What happened to that so desired reform?

[Benz]

The Westminster parliamentary system is used widely outside the Commonwealth.

How so?

What?

What?

What?

Usually, the parliement is divided in two. One is the representation of the people, in the case of Canada, it is the House of Common. The other one, (the senate), is usually the representation of the lower structures. Such as department, states, provinces, regions, etc... Therefore, those subadministrations are the ones to choose who will be senators. In Canada, it is not. It's the prime minister. So the Canadian senate is useless.

So you are not aware of this Sikh kid that can now go to school with a Kirpan? People are very offuscated in Québec. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2006/03/02/kirpan-scoc060302.html

http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2006/03/02/003-Kirpan-Coursup.shtml

Regarding the rest... what part did you not understand?

Québec is a nation, English Canada is a nation. Two different cultures and the matter have been discussed for several decades. The first time was with the Commission Laurendeau-Dunton. In order to make sure that those two cultures respect each others, we need a mechanism to put them on the same basis, equality. Several propositions have been made and today, the most logical is to give Quebec a constitutional veto on any furtur modifications on the constitution. It's the only way to make sure Quebec will never be left alone in the corner anymore. We will all have to agree and negociate until we agree. It's important. Every individuals in this country are equal and must comply to the constitution. It is unacceptable for the french that the english can set the rules of the constitution without them.

Such rule already exists in Europe. They are more than 20 and they manage to find consensus. Why can't we, we are just 2.

Why do you think the Québécois keep voting for the Bloc. Because they like light blue colour? Seriously! You really beleive your crappy politicians and medias when they say the Bloc is an evil group whop charmed the innocent sleepers in Québec? If you care about this country. You better wake up and get a clue.

[Moonlight Graham]

Repeating the catastrophes of Meech Lake and Charlottetown and potentially triggering another Quebec referendum. The risks of opening up the constitution to a major change like the Triple-E Senate just isn't worth it.

Bingo. As you said, look what happened the last time the Constitution was opened up. Its just not worth it, not any time soon anyways. Quebec isn't even the only problem, as some provinces favour abolition over an elected senate.

Harper has found the senate useful for his agenda, so why would he mess with a good thing when he can just continue acting like a dick?

[g_bambino]

So in theory, it could become practice in Canada to elect senators without resort to a constitutional amendment. (This, in fact, is how common law and the British constitution function. The Civil Code - and the US Constitution - require formal amendment procedures.)

I'm afraid not, since, in this case, the method of appointing a senator is not conventional, it is set out in statute law and relates to the Royal Prerogative. It could possibly become traditional for the prime minister to recommend an elected individual for appointment to the Senate by the governor general, but, so long as the Constitution Act 1867 remains unaltered, any prime minister would be within his legal rights to put forward anyone, elected or not, to be made a senator.

Harper's main Canadian Senate change is tor introduce a term limit of eight years. He can do this.

From my reading of the Constitution Act 1982, it seems he can, so long as its passed by both Houses of Parliament. Section 44 states: "Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons" and I don't see anywhere in sections 41 and 42 anything relating to how long a senator may serve.

I must admit, I'm surprised. For a body so related to the provinces/regions, the Senate is more a beast of Ottawa than I thought.

[g_bambino]

Usually, the parliement is divided in two. One is the representation of the people... The other one... is usually the representation of... provinces, regions, etc... Therefore, those subadministrations are the ones to choose who will be senators. In Canada, it is not. It's the prime minister. So the Canadian senate is useless.

The explanation doesn't support the conclusion. Even if the method of choosing senators could be improved, that in itself doesn't mean the Senate is useless.

So you are not aware of this Sikh kid that can now go to school with a Kirpan?

I believe the "kid" is probably now well into his 20s, but, yes, I recall the incident. What, though, does that have to do with the "strength" of religion in the constitution?

In order to make sure that those two cultures respect each others, we need a mechanism to put them on the same basis, equality. Several propositions have been made and today, the most logical is to give Quebec a constitutional veto on any furtur modifications on the constitution.

