Tuesday, February 9, 1988
Published by the Student's Society o f McGill University
TBI6UNC Volume 7, Issue 18
Free Trade debate rages on at BoliSpeak by Scott McEvoy In a heated debate last week, which attempted to resolve whether the Mulroney Free Trade Agreement is bene ficial to Canada, Jean Lapierre, Liberal MP charged the Conservative Party and his opponent Jean Charest, the Minister of State for Youth, with hav ing “principles like elastic bands”. “Parliament was never really part of the whole process”, remarked Lapi erre. By signing the deal without “public input, knowledge or approval”, Mulroney has broken with the Cana dian tradition of “going to the people.”
Calling Canada’s guaranteed access to the U.S. market a “mirage”, the Liberal MP argued that no exemption either from U.S. trade legislation or the omnibus trade bill, now in joint committee, has been achieved. “Every single piece of (trade) law on the American books is still there, where is the protection against protectionism?” Criticizing Pat Carney for “spending all of her time, really on her knees in the U.S.,” Lapierre asserted that focusing its attention on the United States as a trading partner the Conservative Party has effectively put all of its eggs into
James and Taylor debate political Fire and Rain by Heather McLeod “Be it resolved that political sci ence is a contradiction in terms.” Those looking for a solution to this motion may not have found it at the PoliSpeak debate on Tuesday, Febru ary 2, but they certainly found a very entertaining and heated battle of the brains. Professors Charles Tay lor and Patrick James represented the Fac-
Prof. Charles Taylor ulty on the two teams. Characteristi cally, Prof. Taylor spoke in favour of the resolution, singing the praises of social philosophy, while Prof. James stressed the benefits of the “scientific method” approach to Political Sci ence. While both were eloquent, the sur prise stars of the debate were the sec ond speakers on both sides. Karim Rajani, member of the McGill Debat ing Society, treated the crowd to the most colourful seven minutes of the debate. He defamed the Opposition with cries of “high treason, slander, adultery, plagiarism and negli gence.” He declared that the scien tific method put “rigour ahead of rele vance”, and accused the Opposition of “flirting with beautiful but in wardly bankrupt models”. Finally, he quoted Bull in arguing that the behaviouralists have committed them selves to a type of “intellectual Puri tanism that keeps them as remote from the substance of politics as the inmates of a Victorian nunnery were from the study of sex.” The second speaker for the Oppo sition was Lara Johnson, who repre sented McGill at the World’s Debat ing Tournament in Australia in Janu ary, placing 15th out of 184 partici pants. Stunning the crowd with her
verbal rapidity, she asked if “Taylor”, as she called him, and his partner would recommend that Ronald Re agan be a “Metaphysical President” (which met with considerable ap proval from the floor). Johnson ar gued, “If academia is ever going to have an effect on the real world, the only pragmatic tool is cumulative knowledge,” achieved through a combination of “politics” and “sci ence”. James asserted, “The proof of the pudding is that Plato and his cave are just as relevant in that field (social philosophy) as they were then.” He left the crowd to answer the question,’’Would you rather live then or now?” Taylor replied,”It’s very hard to know what to rebutt here because the arguments are self-rebutting.” He dis credited the scientific method by pointing out that science has led us to Nazism’s eugenics and the scientific socialism of the Killing Fields. While the resolution was carried, and the debate was very enjoyable, neither side “won” because the speak ers were not talking to each other. Rather, they engaged in one-upman ship and contests of wit, sadly reflec-
Prof. Patrick James tive of politics in the real world. Prof. Taylor’s aim of “understanding through dialogue” was unfulfilled. If, as Johnson put it, “academia is ever going to have an effect on the real world”, it is not going to do so by merely engaging in eloquent rhetoric. Although fun to watch, it is not very conducive to the “cumulative knowl edge” that the Opposition so strongly advocated.
