Plains of Abraham re-enactment cancelled

[g_bambino]

Any amendments that do require... approval of the British Parliament have to do with... the 'Office of the Queen'

Either you missed this or you ignored it.

[CANADIEN]

Interesting editorial in the Post this morning on this subject. I wonder how many others are losing patience with Quebec's endless snivelling, whining and victimhood status.

Editorial: Tell Quebec where to get off

Interesting indeed. Considering that for years the National Posts have hosted columns like those by Diane Francis against linguistic rights for French-speaking Canadians. And that this same editorial views the CCCharter as a failure.

Edited February 25, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

All of these amendments you listed are under the authority of the federal government and do not even require the use of the amending formula.

Constitutional Act, 1982

43. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including

(a) any alteration to boundaries between provinces, and

( any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province,

may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.

In other words, the amendments to the Constitutions are quoted where eneacted under a procedure set out in the Constutition.

Any amendments that do require all provinces unanimously agreeing or approval of the British Parliament have to do with amendments relating to with those of the 'Office of the Queen'.

You don't get section 2 of the Canada Act voted by the British Parliament in 1982, which clearly states that it has no longer any legislative authority of Canada. Do you? And you have yet to quote the exact section in our Constitution that states that its consent is needed for any constitutional change. Not surprising, since such section does not exist.

The amending formula makes it virtualy impossible to abolish the Monarchy, or the Governor General position. But if unanimity between the provincial and federal government were achieved, there is nothing the British Parliament could say or do about it.

Even the Constitution Act 1982 had to be approved by British Parliament since all Canadian provinces did not agree to ratify it. Quebec was the only province who refused to ratify it.

The Consttiution Act of 1982 had to be ratified by the British Parliament because the Constitution had not be patriated YET.

Little to do with the lack of unanimity. In fact, the Supreme Court had stated in a 1981 decision that consent from the provincial governments was not required for constitutional changes. As already pointed out, the Brtish Parliament surrendered in 1982 any right to be involved in the constitutional proces.

[whowhere]

They held on to it for 155 years and then they lost it, the deciding event being the loss of Quebec and the inability to retake it. Why would the US fight for Louisiana when they could buy it? If France still wanted a North American colony, why did they sell it? Napoleon knew it was a lost cause and got what he could for it while he still had the option and I'm sure he would have rather seen it go to the Americans than the Brits. The US would have eventually taken it anyway, just as they did Texas and California from Mexico. Manifest Destiny and all that stuff. Napoleon was a great general but he had little understanding of naval warfare and it showed in his decisions regarding his navy. France had little chance of getting an army there to defend it anyway as long as Britain decided otherwise. That issue was finally decided for good at Trafalgar.

The inability to retake Canada was because France Bankrupted itself liberating the United States and King Louis XV subsequently lost his life because of it. There was no opportunity for France to remedy this. Napoleon had no connection to the monarchy, he rose to power through his vanity and egocentricity. All his decisions were based on what was in his interest. Really, manifest Destiny?? I don't think you understand the United States at all if the US was ruled by manifest destiny they had their chance to take Canada during the World Wars while Europe and the rest of the world was preoccupied fighting Germany. The US decided to take the high road and not seize that opportunity. Had the US not taken the High Road, Britain would have been saying along with France Hail Hitler While Canada would have been marching to the tune of Uncle Sam. So your argument of manifest destiny is BS.

1759 - 1800 represents a pocket of History Between North America and Europe that has to be looked at together. 1867 Canada was fought for, defended, and established by Britain. Nothing has altered that fact. At no point has Britain relinquished its claim on Canada. Because their claim has been passive, people are deluded into thinking that will not change.

It is obvious Canada's politicians and bureacrats hate Canada. Any country that panders to world interests at the expense of the Canadian people and broadcasts itself as the world's bike where everyone gets a turn is reprehensible and a disgrace. The 1982 Constitution was meant to bond Canada together not to be used to drive the country into a cultural shithole that it is today.

For that reason Canada's independence from Britain will be questioned. Canada's current political model is one of exploitation of the Canadian people and immigration policies for the benefit of Canada's bureacrats and politicians. Britain will catch on to what is going on and move to correct this rampant trough feeding corruption.

Is this what Britain fought for? Is this the Canada the Queen had in mind in establishing the 1982 Constitution? I don't think so. Canada had an opportunity to use the 1982 constitution as a mechanism of Good but it chose corruption and abuse instead. Canada has lost its right to be independent.

