What happened to that so desired reform?

[ToadBrother]

The voice of a province is ultimately the voice of its citizens. Since I have never said that the population of a given province should not have a say in the making in federal laws, the argument that I have said, or claimed, or hinted, or thought that provinces should not have a say falls flat on its face.

If there is a Senate, either its members are elected, or its members are not elected. If there is a way of choosing members of the Senate that involves them being neither elected or non-elected, I would like to know what it is.

I'm still not quite sure how you can have an objection. Federated states like Canada are made up of semi-autonomous jurisdictions. Yes, it's the same voters, but those jurisdictions have their own powers and responsibilities, so depriving those jurisdictions of any voice at the national level is to completely repudiate the notion of a federated state. Pretty much ever other federated democracy has a bicameral legislature precisely because there are two tiers of citizens' interest. You seem to be of the opinion that the citizens' cannot have two separate interests, and that's a woeful simplification.

Beyond that, a bicameral legislature, done properly with some overlapping and some separate powers is an effective check within the legislative branch. The problem with our system is that the Senate by and large is a reproduction of the House of Lords as it stood in the mid 19th century, so the only effective difference power-wise is that money bills must originate in the Commons. The American division, replicated, mind you, in many federated states in the world since, is much more sensible, in that while there are overlapping powers, each body has independent powers as well. But the rational behind the Senates of both countries is similar, in that both countries are federations of semi-autonomous self-contained jurisdictions, and the voters of those jurisdictions have both national and jurisdictional interests that can only be represented at the national level by two separate legislative assemblies. Eliminate the upper house of a bicameral legislature in a federated state and you effectively kill the voice of the states or provinces.

Killing the Senate would not improve our democracy, it would shift the balance of power completely to the Commons, with no check of any kind. That might make sense in a small country like New Zealand, which did eliminate its upper house, but in Canada, with very obvious regional differences, it's simply cutting off one's legs and expecting that one's arms will be able to effectively carry the burden.

There is sound political theory behind a bicameral legislature, of one house based purely on popular representation and another based on regional. At its core, and the reason why those brilliant political theorists like James Madison finally agreed on a bicameral legislature in the United States, as well as an electoral college to select the president as opposed to straight popular vote, is because there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. The clearest check on such a tyranny is to split the legislative power up, to give each assembly overlapping powers but also independence, to make one legislature of limited term (four or five years in most Westminster Parliaments, two years in the US) and the other of longer term (age of 75 in Canada, essentially for life in the UK, six years in the US), to create a house of sober second thought where the members are more insulated for the often quickly shifting political tides.

You need to read the Federalist Papers, which are as good a review of various democratic formulations as you'll find. The United States initially started out with a unicameral legislature after the beating the Brits (that grew out of the Continental Congress and was established as the legislature of the US by the Articles of Confederation, the US's first constitution). There was an extraordinary amount of debate over whether Congress should be split into two or not, and ultimately it was seen as a key check on the "popular" house to have a house of longer duration which could represent the interests of the states.

Heck, even unitary states like many US states have their own senates, precisely because the benefits of two houses of differing terms and overlapping powers is seen as an important check on legislative power.

[CANADIEN]

As I said, I didn't say otherwise. I said you're arguing in favour of fully subjecting regions with smaller populations to the whims of the majority in regions that have the biggest populations, upsetting the balance of Confederation by diminishing the equality that's supposed to exist between the eleven jurisdictions that make up this federation.

And I have made clear, that's not what I advocate. Nice try. .

Those in the Maritimes, for instance, would likely not take too kindly to being subject to federal laws that favour Central Canada, which is represented in the House of Commons by 145 more seats than PEI, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick put together because of the population difference.

BTo take your argument, the expressed democratic will of a majority of Canadians would be at

legislation can be reviewed with focus on regional and constitutional matters, rather than party politics and appeasing the biggest number of voters possible come the next election.

Oh really? Then, why is not happening right now? Because the current members of the Senate are beholded to their ideology, and to the party that selected them.