That's the opposite of equality. But, regardless, you've veered off onto some other track. You said one of the two nations in this country was excluded from the constitution. Putting aside the question of how you're defining "nation" in order to come to the conclusion there's only two within Canada, there's still no clarification on what nation it is, exactly, that's left out of the constitution.

[August1991]

I'm afraid not, since, in this case, the method of appointing a senator is not conventional, it is set out in statute law and relates to the Royal Prerogative. It could possibly become traditional for the prime minister to recommend an elected individual for appointment to the Senate by the governor general, but, so long as the Constitution Act 1867 remains unaltered, any prime minister would be within his legal rights to put forward anyone, elected or not, to be made a senator.

But ultimately, everything is a Royal Prerogative. IOW, the GG ultimately signs the paper making a person a Senator.

Imagine that it becomes practice that PMs recommend a person who was elected. And then a new PM recommends an unelected party bagman/hack. What would happen if the GG refused to name the party hack to the Senate on the grounds that previous PMs submitted elected names? It would go to the Supreme Court.

Bambino, this is how conventions are established, and how the common law functions. It is a process of common usage, testing and precedent. [The Civil Code functions very differently.]

BTW, has anyone asked Ignatieff how he would choose Senators?

[Battletoads]

Harper's far right reformist nature will be shown in full force should he win a majority.

[August1991]

Harper's far right reformist nature will be shown in full force should he win a majority.

Harper is only "far right"? I thought he was "extreme right".

At least BT, you admit that Harper is "reformist". IOW, he's progressive.

[Battletoads]

At least BT, you admit that Harper is "reformist". IOW, he's progressive.

Its a well know fact that Harper was a far right member of the reform party. For example, when Manning was in favor of gay rights Harper and his ilk were running about saying it should be legal to "move gays and ethnics to the back of the shop"

[August1991]

Its a well know fact that Harper was a far right member of the reform party.

Leftists usually describe Harper as "extreme right". BT, you describe him as only "far right".

BT, you should be sent to re-education camp this summer.

[g_bambino]

Bambino, this is how conventions are established, and how the common law functions.

We're talking about statutory law, not common law.

[ToadBrother]

But ultimately, everything is a Royal Prerogative. IOW, the GG ultimately signs the paper making a person a Senator.

Not everything is a prerogative.

Imagine that it becomes practice that PMs recommend a person who was elected. And then a new PM recommends an unelected party bagman/hack. What would happen if the GG refused to name the party hack to the Senate on the grounds that previous PMs submitted elected names? It would go to the Supreme Court.

If the GG refused to accept the PM's advice on a matter such as this, it would likely mean the PM would resign. That is generally seen by constitutional experts as the end result of a GG refusing to follow the Government's advice.

As g_bambino said, until the BNA Act is amended to change the way Senators are selected, a PM is free to recommend whomever he pleases. The Supreme Court would almost inevitably fall back on the notions of responsible government, where the Viceroy is bound save only in very rare circumstances to follow the advice of the Government of the day.

To my mind, your scenario is precisely why this kind of reform should be done properly. Leaving something as critical as how one of the chambers of Parliament is populated up to some ill-defined tradition that in critical ways flies in the face of how the Constitution as it stands intends that chamber to be populated, with the idea that if a future PM changes his mind that the GG and the Supreme Court becomes involved is madness. To intentionally create a situation that could lead to a constitutional showdown between the Government, the Governor General and the Supreme Court, well, words just describe how stupid and irresponsible that would be.

Bambino, this is how conventions are established, and how the common law functions. It is a process of common usage, testing and precedent. [The Civil Code functions very differently.]

Once again you're confusing Common Law with constitutional convention. They may be similar in the respect that both have a certain amount of depth in history, but conventions cannot just be altered, they are still a part of the constitution and to alter them would require an explicit change to the Constitution. Take the Royal Prerogatives, some of them are in fact not explicitly listed out in Acts of Parliament, and yet, you can't just change them or eliminate them.

BTW, has anyone asked Ignatieff how he would choose Senators?

Probably the same way Harper is, I'm sure.

[Benz]

The explanation doesn't support the conclusion. Even if the method of choosing senators could be improved, that in itself doesn't mean the Senate is useless.