Do not the let the political trash use This politics of distraction in attacking Quebec to distract you from their corruption. Quebec has always been used a whipping posts to distract the people away from the real issues.

Protest the Queens office and tell her what Canada's politicians and bureacrats are up to. Do not be distracted by their rants on quebec.

[CANADIEN]

The inability to retake Canada was because France Bankrupted itself liberating the United States and King Louis XV subsequently lost his life because of it.

Interesting hypothesis. Too bad that Louis XV had died of smallpox in 1774... and that France knew her interests were better served by the U.S. and the U.K. staring at each other in North America than by a French garrison in Quebec City.

[Wilber]

The inability to retake Canada was because France Bankrupted itself liberating the United States and King Louis XV subsequently lost his life because of it.

If France could not retake Canada with the Continental Army on its side, what makes you think they could have done it on their own considering the British would now be able to concentrate on fighting only the French instead of the Americans as well? The hole you keep digging just gets deeper. As CANADIEN has pointed out it was Louis XVI but you are right in that there was no opportunity for France to remedy this, so game over. If France was to ever regain their North American colonies it would have been because the Americans might have been in a position to return them, not because of what France could have done. In other words the Plains of Abraham was a pivotal event in the history of todays Quebec, which some Quebecois chose to ignore because they have yet to grow up, like the mature societies of the world who recognize all their history when it comes to who and how they got to where they are, not try and rewrite it as they go along.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Interesting hypothesis. Too bad that Louis XV had died of smallpox in 1774... and that France knew her interests were better served by the U.S. and the U.K. staring at each other in North America than by a French garrison in Quebec City.

Well said, the War of 1812 served Napoleon better than any French colony in North America could have, it tied up British forces at no cost to him. To no avail in the final analysis.

[Leafless]

Constitutional Act, 1982

In other words, the amendments to the Constitutions are quoted where eneacted under a procedure set out in the Constutition.

There are five amending formulas.

You don't get section 2 of the Canada Act voted by the British Parliament in 1982, which clearly states that it has no longer any legislative authority of Canada. Do you? And you have yet to quote the exact section in our Constitution that states that its consent is needed for any constitutional change. Not surprising, since such section does not exist.

The amending formula makes it virtualy impossible to abolish the Monarchy, or the Governor General position. But if unanimity between the provincial and federal government were achieved, there is nothing the British Parliament could say or do about it.

There are five amending formulas.

Formal Constitutional Amendments

Formal constitutional amendments are pieces of legislation passed by Canadian legislatures that change basic constitutional norms and principles. The Constitution may be altered in this manner at any time and for any reason. The Constitution Act, 1982 does, however, place specific requirements (referred to as ‘amending formulas’) on the manner in which these changes may take place. There are five different amending formulas in all under the Constitution.

The first amending formula applies to the following constitutional areas:

The office of the Monarch, the Governor General, and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

The right of a province to have the same, or more, members in the House of Commons than it has in the Senate;

The use of the English or French language at the federal level of government;

The composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and,

Changes to this list of items that require unanimous consent for constitution change.

In order to make changes to these items, the first amending formula requires unanimous federal and provincial consent. This means the constitutional amendment must be approved by the federal Parliament (which includes the Monarchy, the House of Commons, and the Senate), as well as all of the provincial legislatures.

The second amending formula applies to all other matters that affect both the federal government and all of the provinces. It, however, requires only unanimous federal and significant provincial consent. This means, more specifically, approval by the federal Parliament (again, the Monarchy, House of Commons, and Senate) plus two-thirds of the provincial legislatures, which combined represent at least 50 percent of the national population.

The consequences of this second amending formula, however, differ depending on the particular area of the constitutional amendment. In some cases, dissenting provinces can “opt-out” of the constitution change. Remember, the second amending formula only requires consent by two-thirds of the provinces (representing at least 50 percent of the national population). If, for example, seven of 10 provinces agreed to transfer a provincial power to the federal government, the constitutional change would only apply to those seven provinces that consented. The remaining three provinces could choose to retain that power. In other cases, however, there is no opt-out option, meaning the constitutional amendment is applied to all provinces, consenting or not. This would include amendments to the following items:

The principle of proportionate representation in the House of Commons;

The powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;

The number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;

The Supreme Court of Canada (other than its composition);

The expansion of provincial borders into the territories; and,

The establishment of new provinces.

The third amending formula applies only to constitutional amendments that affect the federal government and one or more (but not all) of the provinces. This would include such items as boundary alternations between provinces or changes to the use of the English or French languages within a province. Such changes would require only the consent of the federal Parliament and the legislatures of those provinces involved.

