What happened to that so desired reform?

[g_bambino]

In Britain, what's the difference?

Why Britain? But, regardless, one's written and approved by a legislature, the other is unwritten and stems from precedent.

[Benz]

Actually, it was not a formal written process, but unwritten convention.

Maybe. Do you have any sources? You got my curiousity. Neverthenless, the point is, it was the rule and it was up to London to decide.

That the "Quebec is French the rest of the country is english" claim is not entirely true. Even without taking into account official language minorities (and you will not be surprised that I do not consider the French language dead outside Quebec), New Brunswick is officially bilingual, and people in Nunavut would likely be surprised to be described as English speakers.

30% of NB is french. A huge number of those french speak also english but we cannot say the same regarding the english. We cannot say that NB speaks in the name of the french. It is safer to say the overall opinion of NB will be rather closer to the english provinces than Québec. Québec is the only one that can speak in the name of the french. I wish NB could, but they can't.

Does Nunavut wants a special status? My ears are wide open.

The only other way would be to give seperate individual status to people. Your citizenship would be french-canadian or english-canadian. Depending on what you are, your opinion goes into one group or the other one. If both groups vote yes in a referendum, then the new constitution is adopted. It would be as valid as giving Québec a constitutionnal veto. But it would be damn more complicated to manage. What to do with people having parents on both side? I am sure it could create other kind of problems that are not worth it. I prefer that no different status can be set on an individual basis. Just for the nation-state Québec. Even if it means the anglo-Québécois will be counted into the same bag of the french and the French outside Québec in the same bag of english canadians. No systems are perfect. Keep in mind that we are only talking about a constitutional veto.

Once again, no no provincial legislature other than those of Quebec or New Brunswick ever enacted laws stating that one (ot more) language had official status. As I said before, you want to use history, be accurate.

No, it is not what I am saying. You even quoted me right. Read again. I was saying the Official Language Act made french public schools illegal. I was very accurate and I provided the sources to demonstrate what I said. I invite you to do the same. Even Manitoba's website is saying it. You don't agree, prove me otherwise. Edited April 20, 2011 by Benz

[g_bambino]

I never said that.

You complained that religion was "too strong" in the constitution, citing as proof a Sikh boy being permitted to wear an un-releasable kirpan at school. You then went on to express a wish that the constitution imposed "secularity" on the populace. Put together, the underlying message is that you don't actually feel religion has too strong a role in the constitution but that the constitution grants too much freedom of religion and of choice; you would rather that the Crown further restrict people's freedom to express their faith through icons, from which it logically follows also speech and writing. As I said, you don't believe in freedom of choice or religion.

Manitoba, from 1890 to 1985, the french had no access to french schools.

Nothing to do with the constitution.

I don't care if Québec has a little say in some points of the constitution. I want Québec to has a say on the whole thing. Why Québec? Because it is the only remaining french province of the country. French outside Québec have been reduced too much.

Québec IS NOT like other provinces. It is french, the others are english, and the others outnumber the french. Therefore, Québec cannot be considered like the others. If there would be a balanced number of english and french in the country, we wouldn't have to discuss about it. mathematically, it would be fair game. it is not.

You aggrandise Francophones and Quebec far too much. There are people of other ethnicities and people that speak other languages in Canada; there is a province that is equally bilingual and French-speaking communities outside of Quebec. Somehow, though, only Francophones in Quebec are special creatures.

Quebec, really, is just a jurisdiction of a government, one of eleven in a federation, no more special or important than any of the others. Confederation, you see, isn't built on a Francophone-Anglophone fulcrum; it is based entirely on the equality of the parties involved; each has the same stature and power as the others within the group and they confer amongst themselves on matters affecting some or all of them. Already, for the last 40 years, successive Quebec cabinets have been straining the balance by pushing again and again for as much special treatment as they can get, based on the very ideas from which you launch your arguments: Quebec is a minority, a victim case just because its population is dominated by a particular ethnic and linguistic group. Thus, Quebec is granted extra money, unique exceptions, a stronger voice. As if that weren't enough of a strain on the ties between the polities in Confederation, you want to, instead of reversing the trend, take it right to the extreme and guarantee one player an extraordinary power the others wouldn't have when it came to group decisions about how the group should arrange and govern itself. I'm all for minority rights being protected - that's essential to any liberal democracy - but, you're talking about the minority having an irrefutable right to rule the majority, which is something altogether different and that will never be accepted.

Odd that you complain about religious expression being protected in the constitution, yet you pray at the altar of laine pure Quebecoisism and demand that it not only be given an enshrined place in the constitution, but that it become a ruling power in Confederation.

[Benz]

You complained that religion was "too strong" in the constitution, citing as proof a Sikh boy being permitted to wear an un-releasable kirpan at school. You then went on to express a wish that the constitution imposed "secularity" on the populace. Put together, the underlying message is that you don't actually feel religion has too strong a role in the constitution but that the constitution grants too much freedom of religion and of choice; you would rather that the Crown further restrict people's freedom to express their faith through icons, from which it logically follows also speech and writing. As I said, you don't believe in freedom of choice or religion.