Whether you like it or not, it does. A senate is meaningless if the senators are chosen by the prime minister.

I believe the "kid" is probably now well into his 20s, but, yes, I recall the incident. What, though, does that have to do with the "strength" of religion in the constitution?

In the constitution, it says one individual has the right to apply his religious belief at any circumstances. Above any other rules. This is a major flaw in the constitution.

That's the opposite of equality.

No it is not.

But, regardless, you've veered off onto some other track. You said one of the two nations in this country was excluded from the constitution. Putting aside the question of how you're defining "nation" in order to come to the conclusion there's only two within Canada, there's still no clarification on what nation it is, exactly, that's left out of the constitution.

English canadians + Québécois = 2 nations. The natives are a subject big enought to have its own thread, so I leave aside for the moment.

The english always used the imperialist argument that the french do not exist. Because they do want to control the constitution exclusively. The dictatorship of the number. The english outnumber the french, therefore, the english set the rules of the constitution with the french. You know what, you are not different from the former british that take over this land and reduced the french and the natives to third class citizens. Québec is a nation, wants to be respected as is and have a say onto those rules that are applied on every single individuals of this country.

If you want to stay into the denial, fine. You will have no one else than yourself to blame when this country will break appart. I swear it will.

[CANADIEN]

In the constitution, it says one individual has the right to apply his religious belief at any circumstances. Above any other rules. This is a major flaw in the constitution.

It does not. Unless you can quote the exact wording in the Constitution that says so.

[g_bambino]

Whether you like it or not, it does. A senate is meaningless if the senators are chosen by the prime minister.

You keep saying so. No explanation as to why, though.

In the constitution, it says one individual has the right to apply his religious belief at any circumstances. Above any other rules.

No, that's not true, either. Everyone has freedom of religion (a freedom the citizens of most western countries enjoy, which only undermines your argument about how unusual Canada's constitution is). However, as the Charter states, freedoms, including the religious kind, are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." So, one cannot murder one's daughter because one's religion calls for it. Less drastically, Sikhs may wear kirpans, but only if they are concealed and sewn into their sheaths, so they cannot be drawn. So, your argument fails to prove how relgion is "too strong" in the constitution. Would you rather it imposed atheism on everyone?

English canadians + Québécois = 2 nations.

Still selective, but, okay, we'll use those parameters.

The english always used the imperialist argument that the french do not exist. Because they do want to control the constitution exclusively. The dictatorship of the number. The english outnumber the french, therefore, the english set the rules of the constitution with the french.

I'll assume you meant to say "without the French", by which you mean the Quebecois. If so, you apparently missed Canadian history. Or, were you fed the revisionist version of the laine pur souverainetistes?

There were delegates from Canada East at the constitutional conferences in the 1860s: Sir George-Étienne Cartier, Sir Jean-Charles Chapais, Sir Alexander Tilloch Galt, Sir Hector-Louis Langevin, Thomas D'Arcy McGee, and Sir Étienne-Paschal Taché. They helped draft the British North America Act 1867, which was passed by the elected representatives of the inhabitants of Canada East before it went to Westminster. The province of Quebec was born (again, some might say) out of that document, as was the bilingual nature of Canada's federal government. The rights of Quebecers to their language and religion had long before been entrenched. So, please don't try and force this "British imperialist subversion of the Francophones" argument on us; it makes you look foolish.

Québec is a nation...

In the sense of a state, yes. But, not any more or less than any other province of Canada.

[Wild Bill]

I was looking for an english canadian forum to seek answers that I can't find down here in Québec. I hope you don't mind. If I'm at the wrong place, let me know and I'll keep searching elsewhere.

If there is one thing I remember very well from the creation of the Reform Party is the desire to reform the senate. Abolish that non-sense senate where the prime minister chooses himself the senators for the clear benefit of the party interests and replace it with a real senate where the senators are Elected, Equals (by province) and Efficient.

It was one of the main reason in the Reform's existence. They brought it in the CAC and then CPC as well. Until... Harper got elected prime minister of Canada.

Not only the proposed reform got burried out of sight, now Harper plays the exact same game the liberals did back then and he is placing his folks into the senate. In total contradiction of what the Reform was meant to be.