Like it or not, somebody who is appointed is not accountable to the citizens. At least, with elected people, we, the citizens, can toss them out if we don't like what they do. You seems to believe that's wrong, and that's certainly not perfect. But that`s way better than appointment.

Edited April 19, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

I'm still not quite sure how you can have an objection.

And I am not sure how anyone can say that it is alright that some citiznes have less of a voice because of where they happen to live.

Federated states like Canada are made up of semi-autonomous jurisdictions. Yes, it's the same voters, but those jurisdictions have their own powers and responsibilities, so depriving those jurisdictions of any voice at the national level is to completely repudiate the notion of a federated state. Pretty much ever other federated democracy has a bicameral legislature precisely because there are two tiers of citizens' interest. You seem to be of the opinion that the citizens' cannot have two separate interests, and that's a woeful simplification.

The woeful simplification is yours, in stating that I seem to believe that citizens don't have multiple interests.

The appropriate way to serve both the national and provincial interests of citizens is in the separation of powers between the respective level of gouernments. Not in reducing the influence of the individual citizens on the federal institutions.

Beyond that, a bicameral legislature, done properly with some overlapping and some separate powers is an effective check within the legislative branch.

The problem is not with the idea of a bicameral legislature, but with the inherent departure of the principle of one person one voice that is a feature of the Upper chambers in Canada or the United States. That principle trumps any other consideration when determining the composition of the legislative body.

Eliminate the upper house of a bicameral legislature in a federated state and you effectively kill the voice of the states or provinces.{

. Not so. The state or provincial GOVERNEMTNS still have their own jurisidction, and spheres of responsibilities. The citizens of each province or state are still represented in the fedral legislature and in the state or provincial legislatures.

The clearest check on such a tyranny is to split the legislative power up, to give each assembly overlapping powers but also independence, to make one legislature of limited term (four or five years in most Westminster Parliaments, two years in the US) and the other of longer term (age of 75 in Canada, essentially for life in the UK, six years in the US), to create a house of sober second thought where the members are more insulated for the often quickly shifting political tides.

Except that experience has proven that the sober second thought rarely occurs. When elected, the members of the Upper House are as likely to be influenced by political considerations. when non-elected, they can do about whatever they want, no matter what the citizens think of it. As for being a better representative of state, or provincial interests, i has ceased to be the case a long time ago.

The United States initially started out with a unicameral legislature after the beating the Brits (that grew out of the Continental Congress and was established as the legislature of the US by the Articles of Confederation, the US's first constitution).

And it lasted only a few years. It didn't work. Mostly because the members were not elected, each state had an equal vote, and the federal state was essentially the creature of the states, instead of being a separate level of government.

Heck, even unitary states like many US states have their own senates, precisely because the benefits of two houses of differing terms and overlapping powers is seen as an important check on legislative power.

Until the same party control both Houses. I'd trust an independent judiciary first. And you'll notice, by the way, that the citizens in each idinvidual have an equal vote in stat senatatorial election.

[g_bambino]

And I have made clear, that's not what I advocate.

You'll have to be more clear, then, because it sure does seem like that's what you advocate. The 1,900,000 people of the Maritimes with nothing more than their total of 25 seats in the House of Commons to defend their interests against those of the majority of the 19,700,000 people in Quebec and Ontario and their 170 MPs. That's pure tyranny of the majority, as I see it. Care to explain how my take is wrong?

[ToadBrother]

The problem is not with the idea of a bicameral legislature, but with the inherent departure of the principle of one person one voice that is a feature of the Upper chambers in Canada or the United States. That principle trumps any other consideration when determining the composition of the legislative body.

There is no departure. The citizen is both citizen of a state or province and a citizen of the nation. The citizen plays two separate roles.

By your logic we shouldn't have school boards or municipal councils, because it breaks that premise as well. After all, from the other end (from top to bottom) you have an intrusion of different bodies formulated out of the same groups of voters.