I say, religion is something personnal/private and cannot be above public rules. Specifically public schools. It doesn't mean that I am against freedom of choice or religion. At home or in a religious building (church/mosque/synagogue), you are free to beleive whatever you want. At schools, or public pools or anything, your religious actions or codes must not be in contradiction with public rules. Sometimes some reasonable exceptions are allowed but, they are case by case.

If it is ok for you that religious kids can go to public schools with weapons and women can wear burqa in swimming pools, good for you. In our culture, it is not acceptable. At least, not in public environments. They can do whatever they want in private (even schools and pools).

Nothing to do with the constitution.

The answer was rather to inform you. You thought I was lying. Now you know the truth. Yes it has something to do with the constitution. The language is currently protected in the constitution but, not enough. The conservatives killed a program helping the minorities to fight for their rights. For now on, if you can't afford it, your rights can't be protected. This is what a weak constitution is all about.

You aggrandise Francophones and Quebec far too much.

Come on... do you read english? I say the number of french is decreasing and you interpret that I aggrandise.

There are people of other ethnicities and people that speak other languages in Canada;

So what? English and French are the only two languages because they are the two founders. Do you want to add a third official language? Which one and why?

there is a province that is equally bilingual and French-speaking communities outside of Quebec.

No. NB has only 30% of french.

Somehow, though, only Francophones in Quebec are special creatures.

Not special. It is the wording used by the federalist at the time of Meech because they thought the english people were too afraid of the word nation. Now that it is no longer a problem. Québec is a nation. It means it needs to have a say on the constitution.

Quebec, really, is just a jurisdiction of a government, one of eleven in a federation, no more special or important than any of the others.

Over my dead body. The whole Québec does not agree with you. I just wish they could come down here and read guys like you, so they can know that we will never find a way to agree. In your eyes, we are nothing. We must desapear in the shadow of your nation. ok, so we will continue to promote the independance of Québec then.

Confederation...

This is not a confederation. It is a centralised federation. The french wanted a confederation. It never been one.

... you see, isn't built on a Francophone-Anglophone fulcrum;

It should have been. Because the french will never accept to be dominated by an english majority. The opinion of both cultures must be considered in the rules of this country.

it is based entirely on the equality of the parties involved;

There are no equality. it is nine against one. nine english against one french.

each has the same stature and power as the others within the group and they confer amongst themselves on matters affecting some or all of them.

A structure according to the will of the english people. The french never agreed to what Canada became today.

Already, for the last 40 years, successive Quebec cabinets have been straining the balance by pushing again and again for as much special treatment as they can get, based on the very ideas from which you launch your arguments: Quebec is a minority, a victim case just because its population is dominated by a particular ethnic and linguistic group. Thus, Quebec is granted extra money

We do not agree. So stop trying to give us more money thinking it can shut our mouths up. We do not want more money, we want the control of our politics and we want a say on the rules of this country. Even if you give us more money than the others, this is not what we want.

...unique exceptions

None of the ones we ask, only those that do not matter.

a stronger voice.

So you say... and we do not agree. Stop giving us all those little gifts. We want to be considered as a nation. No more, no less. We can manage our future just fine.

As if that weren't enough of a strain on the ties between the polities in Confederation

It is not a confederation.

you want to, instead of reversing the trend, take it right to the extreme and guarantee one player an extraordinary power the others wouldn't have when it came to group decisions about how the group should arrange and govern itself.

Take it or leave it. We are a nation and we do not accept to be swallowed in an english majority. If it is too itchy for you, then we must go our seperate ways. The Europeans are 20 different cultures and they can manage to get along. If you are too stubborn to tolerate one partner, then it is farewell and have a good life.

I'm all for minority rights being protected

We are not an indian reserve.

that's essential to any liberal democracy - but, you're talking about the minority having an irrefutable right to rule the majority

To rule the majority??? To rule... the majority. How the hell giving a veto to Quebec can give Quebec the power to rule the majority. You are so biased and stubborn, it's crazy. look at yourself. It's not even a veto on the house of common or else. It's just a veto on the constitution. A veto does not allow you to rule the others. It means that both must agree to set the rules. Share? No way, the french's place is to eat in the dog's plate eh?

which is something altogether different and that will never be accepted.

Then Canada must split.

Odd that you complain about religious expression being protected in the constitution, yet you pray at the altar of laine pure Quebecoisism and demand that it not only be given an enshrined place in the constitution, but that it become a ruling power in Confederation.