So my question is, what happened with that project?

Is Harper a traitor to that proposal and to his supporters (the very base of the conservatives)?

Or it is just that the westeners changed their mind at 180 degrees regarding the senate now that Harper can do the same thing the liberals were doing?

I don't know, enlight me please.

So far I've seen no one give you the straight dope, Benz. I was one of the first card carrying members of Reform when they moved into Ontario. I served as a riding Director for a few terms. So I feel I have some perspective to better answer your question.

The answer is, there is no longer any Reform! Not officially and not as part of the present CPC!

I know that's hard to believe, considering how at the time of their merger the Reform/Alliance was so big and the remains of the PC's were so tiny. However, once the merger was done and Harper became leader, he slowly but steadily purged every trace of Reform out of the new party.

In effect, the party now is a clone of the old Mulroney PC party. You may have noticed how one of the first things done was to bring Mulroney, Reform's hated nemesis, back from the wilderness to be a party "elder statesman". Unfortunately for Harper, Mulroney brought his scandals on his deals with Schreiber/Airbus affair along with him!

Although many of the old people are still around, Harper has eliminated virtually every trace of the old Reform Party. There is nothing left of their Blue Book of party policies.

When's the last time you heard any mention of Manning's name from the new CPC?

The people who don't like Harper still fling the name "Reform" at him just because to them it's a nasty word, like "bastard". It doesn't really mean anything to them in itself. These are the same people who hated the Reform Party! It's just bad emotion so don't expect anything logical from it.

I think it's possible that Harper might still believe in a reformed Senate but he has become the ultimate pragmatic politician. He obviously has studied Machiavelli, who wrote long ago that the first duty of the Prince is to retain power, since otherwise he can't do anything. Harper knows that Senate reform will be a very difficult thing to accomplish. He will need to have a strong majority or he will be just pissing in the wind. With a minority government it could never happen and worse yet for him, might bring his government down.

I hope this makes things more clear.

[ToadBrother]

I think it's possible that Harper might still believe in a reformed Senate but he has become the ultimate pragmatic politician. He obviously has studied Machiavelliar...

That may be, but a more likely explanation is that he has studied Mulroney. Harper is, I'm quite certain, quite cognizant of the fact that Mulroney's attempted constitutional reforms, as well-intentioned as they have been, left us with a divisive legacy; the rise of the Bloc Quebecois on a tide of perceived betrayal of Quebec by the rest of Canada, a near successful separatism referendum in Quebec in 1995 and ultimately, one of the causes of the current series of minority governments.

I'll ask you, do you think Senate reform is worth pulling the pin on the grenade again, considering that, for the most part, the whole Quebec separatism issue is on the low burner right now? I sure don't think so, and I'm damned glad that Harper is only throwing a few bones at the old REform wing and not seriously contemplating massive reforms. It's one of the checks in the "Harper" column in my book.

[PIK]

Good debate guys, takes time to read ,but I will admit I learned some interesting stuff about all that.

[Wild Bill]

That may be, but a more likely explanation is that he has studied Mulroney. Harper is, I'm quite certain, quite cognizant of the fact that Mulroney's attempted constitutional reforms, as well-intentioned as they have been, left us with a divisive legacy; the rise of the Bloc Quebecois on a tide of perceived betrayal of Quebec by the rest of Canada, a near successful separatism referendum in Quebec in 1995 and ultimately, one of the causes of the current series of minority governments.

I'll ask you, do you think Senate reform is worth pulling the pin on the grenade again, considering that, for the most part, the whole Quebec separatism issue is on the low burner right now? I sure don't think so, and I'm damned glad that Harper is only throwing a few bones at the old REform wing and not seriously contemplating massive reforms. It's one of the checks in the "Harper" column in my book.

Maybe you're right, TB. As I said, I'm not sure if Harper really cares that much about Senate Reform. Certainly, it's not high on his list of priorities. I agree with you that it would open up some Quebec worms but it would also have great benefits in other areas of the country.

