Should Harper reopen the Constitutional talks?

[1967100]

The last time the constitution was put out in the open was in 1992 when Brian Mulroney tried to get Quebec to sign the constitution using the Charlottetown referendum, outlining certain powers granted to the provinces, minority groups, women, and aboriginals Canadians. If I remember correctly, the accord was defeated by a public vote of 46% to 54% with people fearing that it gave too much power to the provinces, coming 2 years after the downfall of the Meech Lake Accord, which proposed similar intentions.

Had the Accords succeeded, Quebec seperatists would have a harder time arguing their case, and their movement would've been pretty much killed.

Now that some time has passed, do you think Harper should reopen the constitutional talks to get Quebec onside after declaring it a "nation WITHIN Canada"?

Edited November 14, 2008 by 1967100

[Vancouver King]

You can't be serious, why even waste the breath asking the question? Quebec nationalism is currently in thankful slumber. There will be less tranquil times in the future to revisit this issue.

[eyeball]

I picked other. Harper should open talks on electoral reform in Canada.

[kengs333]

I picked other. Harper should open talks on electoral reform in Canada.

that'll be the day...

[eyeball]

that'll be the day...

Still, PR is probably the ROC's only option in the face of Quebec's regional representation. Quebecers have got the best of both worlds with a provincial and federal party going to bat for them in Ottawa. Power to them I say, the rest of us should take a clue.

[Riverwind]

Still, PR is probably the ROC's only option in the face of Quebec's regional representation.

So your plan is to push for a constitutional amendment that will reduce the influence of Quebec voters? Do you actually expect Quebec to agree to this reduced influence or are you assuming that the amendment would forced through over the objections of Quebec? Either way it is a plan that has no chance of success. Edited November 14, 2008 by Riverwind

[cybercoma]

That's just what we need. All the provinces and special interest groups trying to wrestle power from Ottawa.

[g_bambino]

The last time the constitution was put out in the open was in 1992 when Brian Mulroney tried to get Quebec to sign the constitution

When did Quebec retract its "signature" from the constitution?

Now that some time has passed, do you think Harper should reopen the constitutional talks to get Quebec onside after declaring it a "nation WITHIN Canada"?

Harper didn't "declare" Quebec anything; the House of Commons recognised the Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada. As nobody can even define what "les Quebecois" means, exactly, it would be difficult to work it into the constitution.

[noahbody]

When did Quebec retract its "signature" from the constitution?

Quebec never signed the '82 Constitution.

[g_bambino]

Quebec never signed the '82 Constitution.

There is no "'82 constitution"; in 1982 there were amendments and an addition to the existing collection of constitutional documents. The Quebec government of the day may not have agreed with all of the changes, but that didn't mean the constitution was somehow imposed on Quebec in 1982, as though it had been a sovereign state invaded and subjugated by another country via legislation. Such implications only support the sovereigntist mythology.

[Peter F]

There is no "'82 constitution"; in 1982 there were amendments and an addition to the existing collection of constitutional documents. The Quebec government of the day may not have agreed with all of the changes, but that didn't mean the constitution was somehow imposed on Quebec in 1982, as though it had been a sovereign state invaded and subjugated by another country via legislation. Such implications only support the sovereigntist mythology.

Why seek signiatures of provincial Premiers if signiatures of provincial Premiers are unimportant?

[g_bambino]

Why seek signiatures of provincial Premiers if signiatures of provincial Premiers are unimportant?

I assume you mean why seek the support of the provincial governments, i.e. the lieutenant-governors-in-council. But I don't know where you got the impression that provincial support for constitutional changes is not necessary or important. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that, though not required at the time, the federal government should seek provincial approval for proposed constitutional changes; but, what the SC said was "a substantial degree of provincial consent", not full provincial consent. Even the amendment formula that was added with the Constittution Act 1982 requires the support of all ten provinces only for changes to the offices of the Queen, the Governor General, and the lieutenant-governors; a province's right to a number of members in the House of Commons; the use of the English and French languages; the composition of the Supreme Court; and any amendment to the amending procedure itself. Other changes require just the agreement of 2/3 of the provinces with at least a combined 50% of the population. So, while it would be nice to see formal support from the Quebec government to the 1982 constitutional amendments, those alternations were passed with more than the required amount of provincial approval.