Now you are mixing up national identities with religious beleifs. No wonder why your system is messed up. Edited April 20, 2011 by Benz

[ToadBrother]

To rule the majority??? To rule... the majority. How the hell giving a veto to Quebec can give Quebec the power to rule the majority. You are so biased and stubborn, it's crazy. look at yourself. It's not even a veto on the house of common or else. It's just a veto on the constitution. A veto does not allow you to rule the others. It means that both must agree to set the rules. Share? No way, the french's place is to eat in the dog's plate eh?[

And how many times do we get to refight Meech Lake? In the end, despite all the proclamations, Quebec didn't vote to secede.

Then Canada must split.

Tried twice now. Both failures, and in general, sentiments seem to have shifted in Quebec. Both the PQ and BQ make the appropriate noises, but neither have shown very much interest in pushing the cause.

Of course, the whole thing has rendered constitutional change, including vetoes for anyone, moot.

Edited April 20, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Benz]

And how many times do we get to refight Meech Lake? In the end, despite all the proclamations, Quebec didn't vote to secede.

Tried twice now. Both failures, and in general, sentiments seem to have shifted in Quebec. Both the PQ and BQ make the appropriate noises, but neither have shown very much interest in pushing the cause.

Of course, the whole thing has rendered constitutional change, including vetoes for anyone, moot.

Your mama never told you to look both sides when you cross the street?

The sovereignists got 49.4% the last time. How much the federalist got every single time they tried to change Canada? Several fails before 1980, fail in 1982, fail in 1990, fail in 1992, fail in 1999, fail, fail, fail... and the cherry on top, no one in Canada wants to open up the constitution, the door is closed for good. How the federalists in Québec are suppose to sell the idea that it is possible to renew the constitution and bring back Quebec in?

The odds are not good for the quebec federalists and you are not helping them much.

[ToadBrother]

Your mama never told you to look both sides when you cross the street?

Is there some particular reason you behave in this fashion?

The sovereignists got 49.4% the last time. How much the federalist got every single time they tried to change Canada? Several fails before 1980, fail in 1982, fail in 1990, fail in 1992, fail in 1999, fail, fail, fail... and the cherry on top, no one in Canada wants to open up the constitution, the door is closed for good. How the federalists in Québec are suppose to sell the idea that it is possible to renew the constitution and bring back Quebec in?

The odds are not good for the quebec federalists and you are not helping them much.

I don't think anybody wants to sell anything. Let's do try to remember here that the difficulties of constitutional reform hardly are Quebec's domain alone, and the failure in 1982 was as much Levesque's as anyone else's. Meech Lake and Charlottetown were murdered by a lot of people.

And the landscape has changed considerably since 1995. We have the Clarity Act and the very real threat to Quebec that if it does secede, it won't be taking everything it currently has on the map with it.

So spare me the rhetoric, the righteous indignation and all thus puffed up absurdities you surround yourself with. All the rest of Canada has to do is wait, and the problem will solve itself. In a generation or two we can look at constitutional change again, when a fresh batch of Francophones and Anglophones are ready to talk turkey.

Edited April 20, 2011 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

I say, religion is something personnal/private and cannot be above public rules.

Religion isn't completely above the rules. There's a key part of the Charter that people keep forgetting: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." But, again, that isn't strict enough for you; you want to further diminish freedom of religion, choice, and, I suppose, expression, as well. God knows why (mind the pun); if a kirpan sewn into its sheath so it can't be drawn is the greatest offence you can come up with, I don't think you're going to rile the masses to alter the constitution the way you want it.

You thought I was lying.

Partly. And you were: you said "several" provinces made it illegal for Francophones to attend Francophone schools. It was one.

Québec is a nation. It means it needs to have a say on the constitution.

It is a nation. But, then, so is Ontario, and British Columbia, and Prince Edward Island; all the provinces are nations in the sense of a state; a jurisdiction under a government, as I put it. And Quebec has a say on constitutional matters, as much as all the others do.

Of course, you mean nation in the way of a group of people with a distinct culture, like the Scots or the Basques. Well, Quebec - the polity - is not the same thing as the Québécois - the people; Quebec is more than the Québécois. And there's no reason why the Québécois (who don't have their own unique government, anyway) should have an extraordinary veto over federal constitutional change when the First Nations, Inuit, Acadians, Metis, Franco-Ontarians, Mennonites, Mantoban-Ukranians, Newfoundlanders, and all the rest don't.

Then Canada must split.

If a band of Québécois adamantly insists that demands like yours be met by the partners in Confederation, then it will, yes. But, as I said Confederation is a voluntary arrangement, and a malleable one; it can be rearranged, expanded, and contracted. It's entirely possible for the Québécois to have an independent state on their original lands, that thin strip along the north shore of the St. Lawrence. I'd personally rather not see it happen, but, Canada will carry on if they go.

[g_bambino]

Meech Lake and Charlottetown were murdered by a lot of people.

This is the thing Benz seems incapable of grasping: Canada is more than just two parties, the Québécois and the Têtes Carrée.