And you have yet to deal with g_bambino's point that a unicameral Parliament in Canada would pretty much eliminate a small province's voice entirely. And this idea that the courts be the only check on the power of Parliament is equally bizarre, essentially enlarging the role of the judiciary far beyond all reason simply because of your oversimplistic view that the voter shouldn't have two votes.

The courts should be there to test the constitutionality of law, not there to effectively act as an opposition to the creation of laws.

Edited April 19, 2011 by ToadBrother

[kimmy]

You'll have to be more clear, then, because it sure does seem like that's what you advocate. The 1,900,000 people of the Maritimes with nothing more than their total of 25 seats in the House of Commons to defend their interests against those of the majority of the 19,700,000 people in Quebec and Ontario and their 170 MPs. That's pure tyranny of the majority, as I see it. Care to explain how my take is wrong?

First off, can you name a single instance in Canadian history where a province's (or region's) Senate representatives have ever actually defended that province from "the tyranny of the majority"? Or even attempted to? You're (as far as I'm concerned) the most knowledgeable and respected member of this forum when it comes to this country's institutions, so I give your opinion a lot of respect... but I'm not aware of any historical support for the notion that the senate does or could perform this sort of role.

Second, the notion of "regions" is a little suspect. There's a rough equality of "regions", if you consider each of Ontario, Quebec, The Maritimes, and "Everybody West of Kenora" to each constitute a region. But that's a premise that's of dubious value in performing the role you're advocating. For example, Alberta and Saskatchewan have economies that thrive on energy and agriculture. BC's economy is largely based on forestry, minerals, and tourism. Manitoba's economy is based on mud, sticks, and trying to determine whether rocks are edible. If some belligerent federal government attempted to implement some law that was particularly punitive to the energy sector (this is far fetched, I realized) what reason is there to think that Alberta and Saskatchewan could count on the rest of their "region" to support them? What, other than being west of Kenora, do they have in common? And even then, what good is the support of "a region" when that's just 1/4 of the senate anyway?

Third, with no accountability to their province of "origin" how can the provinces count on their senators to act as their representatives anyway? Don't they always just vote the party line?

-k

[Smallc]

Manitoba's economy is based on mud, sticks, and trying to determine whether rocks are edible.

Ah yes, pearls of wisdom. Manitoba's economy is based on many things. Manitoba also has a nearly identical per capita GDP to British Columbia and Ontario.

[CANADIEN]

There is no departure. The citizen is both citizen of a state or province and a citizen of the nation. The citizen plays two separate roles.

By your logic we shouldn't have school boards or municipal councils, because it breaks that premise as well. After all, from the other end (from top to bottom) you have an intrusion of different bodies formulated out of the same groups of voters.

Nice misrepresentation of my position. I have never, and would not, argue that there should be no provincial government, or municipal government, or school boards. What I hace said is that members of the federal legislature should be elected in proprotion to population. Clearly different fro saying there should be no provincial or municipal governments.

And you have yet to deal with g_bambino's point that a unicameral Parliament in Canada would pretty much eliminate a small province's voice entirely.

I have dealt with. You don't agree with what I say. Huge difference.

your oversimplistic view that the voter shouldn't have two votes.

The only thing that is oversimplistic is this gross misrepresentation of my postion. by you

The courts should be there to test the constitutionality of law

And I haven't said, and wouldn't say otherwise. That role is a sufficient balance to the risk of a violation of individual rights.

Edited April 19, 2011 by CANADIEN

[kimmy]

Ah yes, pearls of wisdom. Manitoba's economy is based on many things. Manitoba also has a nearly identical per capita GDP to British Columbia and Ontario.

Gee, and people say us Albertans are a touchy bunch.

-k

[Smallc]

Gee, and people say us Albertans are a touchy bunch.

I don't like when people dump on other provinces...especially this one.

[ToadBrother]

And I haven't said, and wouldn't say otherwise. That role is a sufficient balance to the risk of a violation of individual rights.