The fourth amending formula applies to constitutional amendments that only affect the federal government, such as the executive government, the House of Commons, or the Senate (excluding, of course, those items listed under the other amending formulas). Under this formula, only the consent of the federal Parliament is needed (the Monarch, House of Commons, and Senate).

Finally, the fifth amending formula allows individual provinces to amend their own constitutions (excluding matters that affect other provinces or the federal government, or the office of Lieutenant Governor). Such matters require only the consent of the provincial legislature.

Relating to first amending formula includes the Monarchy.

This means the constitutional amendment must be approved by the federal Parliament (which includes the Monarchy, the House of Commons, and the Senate), as well as all of the provincial legislatures.

Relating to the second amending formula:

This means, more specifically, approval by the federal Parliament (again, the Monarchy, House of Commons, and Senate) plus two-thirds of the provincial legislatures, which combined represent at least 50 percent of the national population.

The fourth amending formula also mentions the Monarchy.

Constitutional Act, 1982

The Consttiution Act of 1982 had to be ratified by the British Parliament because the Constitution had not be patriated YET.

And that delay was due to:

This delay in repatriation of the Canadian constitution was due in large part to the lack of agreement over a mechanism for amending the constitution that would be acceptable to all of the provinces, particularly Quebec.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Act_1982

Edited February 25, 2009 by Leafless

[CANADIEN]

There are five amending formulas.

You got it... this time, unless your last posting in which you said, and I quote:

All of these amendments you listed are under the authority of the federal government and do not even require the use of the amending formula.

And thank you for reminding us of something already well known, which is thatit took more than 50 yeears after the Statute of Westminster for us to patriate the Constitution, and why.

BTW, If you look at the actual text of the Constitutional Act, 1982, you will notice that ALL amendments require the signature of the GOVERNOR GENERAL. Not the Queen, even though the Governor General could reserve the matter to her. Most certainly not the British Parliament.

Edited February 25, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Leafless]

Most certainly not the British Parliament.

I meant to say the Monarchy even though the "The Queen is the third component of Parliament" and:"The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the supreme legislative body in the United Kingdom and British overseas territories. It alone has parliamentary sovereignty, conferring it ultimate power over all other political bodies in the UK and its territories. At its head is the Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of..._United_Kingdom

Edited February 25, 2009 by Leafless

[Leafless]

Interesting indeed. Considering that for years the National Posts have hosted columns like those by Diane Francis against linguistic rights for French-speaking Canadians. And that this same editorial views the CCCharter as a failure.

The Charter is a failure relating to official multiculturalism and official bilingualism in Canada and discriminates against English speaking Canadians.

The Charter has resulted in Quebec being an isolationist province with immigrants living in ethnic enclaves.

Excessive unwanted and uneeded human rights and a socialistic Charter an has turned Quebec into this: Notice the preamble.

© Éditeur officiel du Québec

This document is not the official version.

Latest version available

Updated to 15 December 2008

R.S.Q., chapter E-20.2

An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State

The Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Aboriginal Affairs, Francophones within Canada, the Reform of Democratic Institutions and Access to Information is responsible for the application of this Act. Order in Council 299-2007 dated 19 April 2007, (2007) 139 G.O. 2 (French), 1975.

Preamble.

WHEREAS the Québec people, in the majority French-speaking, possesses specific characteristics and a deep-rooted historical continuity in a territory over which it exercises its rights through a modern national state, having a government, a national assembly and impartial and independent courts of justice;

WHEREAS the constitutional foundation of the Québec State has been enriched over the years by the passage of fundamental laws and the creation of democratic institutions specific to Québec;

WHEREAS Québec entered the Canadian federation in 1867;

WHEREAS Québec is firmly committed to respecting human rights and freedoms;

WHEREAS the Abenaki, Algonquin, Attikamek, Cree, Huron, Innu, Malecite, Micmac, Mohawk, Naskapi and Inuit Nations exist within Québec, and whereas the principles associated with that recognition were set out in the resolution adopted by the National Assembly on 20 March 1985, in particular their right to autonomy within Québec;

WHEREAS there exists a Québec English-speaking community that enjoys long-established rights;

WHEREAS Québec recognizes the contribution made by Quebecers of all origins to its development;

WHEREAS the National Assembly is composed of Members elected by universal suffrage by the Québec people and derives its legitimacy from the Québec people in that it is the only legislative body exclusively representing the Québec people;