[CANADIEN]

Maybe. Do you have any sources? You got my curiousity. Neverthenless, the point is, it was the rule and it was up to London to decide.

The Supreme Court reference on the patriation of the Constitution (English text at http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1981/1981canlii25/1981canlii25.html) is agood source of information.

30% of NB is french. A huge number of those french speak also english but we cannot say the same regarding the english.

I haven't say anything about who speks or doesn't speak for whom. That's not my point. My point is that the "Quebec is French and the rest of Canada is English" ignores some realities, like linguistic minorities or Nunavut (whether or not Nunavut wants any kind of status other than its current one is not related to the point I made).

Québec is the only one that can speak in the name of the french.

Tyhe Government of Quebec does not speak for me or for Franco-Ontarians.

No, it is not what I am saying. You even quoted me right. Read again. I was saying the Official Language Act made french public schools illegal. I was very accurate and I provided the sources to demonstrate what I said. I invite you to do the same. Even Manitoba's website is saying it. You don't agree, prove me otherwise.

You call the Act in question the "Official Language Act". This infers, whatever you realize it or not, that the act in question specifically stated that English was the official language of Manitoba. School rights in Manitoba were removed under acts passed by Manitoba legislature in 1890 regarding school rights, the "Act respecting the Departmnet of Education" and the "Public Schools Act"; a summary of these two acts can be found at http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/docs/manitoba/notes.htm

These two laws effectively suppressed education in French. by suppressing publicly founding of Catholic school. There was another Act, passed in the same session, regarding the use of French in the legislature and the tribunals (I have not seen any summary or text of that Act that confirms the notion that it was titled the "Official Language ACt" or that it stated that English was Manitoba's official language.

[CANADIEN]

You complained that religion was "too strong" in the constitution, citing as proof a Sikh boy being permitted to wear an un-releasable kirpan at school. You then went on to express a wish that the constitution imposed "secularity" on the populace. Put together, the underlying message is that you don't actually feel religion has too strong a role in the constitution but that the constitution grants too much freedom of religion and of choice; you would rather that the Crown further restrict people's freedom to express their faith through icons, from which it logically follows also speech and writing. As I said, you don't believe in freedom of choice or religion.

exactly.

Nothing to do with the constitution.

Well, the removal of the French language from Manitoba's legislature and tribunals was a clear violation of the Manitoba Act, 1870, which is part of our Constitution.

only Francophones in Quebec are special creatures.

Don't you find interesting that we can always count on Quebec ultra-nationalists and Francophobes (two groups that exlude both you and I, obviously) tend to treat Franco-Ontarians, Acadians, etc. as some sort of Quebecois in exile, who should either relinquish their interests and their voice to the Government of Quebec or just move back to Quebec.

[Benz]

Is there some particular reason you behave in this fashion?

Yes. It will force you to push further your reflection before taking such shorcuts. Unless you like when I tickle you.

I don't think anybody wants to sell anything. Let's do try to remember here that the difficulties of constitutional reform hardly are Quebec's domain alone, and the failure in 1982 was as much Levesque's as anyone else's. Meech Lake and Charlottetown were murdered by a lot of people.

Every single time, the 9 english provinces sided with Ottawa and Québec was left alone. Québec was the only one to stand up. If your system is too difficult to change, then it will die just like the old USSR and every big dinosaures that cannot adapt. It's the theory of evolution. Those who survive are not the strongest but those with the better capacity to adapt themselve to the changes.

The changes are necessary. We have to do what is needed to be done. I don't care if Trudeau made it very difficult to change.

And the landscape has changed considerably since 1995. We have the Clarity Act and the very real threat to Quebec that if it does secede, it won't be taking everything it currently has on the map with it.

Québec does not recognize the Clarity Act. It is built upon the constittion Québec did not signed. It is like if the murderer set the rules of its own trial. The integrity of Québec's territory belongs to Québec. Any attempt to partion it is considered as an act of war.

Can you seriously beleive your attitude encourages us to stay in your status quo? It's the other around my friend. You motivate us to leave.

So spare me the rhetoric, the righteous indignation and all thus puffed up absurdities you surround yourself with. All the rest of Canada has to do is wait, and the problem will solve itself. In a generation or two we can look at constitutional change again, when a fresh batch of Francophones and Anglophones are ready to talk turkey.

Be sure I will copy paste this to the poor french federalists in Québec that still beleive it is possible to discuss with you. That is exactly what they need to hear to understand we will never get what we want in the current system and the only logical choice is to choose sovereignty. It's people like you that kept on feeding the project. Ironically, I must say thank you.

[Benz]

This is the thing Benz seems incapable of grasping: Canada is more than just two parties, the Québécois and the Têtes Carrée.

Beside the natives, who are the other nations of this union?

But, again, that isn't strict enough for you; you want to further diminish freedom of religion, choice, and, I suppose, expression, as well.