I'm unclear, for instance, how the Supreme Court would be of help to, say PEI in a hypothetical situation as laid out above. Unless the constitution was amended to somehow give PEI some special constitutional privilege, of course. But that seems an inelegant solution where an upper house of regional representation would do.

[Benz]

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.

If for the french-speaking people outside Quebec like you, having weapons in schools is no insult to your culture, good for you. It is for us in Québec. Our values include no weapons at schools. Concealed or not. No religous beleif shall be above that.

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.

J'ai remarqué que les revendications Québécois peuvent paraître baveuses aux yeux des FHQ alors qu'eux se battent plutôt pour avoir accès au strict minimum. Je ne fais pas ça pour te baver. Pose toi la question du comment t'as pu en arriver à te sentir comme ça.

Exactly indeed! Enough with the misuse and abuse of the word imperialism.

The purpose of imperialism was to deny the existence of the canadien nation, called french-canadien later on. If the imperialism is over and only part of history, it's time to recognize the existence of that nation. Plain and simple.

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

Better have no senate than the current one. However, there is a clear need for a real senate based on what a senate should be.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Benz

[Benz]

So, you don't believe in freedom of choice and freedom of religion. Got it.

I never said that. I said the society doesn't have to comply to your religous beleifs. Once you get into a public school, your religion choices are not above the rules. If you want to wear weapons at school, go to a private school that allows you to do so. Our society has made some choices, like no weapons in public schools. One's individual religion cannot be excluded from those.

Even if true (which it mostly isn't), that has nothing to do with the constitution.

So you don't know the history of your own country. READ THIS!

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

http://www.gov.mb.ca/fls-slf/report/histbackgrd.html

Manitoba, from 1890 to 1985, the french had no access to french schools. 95 years without a french school. No wonder why that community had a hard time to survive. Not true eh?

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

The modification has been written in 1981 (nov, 5th) and adopted in 1982. You gonna annoye me for one year?

and it has everything to do with provinces, little relation to population numbers

Then you don't understand 1867's. It says, to modify the constitution, you need the representation among the provinces, of 75% of the population. That means, the 9 provinces other than Ontario cannot change the constitution because Ontario is above the 25%. However, Québec felt under the 25% and therefore, the english provinces could now change the constitution without the french. That is exactly what the french feared to happen and it happened. Cartier thought it would never happened. he was wrong.

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;

Don't be silly. 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.

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.

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.

If you want to be sure that Franophones play a role, then it's up to you to keep the numbers up in the country, whether in Quebec or elsewhere.

Too late, the damages to the french cannot be reversed. You know, the rules you want to deny. Unless you put some linguistic rules to force people in the ROC to go back to their french roots, it's mission impossible. No one in french canada is asking you something like that. What's done is done. At least, respect the french canada and consider us like a nation and the due respect it comes along.

One wonders who this "them" is that's going to improve the structures of governance in favour of Quebec, given that you're under the delusion that Quebec has been shut out of all future constitutional talks.

What part did you not understand. The "them" is the westerners for the western block of senators, and the same for the maritime block of senators. I don't want to tell them what they prefer. I suggest an equal number per province for their block, if they prefer another alternative, it's up to them. It has nothing to do with Quebec at this point.

Regardless, I'm not opposed to Senate reform, and there is something to the idea of allowing the regions/provinces more input into the selection of senators. I am, though, against the idea of even considering changes that are based on the kind of misinformation and revisionism you've dropped above.

I dare you to prove I am wrong. I even brought you alink to the official Manitoba website. Good luck!

Nobody's going to take you seriously when you arrive at meetings hurling baseless, ignorant accusations at the very people you want to sit down and collaborate with.

If they are all brainwashed like you, it's no wonder. Then the solution is to break Canada into two pieces. You would have no one else than yourself to blame.

(regarding an answer to canadien)

The 1,900,000 people of the Maritimes with nothing more than their total of 25 seats in the House of Commons to defend their interests against those of the majority of the 19,700,000 people in Quebec and Ontario and their 170 MPs. That's pure tyranny of the majority, as I see it. Care to explain how my take is wrong?

