by the Parliament of Westminster became the Constitution Act, 1982: the DOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/042586ar Canadian Constitution had been patriated. This article gives the history of this patriation from the beginning of the talks on this subject after the first World Aller au sommaire du numéro War of 1914-18 to the unfinished constitutional compromise of 1982. Éditeur(s) Faculté de droit de l’Université Laval ISSN 0007-974X (imprimé) 1918-8218 (numérique) Découvrir la revue Citer cet article Rémillard, G. (1984). Historique du rapatriement. Les Cahiers de droit, 25(1), 15–97. https://doi.org/10.7202/042586ar Tous droits réservés © Faculté de droit de l’Université Laval, 1984 Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d’auteur. L’utilisation des services d’Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d’utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne. https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit. Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l’Université de Montréal, l’Université Laval et l’Université du Québec à Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX Certain Information Given in Chapter II on Constitution and Government (Closed Off Apr
    APPENDIX Certain information given in Chapter II on Constitution and Government (closed off Apr. 30, 1965) is brought up to the date of going to press (Dec. 31, 1965-Jan. 31, 1966) in this Appendix. Page 76, Table 4 Members of the Nineteenth Ministry, as announced Dec. 17, 1965 following the General Election of Nov. 8, 1965, were as follows, according to precedence:— Office Occupant Prime Minister Rt. Hon. LESTER BOWLES PEARSON Secretary of State for External Affairs Hon. PAUL JOSEPH JAMES M VRTIN Minister of Trade and Commerce Hon. ROBERT H. WINTERS Minister of Transport Hon. JOHN WHITNEY PICKERSGILL Minister of National Defence Hon. PAUL THEODORE HELLTER Minister of Finance and Receiver General Hon. MITCHELL SHARP Minister of Public Works Hon. GEORGE JAMES MCILRAITH Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (later to be Indian and Northern Affairs) Hon. ARTHUR LAING Minister of Justice and Attorney General Hon. LUCIEN CARDIN Minister of Health and Welfare Hon. ALLAN JOSEPH MACEACHEN Minister of Fisheries Hon. HEDARD ROBICHAUD Minister of Veterans Affairs Hon. ROGER TEILLET Secretary of State of Canada Hon. JUDY V. LAMAHSH Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Pro­ duction Hon. CHARLES MILLS DRURY President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.. Hon. GUY FAVREAU Minister of Labour Hon. JOHN ROBERT NICHOLSON Minister without Portfolio and Leader of the Senate. Hon. JOHN JOSEPH CONNOLLY Minister of Forestry (later to be Rural Development and Forestry) Hon. MAURICE SAUVE Minister of National Revenue (later to be also President of the Treasury Board) Hon. EDGAR JOHN BENSON Associate Minister of National Defence Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Archived Content Contenu Archivé
    ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé Archived Content Contenu archivé Information identified as archived is provided for L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche is not subject to the Government of Canada Web ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas Standards and has not been altered or updated assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du since it was archived. Please contact us to request Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour a format other than those available. depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous. This document is archival in nature and is intended Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et for those who wish to consult archival documents fait partie des documents d’archives rendus made available from the collection of Public Safety disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux Canada. qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles by Public Safety Canada, is available upon que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique request. Canada fournira une traduction sur demande. Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections RARY - MINIs THE SO LICITOR AL R C:3 3 ci699 'IA tirt 23 190(11 BIBLIOTHÈQUE MINISTÈRE DU SOLLICITEUR GÉNURAL eeeeo" ‘oç etee ffic\e\veedeigeee% e‘s<be etodleow Pçoe epee eee• deuce eet\‘ ele epee zee 21.\e0.