No I don't. Having a religious weapon in a public schools is against the respect of values and secularity. Your constitution places personal religious beleif above the choices of the society. That individual can still go into a private school where it is allowed to do so. That is freedom of choice and religion. Your constitution goes too far by allowing one individual to put its personal religion beleifs at the expense of every ones else.

; if a kirpan sewn into its sheath so it can't be drawn is the greatest offence you can come up with, I don't think you're going to rile the masses to alter the constitution the way you want it.

In english Canada, perhaps not. In Québec, it's already done. The Québécois are fiercly against that.

Partly. And you were: you said "several" provinces made it illegal for Francophones to attend Francophone schools. It was one.

Again... don't be smartass. Manitoba made it official, other provinces did it unofficially. French schools were not allowed by the authorities of PEI and NS. The french won in the Supreme Court sometime after 2000, so they can now have access to french schools. For centuries, they couldn't go to french schools. You are ignorant by choice. You could have search further before calling me a liar again, you did not. Will you get caugh a third time or you learn your lesson this time.

It is a nation. But, then, so is Ontario, and British Columbia, and Prince Edward Island; all the provinces are nations in the sense of a state

You know what? I don't have any problem with that. If those provinces ever choose to be sovereign nations, I will be the first one to congratulate them. However, I never heard or red anything stating that. I never heard Saskatchewan saying it is a nation and claiming to be recognized as so. Nor any other provinces. I never heard of any other province asking the status Québec asks. It is the other way around. They choose to not be a nation. In 1982, in 1990... as of today, those provinces choosed to not be different nations. I dare you to demonstrate the opposite. I want see that. You are doing a gymnastic twist with words trying to reduce and cloudy the concept. Total denial.

Of course, you mean nation in the way of a group of people with a distinct culture, like the Scots or the Basques.

Germans, Polish, Russians, Bresilians...

...should have an extraordinary veto over federal constitutional change when the First Nations, Inuit, Acadians, Metis, Franco-Ontarians, Mennonites, Mantoban-Ukranians, Newfoundlanders, and all the rest don't.

extraordinary? No, just a simple veto. Should the first nations have a veto? Probably! It's something that must be debated. However, we need to debate that with them. We cannot pretend to speak in their names. Even if you would like to give the french outside Québec a veto. How could you possibly do that? All the other groups do not claim to be a different nation than the main one. They at most claim to have some particular differences but, they do not pretend to be different nations. It cannot be compared with the differences between the english canadians and the Québécois.

Confederation is a voluntary arrangement

Canada IS NOT a confederation. If it was, it would be a total different situation.

and a malleable one; it can be rearranged, expanded, and contracted

If it was true, it would have been done 40 years ago.

on their original lands, that thin strip along the north shore of the St. Lawrence

You have a serious difficulty with your history. The original land covers also the actual Ontario to the Mississipi down to Louisiana. You can't take anything from Québec wihtout declaring a war.

[Benz]

Don't you find interesting that we can always count on Quebec ultra-nationalists and Francophobes (two groups that exlude both you and I, obviously) tend to treat Franco-Ontarians, Acadians, etc. as some sort of Quebecois in exile, who should either relinquish their interests and their voice to the Government of Quebec or just move back to Quebec.

Move back to Québec? Why? Don't be silly and stop trying to put words in my mouth.

I wish there is something we could do with all the other french so they can voice into the french cultural group but, the damages are non-reversable. They are condemned to be minorities in the ROC.

The only way I can see is to create a dual citizenship french/englis-canadian not base on where you are, rather on from you are born. Then again, what to do with those having parents from both sides. Or all the new immigrants. I don't know how this can be set properly. Giving Québec the constitutional veto is simple and réalisable.

Why don't you try something constructive instead. Do you have a better solution? How can you fix the system so the english majority does not rule alone the constitution anymore. What are your solutions to give the french a say on the constitution? I'll go get my popcorn.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Benz

[August1991]

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.

And yet, that's how are constitution functions.

When Trudeau wanted to amend the Constitution in 1982, he ultimately learned that a simple act of the UK parliament was sufficient but he would need "substantial degree of provincial consent". No one knew what that meant and Trudeau proceeded (initially) with only the support of Ontario and NB.

As it is, our amending formula is complex, sometimes explicit, and depends on what is being amended. This is all typical of common law.

Canada's legal system is a hybrid where we have in some cases a specific code subject to interpretation and precedent. There are few jurisdictions where this mix is so evident.

There was no amending forumla in the British North America Act 1867. It wasn't until 1982 that one was written into the Constitution Act of that year and it has everything to do with provinces, little relation to population numbers, and nothing to do with language. Some changes require only the approval of the federal parliament; some need the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, together, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces; and some call for the agreement of the federal legislature and those of all the provinces. So, contrary to what you claim, Quebec has never been eliminated from the constitutional process; it has guaranteed representation both in the parliament in Ottawa and, for some considered amendments, at the constitutional conference table, just like every other province.