WHEREAS it is incumbent upon the National Assembly, as the guardian of the historical and inalienable rights and powers of the Québec people, to defend the Québec people against any attempt to despoil it of those rights or powers or to undermine them;

WHEREAS the National Assembly has never adhered to the Constitution Act, 1982, which was enacted despite its opposition;

WHEREAS Québec is facing a policy of the federal government designed to call into question the legitimacy, integrity and efficient operation of its national democratic institutions, notably by the passage and proclamation of the Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference (Statutes of Canada, 2000, chapter 26);

WHEREAS it is necessary to reaffirm the fundamental principle that the Québec people is free to take charge of its own destiny, determine its political status and pursue its economic, social and cultural development;

WHEREAS this principle has applied on several occasions in the past, notably in the referendums held in 1980, 1992 and 1995;

WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada rendered an advisory opinion on 20 August 1998, and considering the recognition by the Government of Québec of its political importance;

WHEREAS it is necessary to reaffirm the collective attainments of the Québec people, the responsibilities of the Québec State and the rights and prerogatives of the National Assembly with respect to all matters affecting the future of the Québec people;

THE PARLIAMENT OF QUÉBEC ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

2000, c. 46.

CHAPTER I

THE QUÉBEC PEOPLE

Self-determination.

1. The right of the Québec people to self-determination is founded in fact and in law. The Québec people is the holder of rights that are universally recognized under the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

2000, c. 46, s. 1.

Political regime.

2. The Québec people has the inalienable right to freely decide the political regime and legal status of Québec.

2000, c. 46, s. 2.

Exclusive right.

3. The Québec people, acting through its own political institutions, shall determine alone the mode of exercise of its right to choose the political regime and legal status of Québec.

Exercise of right.

No condition or mode of exercise of that right, in particular the consultation of the Québec people by way of a referendum, shall have effect unless determined in accordance with the first paragraph.

2000, c. 46, s. 3.

Majority.

4. When the Québec people is consulted by way of a referendum under the Referendum Act ( chapter C-64.1), the winning option is the option that obtains a majority of the valid votes cast, namely 50 % of the valid votes cast plus one.

2000, c. 46, s. 4.

CHAPTER II

THE QUÉBEC NATIONAL STATE

Legitimacy.

5. The Québec State derives its legitimacy from the will of the people inhabiting its territory.

Will of the people.

The will of the people is expressed through the election of Members to the National Assembly by universal suffrage, by secret ballot under the one person, one vote system pursuant to the Election Act ( chapter E-3.3), and through referendums held pursuant to the Referendum Act ( chapter C-64.1).

Elector.

Qualification as an elector is governed by the provisions of the Election Act.

2000, c. 46, s. 5.

Sovereignty.

6. The Québec State is sovereign in the areas assigned to its jurisdiction within the scope of constitutional laws and conventions.

Constitutional convention.

The Québec State also holds, on behalf of the Québec people, any right established to its advantage pursuant to a constitutional convention or obligation.

Integrity of prerogatives.

It is the duty of the Government to uphold the exercise and defend the integrity of those prerogatives, at all times and in all places, including on the international scene.

2000, c. 46, s. 6.

Treaties.

7. The Québec State is free to consent to be bound by any treaty, convention or international agreement in matters under its constitutional jurisdiction.

Formal consent.

No treaty, convention or agreement in the areas under its jurisdiction may be binding on the Québec State unless the consent of the Québec State to be bound has been formally expressed by the National Assembly or the Government, subject to the applicable legislative provisions.

Outside representation.

The Québec State may, in the areas under its jurisdiction, establish and maintain relations with foreign States and international organizations and ensure its representation outside Québec.

2000, c. 46, s. 7.

Official language.

8. The French language is the official language of Québec.

Charter of the French language.

The duties and obligations relating to or arising from the status of the French language are established by the Charter of the French language.

Promotion of the French language.

The Québec State must promote the quality and influence of the French language. It shall pursue those objectives in a spirit of fairness and open-mindedness, respectful of the long-established rights of Québec's English-speaking community.

2000, c. 46, s. 8.

CHAPTER III

THE TERRITORY OF QUÉBEC

Boundaries.

9. The territory of Québec and its boundaries cannot be altered except with the consent of the National Assembly.

Territorial integrity.

The Government must ensure that the territorial integrity of Québec is maintained and respected.

2000, c. 46, s. 9.

Powers.

10. The Québec State exercises, throughout the territory of Québec and on behalf of the Québec people, all the powers relating to its jurisdiction and to the Québec public domain.

