Should Harper reopen the Constitutional talks?

[cybercoma]

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?

Fanning the flames is a good idiom to describe it. Separation is an issue that is always smoldering and its precisely because Quebecers identify themselves as a cohesive national unit. Reopening the constitution, however, does not necessitate a fight for secession. It will likely be used as a bargaining tool to try and wrestle powers from Ottawa, but the other provinces will be doing the same. Instead of using secession as their bargaining tool, the provinces will use things like resources and transfer payments.

The problem with re-opening the constitution is that it will be difficult to do it for a single issue: recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. The amendment clause forces the federal government to bargaining with the provinces for their signatures. After accomplishing that messy feat, it still has to pass the test of the voting public. This doesn't even begin to address other interests that are not provincial, such as aboriginal rights. Unfortunately, this all means that it is nearly impossible to open the constitution for just one issue. Opening the constitution is like taking your finger off the crack in the dam.

Edited November 18, 2008 by cybercoma

[g_bambino]

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.

The Supreme Court interperets the law. Ergo, the point I've made is that if the SC made a ruling on the required amount of consent needed to make the constitutional changes that Trudeau desired, then there must have been something in the law regarding that subject for them to look at, whether the law was written or conventional.

But, we seem to be approaching this from two different directions: I am coming at it from the point where Quebec is a geo-political entity, whereas it seems you are looking at it from the perspective of Quebec being a group of French-speaking, pure laine individuals. While I can't disagree with most of what you say above, it is only if I read it with what I think is your frame of mind; however, I don't share that mindset. I believe we could discuss the attitudes of the Quebecois to the constitutional changes in 1982, but that, to my mind, is something separate all-together from the attitudes of the Quebec government, which oversees more than just one group of people with a certain ethnicity.

Edited November 18, 2008 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

Even though there are many different groups within Quebec, the government of Quebec has a different approach to language and multiculturalism than the rest of the country. They must follow the constitutional amendments of 1982, but that hasn't stopped them from trying to go against it. During the 80s, they attempted to ban English from all signs. The SCC ruling against that resulted in the Quebec government interpreting the ruling to allow them to restrict size, colour and shape of lettering on signs by language.

What I am suggesting here is that Quebec has never agreed to be a part of the constitution of Canada, which was passed in English through the parliament of Britain in 1867 and subsequently patriated in 1982. For the most part of history, save the 1837-1838 riots and the FLQ crisis, the nation of Quebec has abstained from violently revolting against the laws of Britain and the federal Canadian government. Instead, the government of Quebec, which they call their "National Assembly" (do they not?), has tried to peacefully have their nation's distinctiveness recognized. This was recommended by the B&B Commission during the 60s. Since then, they have tried to accomplish this in many ways: the first referendum on sovereignty-association, the patriation of the constitution, the Meech Lake Accord, the Charlottetown Accord, the sovereignty-partnership referendum, and the BQ motion that was averted because Harper put forward the motion first.

That last item is where your idea the "Quebecois make up a distinct nation within a united Canada". I understand your point; however, the definition of Quebecois leaves too much to be interpreted. Quebec itself is a geo-political entity as a province. It is within the framework of that province that the people of Quebec (le Quebecois) have a feeling of nationalism. That national identity is also recognized by people who are not a part of that distinct nation. Although there are not many people that would disagree that we share the values Trudeau used to try and unite this country, there is something beyond the rights, freedoms and multiculturalism of Canada that defines Quebec. It is with this national identity (which is further defined by the B&B Commission's reports that give Quebec legitimacy as one of the two founding partners in Canadian history) that Quebec has a legitimate claim to recognition. That recognition has not been given to them through the constitution, so they never signed it; therefore, it is valid to say that they never agreed to it even though they are legally bound by it.

Edited November 18, 2008 by cybercoma

[Griz]

The constitution and the jurisdictional conflicts always has been and always will be a burden and an expense. I for one believe that Charlottetown may have passed if it was broken into a yes ot no for each question. Instead Mulroney tried to get a single yes or no answer, for several major questions which was mistake. SO he almost did something good but failed miserabley.

Someone also mentioned that Quebec was forced into BNA? That's exactly what happened to the natives. The natives had nothing to do with the Indian Act, yet you have arses in our society who give indians crap over something designed by whiteman. Some people in Canada need to give their so-called intellectual heads a shake including politicians.

Furthermore, the natives played a key role as allies to the Brits during that time. SOmething that history fails to tell! Yes cranky arses, aboriginal people played a key role in the building of this nation! Yes cranky arses, aboriginal people helped your ancestors get here so they can get all the free land they wanted, and force aboriginal people onto reserves. Then the ancestors raped their women, molested their children, comiited acts of arson and murder, squatted on the land, comiited acts of terrorism etc etc, Then history tells everyone else that they did the indians one big favor. That's the problem--history is one "great big lie."

[cybercoma]

The constitution and the jurisdictional conflicts always has been and always will be a burden and an expense. I for one believe that Charlottetown may have passed if it was broken into a yes ot no for each question. Instead Mulroney tried to get a single yes or no answer, for several major questions which was mistake. SO he almost did something good but failed miserabley.

Someone also mentioned that Quebec was forced into BNA? That's exactly what happened to the natives. The natives had nothing to do with the Indian Act, yet you have arses in our society who give indians crap over something designed by whiteman. Some people in Canada need to give their so-called intellectual heads a shake including politicians.

Furthermore, the natives played a key role as allies to the Brits during that time. SOmething that history fails to tell! Yes cranky arses, aboriginal people played a key role in the building of this nation! Yes cranky arses, aboriginal people helped your ancestors get here so they can get all the free land they wanted, and force aboriginal people onto reserves. Then the ancestors raped their women, molested their children, comiited acts of arson and murder, squatted on the land, comiited acts of terrorism etc etc, Then history tells everyone else that they did the indians one big favor. That's the problem--history is one "great big lie."

Notwithstanding the issue of Quebec, the problems faced by the native people of Canada is a whole separate issue that certainly deserves to be addressed.