I agree but it's not obvious which rule should apply in what case. Furthermore, it is easy to imagine how a certain practice could become a convention and then in effect, part of the constition. Someone with a mindset of the Civil Code might recoil at such a thought but that's how the common law works.

BTW, the Quebec government was surprised to learn in 1982 that it hadn't lost a veto because in fact, it never had one. This is more surprising because Trudeau in 1971 offered the Quebec government an explicit veto, and all provincial governments at the time agreed to this - but then Bourassa alone walked away from the deal.

Edited April 21, 2011 by August1991

[g_bambino]

No I don't.

You've said the opposite. Make up your mind.

Manitoba made it official, other provinces did it unofficially.

Sure, whatever you say. It sill has nothing to do with Anglophone Canadian imperialists colonizing the Francophones of Canada through the constitution.

I never heard or red anything stating that. I never heard Saskatchewan saying it is a nation and claiming to be recognized as so. Nor any other provinces. I never heard of any other province asking the status Québec asks. It is the other way around. They choose to not be a nation. In 1982, in 1990... as of today, those provinces choosed to not be different nations. I dare you to demonstrate the opposite.

Obviously you don't fully understand the word "nation"; it can mean a country or state, or it can, quite separately, mean a community of people with a common history and culture. The provinces of Canada are nations in the first sense; polities with their own semi-autonomous governments. They, including Quebec, are not nations in the second sense. The laine pure, souverainetiste Québécois may love to spout about Quebec being a cultural nation, but it is not; it is just a governmental jurisdiction made up of a number of groups of people with different dominant cultures and languages.

just a simple veto.

Simple from the perspective of the Québécois nationalists, of course; to every constitutional amendment desired by the ROC: "Non!... Si vous ne nous donnez pas plus d'argent/pouvoir/territoire." Taking in the wider view of Canadian federation, as such, it would be unworkable for the majority of the country to be held hostage by a minority. I imagine we'd find the other provinces wanting to separate from Quebec.

I wonder, though, what it is you think Quebec needs this veto power for. What threat is it that the province faces from the nine others and the federal government?

The original land covers also the actual Ontario to the Mississipi down to Louisiana. You can't take anything from Québec wihtout declaring a war.

And most of it's gone, now, under the management of other governments. Once one removes from the present borders of Quebec the lands reserved for First Nations and those First Nations would claim as theirs in the event of Quebec seceding from Canada, all that would be left for the independent Québécois state would be a strip along the northern shore of the St. Lawrence. If that new little country wanted, as its first act of international diplomacy, to declare war on Canada, it's First Nations, and the United States, well... Let it, and see what happens.

[g_bambino]

[T]he Quebec government was surprised to learn in 1982 that it hadn't lost a veto because in fact, it never had one.

No, it didn't, and I've no idea why the Quebec Cabinet of the day thought it did. Before 1982, the amending process of the Canadian constitution was based mostly on convention; the only part written in law was the requirement that the parliament at Westminster make the change (per the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865). Other than that, the way the constitution was amended depended on precedent set by the courts and the Judicial Committee of the Imperial Privy Council. It was on such relevant rulings that the Supreme Court based its decision in 1981 that Trudeau needed to acquire the approval of a "substantial" number of the provinces before he could take his proposed constitutional amendments to London.

I agree but it's not obvious which rule should apply in what case.

The Constitution Act 1982 is pretty clear on what rule applies in what situation.

[Benz]

BTW, the Quebec government was surprised to learn in 1982 that it hadn't lost a veto because in fact, it never had one.

Why the government asked to get a veto if it thought it already have one? Arrête de faire l'imbécile.

This is more surprising because Trudeau in 1971 offered the Quebec government an explicit veto, and all provincial governments at the time agreed to this - but then Bourassa alone walked away from the deal.

Trudeau also tried to get into provincial juridictions. He was trying to put his nose into provincial business where he does not belong. Bourassa isn't the best premier Québec had though.

At what cost Québec must have a veto? What's worth having a veto on constitutional changes if the federal can do whatever it wants in first place.

[Benz]

You've said the opposite. Make up your mind.

No I didn't. Be more accurate.

Sure, whatever you say. It sill has nothing to do with Anglophone Canadian imperialists colonizing the Francophones of Canada through the constitution.

It all have to do with it. If the anglos do not want to be imperialist anymore, they will at last accept that the french canadian is a nation and they will share the constitution so both have a say. If they still want to act like soft imperialist, they will continu to deny the french and will keep the constitution only for themselve like they do now. Are we in 2011 yes or no?

Obviously you don't fully understand the word "nation"; it can mean a country or state, or it can, quite separately, mean a community of people with a common history and culture. The provinces of Canada are nations in the first sense; polities with their own semi-autonomous governments.

You and me have a different understand of what nation means. What other word would you use then?

They, including Quebec, are not nations in the second sense.