You ask if "Senate reform is worth pulling the pin on the grenade" but there are other parts of the country that have long since tired of Quebec being the one to hold the grenade! Appeasing Quebec has become such a reflexive action by both the Liberals and Tories in Ottawa that I'm not sure if they have an accurate picture of the resentment building in TROC.

One thing is for sure, the status quo is a wonderful thing, if your Gilles Duceppe! Just keep those transfer payments rolling!

BTW, just what bones has Harper thrown to his Reform wing? Frankly, so far I haven't seen ANY!

[ToadBrother]

Maybe you're right, TB. As I said, I'm not sure if Harper really cares that much about Senate Reform. Certainly, it's not high on his list of priorities. I agree with you that it would open up some Quebec worms but it would also have great benefits in other areas of the country.

You ask if "Senate reform is worth pulling the pin on the grenade" but there are other parts of the country that have long since tired of Quebec being the one to hold the grenade! Appeasing Quebec has become such a reflexive action by both the Liberals and Tories in Ottawa that I'm not sure if they have an accurate picture of the resentment building in TROC.

One thing is for sure, the status quo is a wonderful thing, if your Gilles Duceppe! Just keep those transfer payments rolling!

BTW, just what bones has Harper thrown to his Reform wing? Frankly, so far I haven't seen ANY!

I'm sorry. I have no idea what equalization or other such payments have to do with this conversation. I don't recall those being on the table during previous constitutional talks, and if you tried to yank them, you'd have more than just Quebec squashing it. I'd say it would be all but impossible to yank the equalization payments, as the level of support among the Provinces would be impossible to accomplish.

Even with Triple-E senate reform, one of the aspects, which is an equal number of senators for each Province, might find serious objections in Ontario and the Maritime provinces, along with Quebec, all of which stand to lose influence in Ottawa.

[Benz]

Less drastically, Sikhs may wear kirpans, but only if they are concealed and sewn into their sheaths, so they cannot be drawn. So, your argument fails to prove how relgion is "too strong" in the constitution.

It is unacceptable. Every day, that public school now has to check with the required qualifications, if the weapon is still concealed as it should. The public schools don't have too spend money and energy on that. It's not allowed to have weapons, end of the story. Forcing us to take measures so we have to check if it is concealed, it is a non-respect of our culture. You may find it acceptable, we don't.

Would you rather it imposed atheism on everyone?

No. Secularity, yes.

I'll assume you meant to say "without the French", by which you mean the Quebecois. If so, you apparently missed Canadian history. Or, were you fed the revisionist version of the laine pur souverainetistes?

Not revisionism, you killed the french culture outside Québec. PEI, NS, Manitoba and so on. Several provinces adopted the Official Language Act that made illigal to have public french schools and other represive laws against the french. It led to huge assimilation rates. I spent some time in PEI and I was surprised by the number of people having a french family name and not being able to speak it. Their story was all the same. Their grand-parents spoke french but since the language was banned, their children and grand-children lost it. It's a cultural genocide. The same happened in several native communities. The remaining french do not have any structure or political bodies to represent them like the french in Quebec. 88% of the french are in Quebec, it's pretty safe to say it's the home base of the french nation. Why use Quebec instead of french canadian? Again, your nation is to blame. From the start, the french are asking you to make this country bi-cultural, so the french wouldn't be outnumbered and still have a say. You rather denied the existence of our nation and pretending that we were all the same one because we have the same name. So we made it clear for you. We are a different nation. Our name is now Québécois. Ironic considering that it was the other way around before you adopted the name canadian in order to deny our existence. That's your history. Your choice now is to

1) Continue to play the imperialist trend and deny us

2) Move on and accept the reality that we are two different nations and the union has to considere it

There were delegates from Canada East at the constitutional conferences in the 1860s: Sir George-Étienne Cartier, Sir Jean-Charles Chapais, Sir Alexander Tilloch Galt, Sir Hector-Louis Langevin, Thomas D'Arcy McGee, and Sir Étienne-Paschal Taché. They helped draft the British North America Act 1867, which was passed by the elected representatives of the inhabitants of Canada East before it went to Westminster. The province of Quebec was born (again, some might say) out of that document, as was the bilingual nature of Canada's federal government. The rights of Quebecers to their language and religion had long before been entrenched. So, please don't try and force this "British imperialist subversion of the Francophones" argument on us; it makes you look foolish.