I n s id e th is is s u e : Poli-speak week coverage...........__ ____ ____________ ___ page 6 Valentine lust letters (Did you get yours?) page 7 Special theatre entertainment feature— pages 8 & 9 Intramural athlete of the week (oh boy!).....— .........__ ....page 16
one basket. The Liberals, on the other hand, as “free traders for the last eighty years” would place renewed emphasis on General Agreement and Trade Tar iffs (GATT) mechanisms, diversify trade with other nations and create an internal all- Canadian industrial policy. Charest countered that effective in dustrial policy must follow from trade policy. Yet “the last time that this coun try developed a global trade policy was in 1879 under Sir John A. MacDonald.” For Charest, continued economic growth lies necessarily through the secure relationship be tween the two “biggest trading partners in the world. $170 billion of trade goes back and forth between Canada and the U.S., and trade exports in Canada means jobs. One job in three is depend ent upon trade.” It would simply be irresponsible for a government to ig nore this relationship. It would be impossible, the Minister pointed out, to guarantee access to the
U.S. market. “Both countries remain sovereign”, Charest mocked, “you can’t say: ‘well, we want to preserve our sovereignty but how is it that we haven’t changed American laws.’ You see they have sovereignty too, it is a two way street.” “What we do have”, explained Charest,” is a deal that eliminates tar
iffs over a ten year period...Any piece of legislation the Americans bring forth from now on would have to in clude specifically Canada as a target, if they wish to do that, which politically, puts them in a very sensitive position. That is something concrete, something real, within the scope of this deal that ensures us better access.”
Speaking out on Native rights by Michele Dupuis “Twisted, perverted, repressed; that is what Native culture has been,” said Myrtle Bush, elected chief of the Mohawk Kahnawake Reserve, last Tuesday. Bush and two McGill professors, na tive claims lawyer Peter Hutchins and anthropologist Colin Scott, appeared at the “Native Self-government” event during PoliSpeak week. Interestingly enough, the panel dis cussion focussed on persuading an al ready convinced audience that native peoples have a right to their aboriginal lands, rather than on the question of
and as such, their self-governm ent. rights to the land However, as all par are independent ticipants agreed, the s of the governright to land, selfg ment. government, and by 0 Hutchins extention, cultural 1 stated that since self-determination 2 their right to the are mutually de land is independpendent. ent, native land Hutchins argued o claims must be that the legal basis c- based on both inof the native land ternational law claims is “inherant” Lawer Peter Hutchins in that “it does not derive, or is not and past treaties made between the dependent on, another, outside author native peoples and the Canadian gov ity, that is, the rights of first occupant” ernment. “The key,” he said,” is that existing treaty rights are recognized and affirmed.” Despite Hutchins' self-professed op timism, he admitted that he was not en couraged by the lack of progress the federal and provincial governments had experienced over the definition of native rights in the 1982 Constitution Act. Native peoples are granted “exist ing treaty rights” under the constituion. tury”. According to Scott, there are cultural This statement begs the question: aspects built into the issues of land why has it taken until 1987-8 to rectify claims and self government. “The salary inequalities? Professor Alan aboriginal people are telling us that it’s Fenichel, a member of the Committee not just self-government, and it’s not on Women, answered it by stating that just territory, it involves whole ways of “people in authority are not going to life; the right to culture is a fundamen take action that is disruptive to the tal right.” existing social peace”. According to Scott argued that the major reason Fenichel, the issue is not overt sexism, why the Canadian state should grant but lack of awareness. Fenichel identi land rights and self-government over fied a need for “risk takers” willing to these lands, is that these original in take the “aggressive action” necessary habitants never surrendered their au to translate principles into working tonomy over the land. Further, Scott legislation. argued that white society had imposed On December 1, 1987, increases its own institutional forms on the many remedying various salary anomalies diverse native cultures of Canada, but were paid to academic staff members. that “these white institutions are not Women benefited because the salary theirs. "It is our cultural traditions that equity policy came into effect. Many .breathe life into these institutions and of the women previously discriminated it’s the same with them. Denying this is against were those who had spent three denying that they ever had institutions to five years out of the work force and or organized soceities of their own.” later returned to upgrade their educa Bush also argued that the native tion and/or join the adacemic staff. Dr. people had never relinquished claim to Freedman, Vice Principal (Academic), the land. “We have always stated that conceded that the equalization meas the land belonged to us; we were pre ures are not as yet comprehensive, but pared to share it, but we never surrencontinued on page 3 continued on page 3
Salary equity finally established at M cGill by Elizabeth Smyth “Given that McGill University suports equal opportunity in employ ment, and given that within a rank or classification responsibilities are com parable, no differentiation in the sala ries paid to persons of similar qualifica tions in the same rank or classification shall exist based on gender”. Last May, the Board of Governors adopted this statement of principle put forth by the Senate Committee on Women support ing salary equity for both academic and non-academic staff. The impetus for the establishment of such a clause was twofold. Vivienne Livick, Chair of the Senate Committee on Women, stated that McGill had to have an equity policy in order to qualify for federal contracts. Implemented last year, the Federal Contractors Program stipulates that if an institution wants a research grant of more than $200 000 from the federal government, it must sign a letter of commitment to employ ment equity. The second reason, ac cording to Livick, is that “it was the right time for it to happen” in order to “bring McGill into the twentieth cen