Delicious, now apply the same logic to the concept of two nations, english and french. The english outnumber the french, why would the french accept the tyranny of majority? never, over my dead body.

Simple, a constitutional veto for the constitution to Québec. So the constitution is no longer set by the english majority. The whole thing, not just few points.

For the senate, the senators should be chosen by the regions they represent, not by the prime minister of the country. Do you agree on that too? I am not sure if you stated anything on that, if you already so, sorry for asking again.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Benz

[Benz]

If you guys don't mind, I will answer to canadien in french, I'll try to make him understand the use of a senate in my words.

Mon cher ami, un sénat a une utilité primordial... lorsqu'il est bien fait. Le notre au Canada est une supercherie. Un premier ministre de la Chambre des Communes qui choisi lui-même les Sénateurs de l'autre chambre, c'est une stupidité totale.

Comme disait bambino, s'il n'y a que la Chambre des Communes, on a alors la tyrannie de la majorité. Les régions ont des besoins et des préoccupations différentes les unes des autres. Il est important d'avoir un équilibre entre le suffrage universel de la somme des individus et les intérêts régionnaux. S'il n'y a pas un tel équilibre, une région n'aura d'autre choix que de quitter l'union dans son propre intérêt.

La presque totalité des systèmes fédéraux sont ainsi conçu. C'est ce que l'expérience humaine a trouvé de mieux afin de maintenir un équilibre.

Les provinces sont beaucoup trop inégales pour que le sénat soit divisé par province. Tant qu'à moi, PEI, NÉ et NB pourraient ne former qu'une province. Ce n'est pas dramatique qu'elles soient 3 provinces mais, pour le bien du système, il est convenu qu'avec TN, ils soient considéré comme une région. Le sénat est donc divisé en 4 régions, Est, Ouest, Ontario et Québec.

Maintenant, le problème est que pour que le sénat soit utile, la moindre des choses serait que les régions choisissent elles même leurs sénateurs. Hors, c'est le contraire et ça rend le sénat totalement futile.

[Tilter]

never said that. I said the society doesn't have to comply to your religous beleifs. Once you get into a public school, your religion choices are not above the rules. If you want to wear weapons at school, go to a private school that allows you to do so. Our society has made some choices, like no weapons in public schools. One's individual religion cannot be excluded from those.

I sort of disagree with the idea that he should go to a private school to be able to wear a kirpan. There should be 0 (that is ZERO) schools that allow the wearing a weapon for anyone with the exception of the guards so present in some schools in Canada. If someone starts a religion that decrees that an automatic weapon must be worn at all times would the same controversy about weapons in school exist? If the parents object to this very sensible law perhaps they should emigrate to Wyoming where the open carry laws exist.

[ToadBrother]

Simple, a constitutional veto for the constitution to Québec. So the constitution is no longer set by the english majority. The whole thing, not just few points.

Last time I checked, Meech Lake failed miserably.

[CANADIEN]

If for the french-speaking people outside Quebec like you, having weapons in schools is no insult to your culture, good for you. It is for us in Québec. Our values include no weapons at schools. Concealed or not. No religous beleif shall be above that.

(Interesting, the notion that a cultural different, which ultimately doesn't affect any citizen or their rights, is viewed as an insult. That's the same kind of reasoning that lead to anti-Francophone legislation in other provinces.

J'ai remarqué que les revendications Québécois peuvent paraître baveuses aux yeux des FHQ alors qu'eux se battent plutôt pour avoir accès au strict minimum. Je ne fais pas ça pour te baver. Pose toi la question du comment t'as pu en arriver à te sentir comme ça.

Je ne parlais pas des revendications du Québec. Je parlais plutôt de certains Québécois dont la première réaction quand ils se trouvent face à face à un Francophone d'une autre partie de notre pays est de questionner la qualité de leur langue d'un petit air supérieur.

[CANADIEN]

I never said that. I said the society doesn't have to comply to your religous beleifs.