True, Georges Etienne-Cartier signed it. And many in Québec considered him as a traitor. Even in his own team. However, the context was different back then. Only few years before that, there were rebelions and many people have been killed, hung up and so on. Cartier beleived that it would be better to have that union than nothing. Compared to what Québec had before, it was a huge improvement. The french were 33% of the population. To change the 1867's constitution, you need the support of 75%. Cartier beleived we will be mathematically safe. But several other provinces banned the french language and the number of french speaking people was constantly going down in percentage. In the 70's, Québec was now down to 25% of the population. The independantists said, we better seperate before it is too late. Once we will be under the 25% line, the english canada will be able to change the constitution without us and set rules against our will. The federalists said "no way, english canada would never do such thing to the french". And BANG!!!! In 1981, as soon as Québec was under the 25% line, the ROC changed the constitution to kick definitly Québec out of the constitution team. The new rules were changed from 75% to 50%+1 and 7 provinces out of them. Even if Québec raises its population to 26%, the rules of 1867 do not apply anymore. We are screwed. The english can set the rules without the french.

Don't even think you can sat on Cartier's decision in 1867. The context was way different back then and the situation has changed either.

In the sense of a state, yes. But, not any more or less than any other province of Canada.

Québec must be a state. It cannot accept to be drowned into an english majority. If the Europeans can do it with 20 different cultures, there are no good reasons why we can't since we are just two. If we can't, then it only means that Québec must seperates from Canada. If we can, then get your fingers out of your nose and do it.

I beleive the changes could be much easier than it sounds like. There are already two kind of status. One if territory, the other one is province. We can add a third type, State. Québec can become a state and would have to assume the new role and the consequences (good and bad) of being more independant. Québec would have a say to the constitution but will have to respect it by the book.

The number of senators are set by regions. Equal number of senators per regions. West, Ontario, Québec and East. I would keep it as is but the senetors would no longer be chosen by the prime minister of Canada. They will be chosen by the regional leaders. Easy to define for Ontario and Québec. For the east and the west, I guess it can be an equal number per provinces. At this point, it's just details. I would let them decide what's good for them and debate about it.

1) Québec as a nation

2) Change the Québec's status from province to a state within the union (like in Europe)

3) Change the senate so the senators are chosen by the regions they represent

And then you kill all the motivations for Québec to seperate.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Benz

[CANADIEN]

It is unacceptable. Every day, that public school now has to check with the required qualifications, if the weapon is still concealed as it should. The public schools don't have too spend money and energy on that. It's not allowed to have weapons, end of the story. Forcing us to take measures so we have to check if it is concealed, it is a non-respect of our culture. You may find it acceptable, we don't.

Non-respect of the culture. Give me a break.

Not revisionism, you killed the french culture outside Québec. PEI, NS, Manitoba and so on. Several provinces adopted the Official Language Act

Actually, the only provincials governments that ever enacted an Official Language Act were Quebec and New Brunswick.

Our name is now Québécois.

And my name is Franco-Ontarian, and french-canadian, and Canadian. Not québécois. Do not ever forget that.

Continue to play the imperialist trend

Pleeaaaase... give us a break, this is 2011.

[Benz]

So far I've seen no one give you the straight dope, Benz. I was one of the first card carrying members of Reform when they moved into Ontario. I served as a riding Director for a few terms. So I feel I have some perspective to better answer your question.

The answer is, there is no longer any Reform! Not officially and not as part of the present CPC!

I know that's hard to believe, considering how at the time of their merger the Reform/Alliance was so big and the remains of the PC's were so tiny. However, once the merger was done and Harper became leader, he slowly but steadily purged every trace of Reform out of the new party.

In effect, the party now is a clone of the old Mulroney PC party. You may have noticed how one of the first things done was to bring Mulroney, Reform's hated nemesis, back from the wilderness to be a party "elder statesman". Unfortunately for Harper, Mulroney brought his scandals on his deals with Schreiber/Airbus affair along with him!