    [Show full text]
  • Turning Points in Public Broadcasting: the CBC at 50
    Nov.3,10,17,24, Dec. 1,1986 Copyright © 1986 The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation All rights reserved Under no circumstances may this transcript or matters contained herein be reproduced or otherwise used for any purpose beyond the private use of the recipient (other than for newspaper coverage, purposes of reference, discussion, and review) without the prior written consent ofCBC Transcripts. Turning Points in Public Broadcasting: The CBC at 50 Lister Sinclair written and presented by David Cayley. Good evening, I'm Lister Sinclair. Tonight on Ideas, we Song celebrate the 50th anniversary of the CBC with a new series This is the start of a great revolution about public broadcasting in Canada. Which way will it go? I'm an inventor of communications Harry Boyle So let's say hello ... It began with a kind of dream. David Cayley Song Christmas Eve 1906. Canadian inventor Reginald Aubrey Words without wires Fessenden was making the first public radio broadcast. He Celestial choirs played "Oh, Holy Night," and read the Christmas story. This song travels far Radio operators on United Fruit Company banana boats Radio gave us lying off Boston, amazed, heard Fessenden's broadcast and The voices that told us wrote to tell him so. Fessenden was a brilliant inventor, but a The way that things are poor businessman. He eventually lost his patents to Marconi. And when North America's first radio station went Announcer on the air in Montreal, it was owned by the Italian, not the The Canadian Radio Commission is calling Canada, calling Canadian. That station was WXA, later CFCF, and its first their national network and associated networks in the regularly scheduled broadcast was on May 21,1920.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Sovereignty Rests with the Courts:” the Constitutional Foundations of J
    Title Page “Parliamentary sovereignty rests with the courts:” The Constitutional Foundations of J. G. Diefenbaker’s Canadian Bill of Rights Jordan Birenbaum Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the PhD degree in History Department of History Faculty of Arts University of Ottawa © Jordan Birenbaum, Ottawa, Canada, 2012 Abstract The 1980s witnessed a judicial “rights revolution” in Canada characterized by the Supreme Court of Canada striking down both federal and provincial legislation which violated the rights guaranteed by the 1982 Charter of Rights. The lack of a similar judicial “rights revolution” in the wake of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights has largely been attributed to the structural difference between the two instruments with the latter – as a “mere” statute of the federal parliament – providing little more than a canon of construction and (unlike the Charter) not empowering the courts to engage in judicial review of legislation. Yet this view contrasts starkly with how the Bill was portrayed by the Diefenbaker government, which argued that it provided for judicial review and would “prevail” over other federal legislation. Many modern scholars have dismissed the idea that the Bill could prevail over other federal statutes as being incompatible with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. That is, a bill of rights could only prevail over legislation if incorporated into the British North America Act. As such, they argue that the Diefenbaker government could not have intended the Bill of Rights to operate as anything more than a canon of construction. However, such a view ignores the turbulence in constitutional thinking on parliamentary sovereignty in the 1930s through 1960s provoked by the Statute of Westminster.
    [Show full text]
  • PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES 69 4.—Members of the Nineteenth
    PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES 69 4.—Members of the Nineteenth Ministry, as at Apr. 30, 19631 (According to precedence of Ministers) NOTE.—A complete list of the members of Federal Ministries from Confederation to 1913 appears in the 1912 Year Book, pp. 422-429. Later Ministries will be found in subsequent editions. Office Occupant Date of Appointment Prime Minister Hon. LESTER BOWLES PEABSON Apr. 22 1963 Minister of Justice and Attorney General Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER Apr. 22 1963 Secretary of State for External Affairs Hon. PAUL JOSEPH JAMES MARTIN .. Apr. 22 1963 Minister without Portfolio and Leader of the Gov­ ernment in the Senate Hon. WILLIAM Ross MACDONALD Apr. 22 1963 Secretary of State of Canada Hon. JOHN WHITNEY PICKERSGILL. Apr. 22 1963 Minister of National Defence Hon. PAUL THEODORE HELLYER Apr. 22 1963 Minister of Finance and Receiver General Hon. WALTER LOCKHART GORDON. Apr. 22 1963 Minister of Trade and Commerce Hon. MITCHELL SHARP Apr. 22 1963 Postmaster General Hon. AZELLUS DENIS Apr. 22 1963 Minister of Transport Hon. GEORGE JAMES MCILRAITH Apr. 22 1963 Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys Hon. WILLIAM MOORE BENIDICKSON Apr. 22 1963 Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources Hon. ARTHUR LAING Apr. 22, 1963 President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.. Hon. MAURICE LAMONTAGNE Apr. 22 1963 Minister of National Revenue Hon. JOHN RICHARD GARLAND Apr. 22 1963 Associate Minister of National Defence Hon. LUCIEN CARDIN Apr. 22 1963 Minister of Labour Hon. ALLAN JOSEPH MACEACHEN. .. Apr. 22 1963 Minister of Public Works Hon. JEAN-PAUL DESCHATELETS Apr. 22 1963 Minister of Fisheries Hon.
    [Show full text]