What is being proposed here is not compliance with religious beliefs.

Then you don't understand 1867's. It says, to modify the constitution, you need the representation among the provinces, of 75% of the population.

There was no amending formula in the Constitution Act of 1867. If you think otherwise, feel free to show where in the text.

Québec IS NOT like other provinces. It is french, the others are english, and the others outnumber the french.

¨And then there's New Brunswick, and Nunavut. Edited April 20, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

So you don't know the history of your own country. READ THIS!

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

http://www.gov.mb.ca/fls-slf/report/histbackgrd.html

Manitoba, from 1890 to 1985, the french had no access to french schools. 95 years without a french school. No wonder why that community had a hard time to survive. Not true eh?

Actually, what has been pointed out (twice now) is that no law passed in any province stated "English is the official language". If you know of such a law, feel free to point pout to its exact text. And if you're thinking of coming back with some non-sense like I don't know the history of my country, or that ignore the existence of anti-Francophone legislations, spare yourself the embarassment. I know the history of my country, especially the history of French-speaking populations outside Quebec, in ways you will never know it.

[g_bambino]

First off, can you name a single instance in Canadian history where a province's (or region's) Senate representatives have ever actually defended that province from "the tyranny of the majority"? Or even attempted to? You're (as far as I'm concerned) the most knowledgeable and respected member of this forum when it comes to this country's institutions, so I give your opinion a lot of respect... but I'm not aware of any historical support for the notion that the senate does or could perform this sort of role... [W]hat good is the support of "a region" when that's just 1/4 of the senate anyway?

Thank you for the compliment, but, you've not quite encapsulated what I've been saying. It's not that a region was ever saved by the Senate from a discriminatory bill pushed through the House of Commons (as far as I know; in fact, the NEP (which I think you alluded to) might be an example where it hasn't), but that the Senate does still provide an outlet for regional concerns to be expressed in the legislative process:

The founders of Confederation gave the Senate the important role of protecting regional, provincial and minority interests. They assigned each region the same number of seats in order to guarantee them an equal voice in the Senate...

There are now 413 seats in Parliament, of which about three-quarters are in the House of Commons (308) and one-quarter in the Senate (105). Their distribution respects the democratic principle: the population basin in Central Canada has 55 per cent of all parliamentary seats and elects about 60 per cent of the members of the House of Commons. However, the distribution of seats also respects the regional principle: the people who live in the less populated parts of the country enjoy a majority of 54 per cent of seats in the Senate

Over the years, provincial governments have played a large role in representing regional interests. However, there are still many ways for senators to fulfil their regional responsibilities. As they examine bills and issues, senators consider the impact of the measures on the provinces they represent. Committees are expected to invite a province or territory to make a presentation whenever they study a bill of special significance to it... Senators also meet in regional caucuses to discuss legislation and policies and to plan strategy...

The Senate's representational role has been called into service in other ways. For example, there have been times in Parliament's history when a governing party did not manage to elect any members to the House of Commons from one or other of the provinces. In such cases, in order to ensure that there is regional balance, the Prime Minister has appointed senators from that province to Cabinet.

The Senate Today

The idea of an upper house providing regional representation as a counterweight to the popular representation of the lower house is pretty much standard for all federal parliaments around the world. I think our Senate fulfills that role to a point, but I am also pretty open to suggested reforms that would help it do so better; an equal number of seats for each province, maybe, or senators appointed by provincial governments (these ideas aren't new).

As inadequate as the Senate might currently be, however, getting rid of it entirely, as Canadien suggests, would mean significantly less opportunity for regional concerns to be expressed in federal lawmaking; Central Canada would rule Confederation entirely.

Third, with no accountability to their province of "origin" how can the provinces count on their senators to act as their representatives anyway? Don't they always just vote the party line?