Edited November 16, 2008 by g_bambino

[Peter F]

I assume you mean why seek the support of the provincial governments, .... But I don't know where you got the impression that provincial support for constitutional changes is not necessary or important. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that, though not required at the time, the federal government should seek provincial approval for proposed constitutional changes; but, what the SC said was "a substantial degree of provincial consent", not full provincial consent. (etc)

but that didn't mean the constitution was somehow imposed on Quebec in 1982,

and there is the contradiction; The constitution was imposed without Quebec's agreement. Yet you say such facts are 'sovereigntist mythology'

It is not 'mythology' for sovereigtists to say the Constitution was imposed upon Quebec against their will.

[g_bambino]

and there is the contradiction; The constitution was imposed without Quebec's agreement. Yet you say such facts are 'sovereigntist mythology'

It is not 'mythology' for sovereigtists to say the Constitution was imposed upon Quebec against their will.

Again: no, the constitution was not imposed on Quebec. Canada East freely signed onto the British North America Act 1867, thereafter becoming Quebec, and has never retracted itself from the union formed by that document. Hence, no constitution was imposed on the province in 1982; rather, amendments to the constitution were "imposed", if by imposed you mean enacted by the proper legal means.

[eyeball]

So your plan is to push for a constitutional amendment that will reduce the influence of Quebec voters? Do you actually expect Quebec to agree to this reduced influence or are you assuming that the amendment would forced through over the objections of Quebec? Either way it is a plan that has no chance of success.

No I don't think Quebec would agree to anything that would reduce their influence but that's not going to stop the evolution of regional parties similar to the Bloc in other parts of the country. The lid on Pandora's box has been ripped off the hinges and its time we embraced the horror.

Edited November 16, 2008 by eyeball

[Peter F]

... rather, amendments to the constitution were "imposed", if by imposed you mean enacted by the proper legal means.

Yah. Thats what I mean. The constitutional amendments were imposed upon them against thier will.

[eyeball]

That's just what we need. All the provinces and special interest groups trying to wrestle power from Ottawa.

This seems inevitable in the face of Ottawa's concentration of power.

[g_bambino]

Yah. Thats what I mean. The constitutional amendments were imposed upon them against thier will.

The inability of the province to veto the changes was upheld not only by the Supreme Court, but by Quebec's own Court of Appeal as well. The 1982 amendments were therefore put into force within all proper legal parameters; most importantly for this discussion, these bounds were those that the province agreed to in, and had been fine with since, 1867. So, I don't see how anything was done "against their will".

[ed. for spelling error]

Edited November 16, 2008 by g_bambino

[Peter F]

So, I don't see how anything was done "against their will".

Are you saying that the Quebec government, by refusing to sign the '82 amendments, was agreeing to the '82 amendments?

Is there any point to a provincial Premier signing any constitutional amendment? Need the Federal government consult with a particular premier at all - as long as there is 7 other premiers willing to sign the amendment then such amendment is not being imposed upon the other three?

Get real.

[g_bambino]

Are you saying that the Quebec government, by refusing to sign the '82 amendments, was agreeing to the '82 amendments?

Is there any point to a provincial Premier signing any constitutional amendment? Need the Federal government consult with a particular premier at all - as long as there is 7 other premiers willing to sign the amendment then such amendment is not being imposed upon the other three?

Get real.

If the other three provinces (not premiers) freely agreed to include themselves in such an arragement that allows for changes to be made with only majority approval, and not specifically their approval, then yes. And Quebec brought itself into such an arrangement in 1867.

Edited November 16, 2008 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

The inability of the province to veto the changes was upheld not only by the Supreme Court, but by Quebec's own Court of Appeal as well. The 1982 amendments were therefore put into force within all proper legal parameters; most importantly for this discussion, these bounds were those that the province agreed to in, and had been fine with since, 1867. So, I don't see how anything was done "against their will".