Development and administration.

The State may develop and administer the territory of Québec and, more specifically, delegate authority to administer the territory to local or regional mandated entities, as provided by law. The State shall encourage local and regional communities to take responsibility for their development.

2000, c. 46, s. 10.

CHAPTER IV

THE ABORIGINAL NATIONS OF QUÉBEC

Aboriginal rights.

11. In exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, the Québec State recognizes the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal nations of Québec.

2000, c. 46, s. 11.

Aboriginal nations.

12. The Government undertakes to promote the establishment and maintenance of harmonious relations with the aboriginal nations, and to foster their development and an improvement in their economic, social and cultural conditions.

2000, c. 46, s. 12.

CHAPTER V

FINAL PROVISIONS

National Assembly.

13. No other parliament or government may reduce the powers, authority, sovereignty or legitimacy of the National Assembly, or impose constraint on the democratic will of the Québec people to determine its own future.

2000, c. 46, s. 13.

14. (Omitted).

2000, c. 46, s. 14.

REPEAL SCHEDULE

In accordance with section 9 of the Act respecting the consolidation of the statutes and regulations ( chapter R-3), chapter 46 of the statutes of 2000, in force on 1 April 2001, is repealed, except section 14, effective from the coming into force of chapter E-20.2 of the Revised Statutes.

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.c..._2/E20_2_A.html

Edited February 25, 2009 by Leafless

[g_bambino]

I meant to say the Monarchy even though the "The Queen is the third component of Parliament" and:"The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the supreme legislative body in the United Kingdom and British overseas territories.

Now I know you're ignoring this.

[CANADIEN]

I meant to say the Monarchy even though the "The Queen is the third component of Parliament" and:"The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the supreme legislative body in the United Kingdom and British overseas territories. It alone has parliamentary sovereignty, conferring it ultimate power over all other political bodies in the UK and its territories. At its head is the Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of..._United_Kingdom

Nice summary of the fact that the British parliament is the supreme legislative body for the U.K. and its territories. Canada is NOT a British territory, but an independant country with the same Queen is the U.K.

BTW, you have (not surprisingly) forgot to read something else in the text you quoted. it reads:

Parliament also revoked its legislative competence over Australia and Canada with the Australia and Canada Acts: although the UK Parliament could pass an Act reversing its action, it would not take effect in Australia or Canada as the competence of the Imperial Parliament is no longer recognised there in law.

Don't worry, I do not expect you to get it.

Edited February 25, 2009 by CANADIEN

[WestViking]

Nice summary of the fact that the British parliament is the supreme legislative body for the U.K. and its territories. Canada is NOT a British territory, but an independent country with the same Queen is the U.K.

Queen Elizabeth II has several titles which she uses independently as the situation requires. When the Queen sets off from the UK to Canada on official business, she is the Queen of Canada for the duration of the visit. In effect and in law, she takes off the UK tiara and puts on a Canada tiara while she attends to our business. She has yet another role as head of the commonwealth of nations.

[CANADIEN]

The Charter is a failure relating to official multiculturalism and official bilingualism in Canada and discriminates against English speaking Canadians.

Still not getting it, I see.

The Charter has resulted in Quebec being an isolationist province

You mean as opposed to being isolated because most of its population is treated as second-class citizens.

(...)with immigrants living in ethnic enclaves.

So, immigrants are more likely to live in enclaves in Montreal than let's sayToronto and Vancouver. Care to back that one up with factual information?

Excessive unwanted and uneeded human rights(...)

Mugabe and Castro would be so proud of you.

I'd be curious, BTW, to see what eaxactly you hate the most about the preamble you quoted. I wonder if that's the fact it states the majority of the population of Qquebec speaks French, or the recognition of First NATIONS, or that it does not have the customary "Frenchies are not real Canadians" bit at the heart of your delusion.

[Leafless]

Don't worry, I do not expect you to get it.

No matter how you look at it the Canadian Parliament is composed of three parts: the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Monarchy. In theory, for a law to come into effect, it must be approved by all three parts of Parliament.

The Queen is 'Head of State' and is the Queen of Canada with her image appearing on Canadian currency.

Look, I am sick and tired of watching PM's rule in an autocratic manner and or catering to anti-Canadian ideologies using the powers of a Constitutional Monarchy and Parliamentary Democracy to achieve this.

As a matter of fact because of this I am in favour of reforming Canada's Constitution. Canada should convene a Constitutional Assembly and draft a new Constitution making it totally independent of Britain and create especially checks and balances restraining the powers of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of our government along with other reforms.