I guess they can't be, as it is now. But, I strain to think of what (within the bounds of the law, that is) would cooerce a senator to work against the region he or she represents. There's no reason they have to toe the party line; what's the consequence if they don't? I can think of a couple of senators who've spoken and voted in ways that run contrary to the common dogma of the parties they belong to; Anne Cools was a Liberal when she argued in the Senate against same-sex marriage and a Conservative when she voted against the present ministry's budget, and Hugh Segal, a Conservative, has been a strong advocate of social safety nets and spoken in favour of fixed incomes for the disadvantaged.

[c/e]

Edited April 20, 2011 by g_bambino

[Benz]

I sort of disagree with the idea that he should go to a private school to be able to wear a kirpan. There should be 0 (that is ZERO) schools that allow the wearing a weapon for anyone with the exception of the guards so present in some schools in Canada. If someone starts a religion that decrees that an automatic weapon must be worn at all times would the same controversy about weapons in school exist? If the parents object to this very sensible law perhaps they should emigrate to Wyoming where the open carry laws exist.

Well, this is how the constitution actually is my friend. Wanna change that? You gonna have to change the constitution. The Québécois are prompt to do it, the ROC don't want to approach it even with a 20 feet pole. :angry:

[Benz]

Last time I checked, Meech Lake failed miserably.

Indeed. So what? It's game over? Canada must break appart? If you do not try, you give ammunitions to the independantists.

"See? They don't want to change the country, we are better off without Canada"

Just a reminder, even the very federalist Parti Libéral du Québec does not agree with the actual constitution and would never sign it. The people of Québec are divided in two groups. Those who pray that someday Canada will change its mind and accept the Québec demands and those who are fed up waiting. In the Québec's Assemblée Nationale, there are no elected member of parliament saying to accept Canada as is.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Benz

[Benz]

Je ne parlais pas des revendications du Québec. Je parlais plutôt de certains Québécois dont la première réaction quand ils se trouvent face à face à un Francophone d'une autre partie de notre pays est de questionner la qualité de leur langue d'un petit air supérieur.

Je vais t'avouer que c'était un peu baveu de ma part vu dans ce contexte là. J'ai assumé que t'étais comme de nombreux canadiens que j'ai rencontré qui avaient perdu leur français mais, pensaient quand même pouvoir parler au nom des français. Ils étaient étrangement anti-Québécois. J'ai jugé trop vite. Mea culpa.

What is being proposed here is not compliance with religious beliefs.

Yes it is. Under no circumstances you can allow someone to wear a weapon at school, unless if it is for religious beleif. So says the constitution.

There was no amending formula in the Constitution Act of 1867. If you think otherwise, feel free to show where in the text.

It was not within the constitution indeed. Normal, because Canada couldn't change it on its own. It had to ask the British to do so. I honestly am not sure in what document it was written, but I know it was pretty much like I said. I only remember the general idea, not the details. If you know it, feel free to enlight us.

¨And then there's New Brunswick, and Nunavut.

Your point is? If Nunavut claims they must be considered a sovereign state like Québec does, I would be glad to listen. NB never ever claimed such thing. It's the other way around, along Ontario, they were the only two provinces that refused to team up with their mates in 1981. They rather accepted Trudeau's view right from the start. So explain yourself. What did you try to say?

Actually, what has been pointed out (twice now) is that no law passed in any province stated "English is the official language".

It doesn't have anything to do with what we were talking about. I pointed out that the french was ban in public schools in an official language act. You are trying to deviate the debate. Where the heck are you trying to go with that?

[August1991]

Wow! What a debate!

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

In Britain, what's the difference? Edited April 20, 2011 by August1991

[CANADIEN]

It was not within the constitution indeed. Normal, because Canada couldn't change it on its own. It had to ask the British to do so. I honestly am not sure in what document it was written, but I know it was pretty much like I said. I only remember the general idea, not the details. If you know it, feel free to enlight us.

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

Your point is?

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.

It doesn't have anything to do with what we were talking about.

Here's the exact words you used:

Several provinces adopted the Official Language Act that made illigal to have public french schools and other represive laws against the french.

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.

Edited April 20, 2011 by CANADIEN