[ed. for spelling error]

That Quebec is legally bound by the constitution aside, the province never signed the patriation of the constitution. Once patriated, the "new" updated constitution is one that Quebec had never agreed to, but is legally bound by. It is perfectly reasonable for them to have a problem with it. Furthermore, Quebec was not fine with the BNA. The Quiet Revolution had occurred before the patriation of the constitution and should be considered a sign of their displeasure with the original BNA.

[g_bambino]

That Quebec is legally bound by the constitution aside, the province never signed the patriation of the constitution. Once patriated, the "new" updated constitution is one that Quebec had never agreed to, but is legally bound by. It is perfectly reasonable for them to have a problem with it.

Perhaps it is reasonable for the province to have a problem with the 1982 amendments. But, it's a stretch to say the changes and additions were forced on the province when, as I said, the province agreed to involve itself in Confederation, with all the associated rules, and did so freely. If there is dissatisfaction with the amending formula, then its detractors should take on the project of making total provincial consent a requirement for any future constitutional change.

[ed. for missing word]

Edited November 17, 2008 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

Perhaps it is reasonable for the province to have a problem with the 1982 amendments. But, it's a stretch to say the changes and additions were forced on the province when, as I said, the province agreed to involve itself in Confederation, with all the associated rules, and did so freely. If there is dissatisfaction with the amending formula, then its detractors should take on the project of making total provincial consent a requirement for any future constitutional change.

[ed. for missing word]

The amending formula was a concession made by Trudeau to the provinces in order to patriate the constitution. It can be said that Quebec did not agree to the formula or any of the changes made because they did not sign them. The SCC allowed the federal government to push forward with the constitutional amendments without unanimous support of the provinces. So, I don't understand what your point is. Quebec did not support the changes made in 1982, therefore they did not consent to the amending formula.

The entire point of Quebec's discontent is that there is no duality in Canada. They do not wish to be a province like all the rest. Instead, Quebec wishes to be seen as one of the two founding parties of this nation and be consulted as such when it comes to national decision making. That they were forced into the BNA Act of 1867 does not necessarily mean that they agree with being a province like all the rest.

After losing on the Plains of Abraham, Quebec had no choice but to concede to Britain's laws. Showing good faith, Britain decided to give concession to the french through the Quebec Act; however, these concessions were for naught when the BNA Act of 1867 was passed uniting the government and creating the first provinces. Quebec became a province like any other, still without the choice of signing up or not. Although Britain was selling it to them as though they were being offered their autonomy by recognizing Roman Catholicism and the Civil Code in Quebec, it was still the English that controlled the government in Quebec.

During the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s, Quebecers began to realize that they rightfully needed to take control of their province to ensure the survival of their language and culture. Full duality or secession seemed to be the only options. The federal government and English Canada, hoping to stop the destruction of the nation scrambled to accommodate the French after marginalizing them for years. It wasn't until 1965 that Canada dropped the union jack from its flag, and O Canada was not officially our national anthem until 1980. Trudeau's vision of a single national identity under the umbrella of individual rights and freedoms was also meant to give French Canadians a common bond to the rest of the country. None of this addresses the issue that Quebec needs to ensure the survival of its language and culture in our increasingly anglocentric society.

English was the language of commerce in Quebec and that's why the french were marginalized there. English has also become the language of commerce around the world. The development of the global economy has made society at large more anglocentric than ever. Perhaps it is inevitable for French Canadians to eventually be assimilated into English Canada, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will or should roll over and accept it. They are entitled to fight for their language and culture. Although they are legally bound by the constitution, they neither agreed to it in 1867 nor when Trudeau drafted it and they certainly never agreed to the assimilation of their language and traditions. How our nation will reconcile these differences is beyond me. Trudeau did everything humanly possible to keep our country together, but how long the glue will hold is anyone's guess.

[cybercoma]

double post, please delete.

Edited November 18, 2008 by cybercoma

[kuzadd]

the only reason to do this, would be to fan the flames of separation.

Is that what Harper is after? Seems to be, so why?

Hmm?