[Smallc]

No matter how you look at it the Canadian Parliament is composed of three parts: the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Monarchy. In theory, for a law to come into effect, it must be approved by all three parts of Parliament.

The Queen is 'Head of State' and is the Queen of Canada with her image appearing on Canadian currency.

Very well done. All true. Except for the theory part. It happens in practice, all of the time.

Canada should convene a Constitutional Assembly and draft a new Constitution making it totally independent of Britain

Not so well done. We already are completely independent.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Smallc

[Leafless]

I'd be curious, BTW, to see what eaxactly you hate the most about the preamble you quoted.

Overuse of the word 'WHEREAS' and Quebec really is not a state.

The entire Act is rather embarrassing as Canada already has a Constitution and Quebec should not mimic Canada's Constitution as if it is a separate country.

I wonder if that's the fact it states the majority of the population of Quebec speaks French, or the recognition of First NATIONS, or that it does not have the customary "Frenchies are not real Canadians" bit at the heart of your delusion.

No, it is the fact Quebec thinks the ROC are NOT real Canadians.

This Act along with the French Language Charter proves it.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Leafless

[g_bambino]

Canada should convene a Constitutional Assembly and draft a new Constitution making it totally independent of Britain...

Still ignoring this, I see. I suspect you're doing this because you know you can't refute it, and therefore admit that you're wrong. No matter, the evidence is here for everyone else to see that you are quite incorrect.

[CANADIEN]

No matter how you look at it the Canadian Parliament is composed of three parts: the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Monarchy. In theory, for a law to come into effect, it must be approved by all three parts of Parliament.

You got something almost right... The Canadian Parliament is comprised of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Crown. Which in Canada does NOT include the British Parliament.

Look, I am sick and tired of watching PM's rule in an autocratic manner and or catering to anti-Canadian ideologies using the powers of a Constitutional Monarchy and Parliamentary Democracy to achieve this.

And I am sick and tired of seeing the Leafs win the Cup year after year. To each his/her own delusion.

As a matter of fact because of this I am in favour of reforming Canada's Constitution. Canada should convene a Constitutional Assembly and draft a new Constitution making it totally independent of Britain and create especially checks and balances restraining the powers of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of our government along with other reforms.

Considering this is pretty much what we already (apart from the removal of the Crown and getting rid of the notwhitstanding clause), there is no need for a Constutitional Assembly.

The bit about other reforms though... why don't you just spell it out; it would start with No French, no non-white immigration, no First Nations and no human rights.

[Leafless]

Very well done. All true. Except for the theory part. It happens in practice, all of the time.

Through the Queens represntative the GG.

Not so well done. We already are completely independent.

Then why are we a Constitutional Monarchy and still tied historically to Britain with a British Westminster style Parliamentary Democracy that badly requires democratic reforms.

Obviously our PM,s enjoy ruling like a KING but right, we are independent.

[CANADIEN]

The entire Act is rather embarrassing as Canada already has a Constitution and Quebec should not mimic Canada's Constitution as if it is a separate country.

Actually, the Constitution clearly tates that each provincial legislature can pass laws modifying the province's internal constitution (with limits). And most people would admit that the act you quoted is not quite constitutional in nature.

No, it is the fact Quebec thinks the ROC are NOT real Canadians.

:lol: Are you trying to compete with whowhere as to who will write the most stupid statement on this thread. Says a lot about him that even that sentence of yours does not come close to his ranting.

Edited February 25, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Then why are we a Constitutional Monarchy and still tied historically to Britain with a British Westminster style Parliamentary Democracy that badly requires democratic reforms.

You have a problem with parliamentary democracy. Oh surprise.

[Smallc]

Through the Queens represntative the GG.

Yes, actually, I was incorrect. You were wrong. The Canadian Parliament is made up of the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Crown (not the Monarchy in particular). The Crown is represented by the Governor General in Canada. At the Head of the Crown is the Queen of Canada.

Then why are we a Constitutional Monarchy

Because that's the system we operate under. You don't like it? Too bad.

[CANADIEN]

Then why are we a Constitutional Monarchy

Brcause we, the Canadian people, through our elected represetatives, have not seen fit to abolish it. I wished it was abolished, but I don't particularly care about who signs on the laws.

(...) and still tied historically to Britain

And what's your problem with that, apart from your disappointment that the Queen signed on the Constitutional Act, 1982? And on top of that, she can speak French...

Edited February 25, 2009 by CANADIEN