They are not, I respect that. But you won't tell me that my nation isn't. Plus, it's not even your government's official position anymore. Even Harper recognizes the Québec nation in his own words.

The laine pure, souverainetiste Québécois may love to spout about Quebec being a cultural nation, but it is not;

The laine pure? 100% of the Assemblée Nationale says Québec is a nation, that includes all the anglo Québécois. Good luck trying to convince are all wrong.

it is just a governmental jurisdiction made up of a number of groups of people with different dominant cultures and languages.

Ok, then we will have to separate.

Simple from the perspective of the Québécois nationalists, of course; to every constitutional amendment desired by the ROC: "Non!... Si vous ne nous donnez pas plus d'argent/pouvoir/territoire."

I told you we do not want more money. We are not asking to grant us more territory... you are just bad faith(translation of mauvaise foi). You are not listening, you understand only what you want to understand.

Taking in the wider view of Canadian federation, as such, it would be unworkable for the majority of the country to be held hostage by a minority.

Do the entire Europe is hostage of Ireland? If you are not serious, it's not necessary to continu the discussion.

...I will answer the rest later... have to go.

[g_bambino]

If the anglos do not want to be imperialist anymore, they will at last accept that the french canadian is a nation and they will share the constitution so both have a say.

Well, if you can explain how Francophone Canadians from British Columbia to New Brunswick can be unified and recognised as a distinct nation with its own government, please let us Anglophone imperialists know. In the meantime, Quebec, with its French-speaking inhabitants, has a say in the constitution of Confederation.

You and me have a different understand of what nation means.

True. I recognise the proper meanings. You mash them into one to suit your purposes, just like when you say...

Even Harper recognizes the Québec nation in his own words.

No, he didn't. The House of Commons passed a motion recognising the Québécois as a nation.

[Wild Bill]

Why don't you try something constructive instead. Do you have a better solution? How can you fix the system so the english majority does not rule alone the constitution anymore. What are your solutions to give the french a say on the constitution? I'll go get my popcorn.

Well, I have a solution but I'm sure a pur laine homme like yourself will not like it!

How about we ignore the idea of French and English? How about we simply view ourselves and each other as citizens?

You see, to TROC, your independentiste arguments sound like something very different - racism! You may not think so yourself and you may truly believe that the entire rest of the country is wrong but that is EXACTLY what most of TROC believes!

So if you think you will eventually arrive at some high level political negotiation, you should understand that point and deal with it.

Language and culture should be irrelevant. You are either a citizen or you are not. Issues like kirpans being banned should be decided solely on the basis of threat to public safety. Religious arguments should not be allowed in a courtroom.

TROC will never accept giving Quebec a Constitutional veto. Why? Because, if Quebecers are truly so unique and different in their views and values from the rest of Canadians it would be inevitable that there would come a time when Quebec, being the ONLY group that felt a particular way on an issue, would exercise her veto and deny the entire rest of Canada their choice!

It would NOT likely be over an issue of language rights! It would more likely be over Canada's involvement with some peacekeeping issue, or conscription, or dairy marketing boards - simply, issues where Quebec stands alone but could impose her choice on the entire country.

In a situation like that, resentment could build so high that separation would become moot. TROC would throw Quebec out!

Anyhow, all this is becoming irrelevant. We are heading for a "Star Trek" society, where your original race or culture is irrelevant except for personal family holiday dinners. If Quebecers want to become so insular that will be their choice. They will become relegated to being a quaint little tourist trap that the rest of the world visits once in a while.

It's "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy", Benz! If Quebec is not careful, they will end up on the 'B" Ark!

[Benz]

...has a say in the constitution of Confederation...

EU is a confederation. Canada is a federation.

To have a say, they must not be outnumbered by the english. I exlained you all this.

True. I recognise the proper meanings. You mash them into one to suit your purposes, just like when you say...

My definition is the same as everyone else on this planet. Yours is not.

No, he didn't. The House of Commons passed a motion recognising the Québécois as a nation.

A nation without a nation-state, just like the other former sovereign natives you all conquered and place into reserves. They are native nations on an individual basis but they cannot be considered a nation body. Let me know whenever you leave alone your imperialist mindset. In the mean time, I'll continu to tell my fellows you guys will never change and will never let Québec be a nation and share this country with us.

[Smallc]

EU is a confederation. Canada is a federation.

So what? Why do you need to change what amounts to almost nothing in the name of being different? Oh, that's right, you don't need to.

[Benz]

Well, I have a solution but I'm sure a pur laine homme like yourself will not like it!

Stop pretending this comes from a marginal group. You are fooling yourself. Everyone in Québec share the main idea. Some prefer independence, others wait until you change your mind... Québec being a nation with at least a veto in the constitution is a consensus among all provincial parties.

How about we ignore the idea of French and English? How about we simply view ourselves and each other as citizens?

Easy to say now that the english is the majority. Try proposing that to the Europeans just to see what would be their reaction.