Although many of the old people are still around, Harper has eliminated virtually every trace of the old Reform Party. There is nothing left of their Blue Book of party policies.

When's the last time you heard any mention of Manning's name from the new CPC?

The people who don't like Harper still fling the name "Reform" at him just because to them it's a nasty word, like "bastard". It doesn't really mean anything to them in itself. These are the same people who hated the Reform Party! It's just bad emotion so don't expect anything logical from it.

I think it's possible that Harper might still believe in a reformed Senate but he has become the ultimate pragmatic politician. He obviously has studied Machiavelli, who wrote long ago that the first duty of the Prince is to retain power, since otherwise he can't do anything. Harper knows that Senate reform will be a very difficult thing to accomplish. He will need to have a strong majority or he will be just pissing in the wind. With a minority government it could never happen and worse yet for him, might bring his government down.

I hope this makes things more clear.

Thanks lot. It's pretty much what I expected.

Although I'm not a fan of the Reform/CPC, if there was one thing that got my attention and my consideration, it was that senate reform. I liked the creativity coming from the west.

Even if Harper gets a majority, he doesn't look like someone who would try the reforms. Too captivated by the power. He's not even mentionning it in his campain. That's sad. It shows he is rather a man of power than a man of convictions.

[Benz]

Non-respect of the culture. Give me a break.

No I won't. Spending public money to manage concealed weapons in school is against our culture. If your religious beleif are not compatible with the fact that no weapons enter our schools, you are not welcome here. Religious beleif are individual choices and cannot force the hand of the public this way. This is what Québec is and wants to be. If english canada does not mind to have concealed weapons in schools just for one religious kid, good for them.

And my name is Franco-Ontarian, and french-canadian, and Canadian. Not québécois. Do not ever forget that.

How is your french lately? It doesn't change a thing. The french outside Québec has no power of what so ever. It's sad but what is done is done. We cannot reverse the damages done in the past.

Actually, the only provincials governments that ever enacted an Official Language Act were Quebec and New Brunswick.

No. Where did you learn history. In a Craker jack box? The most popular anti-french bill is the one made in Manitoba in 1890.

http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/amnord/manitoba-loi-1890.htm

Although it was not as much "official", the anti-french policies were also in other provinces like PEI. It's only in 2000 that the french language became protected by the law and it is afterward that the french could have access to french education. Kind of too late for most of them.

http://www.salic-slmc.ca/showpage.asp?file=histoire_ling/droits_lois_ling/politiques_sect_2&language=fr&updatemenu=false

Same in Nova Scotia. Read the section 3.6 if you are too lazy to read the rest.

http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/amnord/necosse.htm

Pleeaaaase... give us a break, this is 2011.

Exactly! So move on. Québec is a nation, it needs to be respected as is and have a say on the constitution just like the English Canada. Enough with the imperialism. Edited April 18, 2011 by Benz

[CANADIEN]

No I won't. Spending public money to manage concealed weapons in school is against our culture. If your religious beleif are not compatible with the fact that no weapons enter our schools, you are not welcome here. Religious beleif are individual choices and cannot force the hand of the public this way. This is what Québec is and wants to be. If english canada does not mind to have concealed weapons in schools just for one religious kid, good for them.

Nice try with the argument about religion being a private thing. No religion is being forced on anybody. Now,, we must definitely be of two different cultures, because there is nothing in this that threathens my French-speaking culture.

How is your french lately?

Probablement bien meilleur que le vôtre. Ne vous en faites pas, j'ai l'habitude des petis esprits qui s'imaginent qu'ils peuvent baver des Francophones hors-Québec.

Where did you learn history. In a Craker jack box?

In case you didn't notice, I didn't say there were never acts, or regulations, limiting the use of French. I said that, with two exceptions, there has been no laws stating there was one (or two) official language(s). want to use history? Be accurate. Want to comment on what I say? Be accurate.

Exactly!

Exactly indeed! Enough with the misuse and abuse of the word imperialism. Edited April 18, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

To come back to the initial topic... There's one thing to do with the Senate.... Abolish it.