You see, to TROC, your independentiste arguments sound like something very different - racism! You may not think so yourself and you may truly believe that the entire rest of the country is wrong but that is EXACTLY what most of TROC believes!

Do you think I am racist? Do you think I promote those ideas based on racism?

So if you think you will eventually arrive at some high level political negotiation, you should understand that point and deal with it.

Look, several people and leaders from Québec tried to make you understand that very simple principle. I am not doing it thinking that I will succeed. I'm doing it for two reasons.

1) Although I am ok with independence, I still have this little hope inside me that we could finally come to an understanding. I am looking at the Europeans and telling myself, damn, they are more than 20 different nations and languages and they managed to get along in a real confederation. Why can't we, we are just 2.

2) To prove my fellows you guys are too stubborn and understand only what you want to. It's your country, your constitution, your rules, your stuff. There are no places for us in it, unless we accept to be like them and play by their rules. Some federalists in Québec keep bullying us by saying that you will change. It doesn't take long to realise it is not even on the radar.

Language and culture should be irrelevant.

Really? Ok then. Give up on your's and take ours. For now, french is the main language and Québec's culture is to be promoted everywhere else. I think I know why you may come to think like this. You are already flood by the american culture to a point your are not sure what you are yourself.

You are either a citizen or you are not.

Keep in mind that once Québec has a say to the constitution, every citizens are equal. The rules are the same to every one, no matter what language, culture or location in the country. Québec only wants to make sure those rules are NOT set only by the anglos. That's all.

Issues like kirpans being banned should be decided solely on the basis of threat to public safety. Religious arguments should not be allowed in a courtroom.

This is a contradiction. The Supreme Court force the school BECAUSE it is a religious argument. I cannot bring a concealed weapon at school if it is not because of a religion choice.

TROC will never accept giving Quebec a Constitutional veto. Why? Because, if Quebecers are truly so unique and different in their views and values from the rest of Canadians it would be inevitable that there would come a time when Quebec, being the ONLY group that felt a particular way on an issue, would exercise her veto and deny the entire rest of Canada their choice!

Interesting. Imagine that TROC wants to add an amendment and we will name it BLA. TROC wants to add BLA into the constitution. For Québec, BLA is unacceptable. It is outrageous for them. What are the possibilities.

1) English domination, they add BLA because they outnumber the french and the french can f--k off

2) Québec veto, TROC can't have into the constitution because Québec does not agree and abuses of its veto even if it may come back in their face later when it will be their turn to propose a modification

3) After negociations, english accept to modify BLA so it becomes acceptable to the french

4) The french allow the english to add BLA as long as it is applied only in TROC

If the french are the ones to propose BLA? Take the previous paragraph and reverse the words french and english.

We can agree in negociations. You are just not use to it. You never care what we think and want because you don't have to. You can modify the rules as you wish, even if it is against 100% of the Assemblée Nationale. No more my friend. We share this country or we split it.

issues where Quebec stands alone but could impose her choice on the entire country.

Québec cannot do that. It's a two sides medal. If we refuse too much, we can do it as well. It is in our common interests to make the system works. Otherwise we both lose. One cannot dominate the other.

In a situation like that, resentment could build so high that separation would become moot. TROC would throw Quebec out!

If it has to be done, so be it. Québec would eventually leave anyway. Although it is possible, I still think that not only Europeans can get along. Am I too naive?

Anyhow, all this is becoming irrelevant. We are heading for a "Star Trek" society, where your original race or culture is irrelevant except for personal family holiday dinners.

Or a Star wars society, this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause. I beleive the threat of global imperialism will rise as much as globalization grows. I don't fear globalization, I am concerned about those who would like to turn it into their thirst of power.

If Quebecers want to become so insular that will be their choice.

Insular... whatever. It's the other way around. Can't wait to debate among the other nations. I would be glad to tell the world I agree with Kyoto while Canada doesn't.

They will become relegated to being a quaint little tourist trap that the rest of the world visits once in a while.

You already see Québec as a little tourist trap.

It's "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy", Benz! If Quebec is not careful, they will end up on the 'B" Ark!

See, this is exactly what we do not want anymore. Another nation telling us what to do and what to be. You don't know what is good for us. We know. You will not convince any of us with paternalism.

[TimG]

Québec being a nation with at least a veto in the constitution is a consensus among all provincial parties.

I don't see your point. The Quebequois have been recognized as a nation by parliment and Quebec has an unwritten veto already. That is as good as it is going to get. Why do you need any more?

Insular... whatever. It's the other way around. Can't wait to debate among the other nations. I would be glad to tell the world I agree with Kyoto while Canada doesn't.

The reason Canada does not is because it may be good for Quebec with lots of hydro power but it would be extremely onerous for Alberta and the Martimes. By refusing to acknowledge this you are being narrow minded and insular. Edited April 22, 2011 by TimG