Damn Quebec!

[g_bambino]

the others are not unique as quebec is imo...i've no issues with a nation within a nation, it works in spain and and the netherlands so our situation is not unique

Each province in Canada already is a nation within a nation. "Specialness" is a subjective matter of opinion (as you note), which makes it exceedingly difficult to convince other entities that each perceive of themselves as unique that one unique entity deserves more because it is more unique than the rest.

[wyly]

Each province in Canada already is a nation within a nation. "Specialness" is a subjective matter of opinion (as you note), which makes it exceedingly difficult to convince other entities that each perceive of themselves as unique that one unique entity deserves more because it is more unique than the rest.

i've no objection to any other province wanting a similar deal to quebec let them state their case and go for it...

[Wild Bill]

You and Trudeau were around in the 1860s??

Regardless, even if you mistook either the date of the patriation of the constitution or the nature of it, nothing was "rammed through" in 1982; in fact, Trudeau's threats that he would do just that were countered by no less than the relevant authorities in the British parliament, eight provincial premiers, and the Supreme Court of Canada.

What was repatriated was the British North America Act, so that we no longer needed any rubber stamp from Britain. Until 1982, we didn't really have a formal constitution!

We didn't really need one. We sprang from the example of Britain, who has never had a formal constitution. That is really much more of a French idea, which is where the Americans got the idea.

Britain had something which many feel is far better - the force of Common Law!

Common Law is law set by precedent,which also slowly evolves as the needs and wants of a society also evolves. There is also one very important distinction - it sets limits on what we can do and what "rights" we have only in specific instances. It sets NO limits on anything not clearly defined!

There was much talk back then about the English model and the French model of Law. The usual example given was the idea of "Keep off the grass!". Under English Common Law, you could only prohibit walking on the grass in specific areas such as private property. Under the French model, you are told what areas of grass you may walk on - all others are verboten!

Put another way, the French model spells out your rights. Anything not on the list is not your right.

The English model assumes that you have unlimited rights that are only limited in specific instances for specific reasons. Walk wherever you damn well please as long as there's no sign posted.

The two are very different views and philosophies of rights and laws. Our system was changed by adopting a formal constitution to much more of a republican, or French, model.

There are many who still believe we are the poorer for it.

[Topaz]

If things get dirty between Ottawa and Quebec, could the PMO kick the 2-3 Bloc members out of Parliament if they don't recognize the Queen?

[g_bambino]

If things get dirty between Ottawa and Quebec, could the PMO kick the 2-3 Bloc members out of Parliament if they don't recognize the Queen?

The prime minister cannot eject MPs from their seats in the Commons. The constitution requires that an MP take the oath of allegiance before they can take their seat; if they don't, then they cannot sit in the house. The Bloc MPs in the Commons now have already taken the oath.

[PIK]

The prime minister cannot eject MPs from their seats in the Commons. The constitution requires that an MP take the oath of allegiance before they can take their seat; if they don't, then they cannot sit in the house. The Bloc MPs in the Commons now have already taken the oath.

We need to check the video to see if there fingers were crossed.lol

[g_bambino]

i've no objection to any other province wanting a similar deal to quebec let them state their case and go for it...

Does that not depend on the deal the government of Quebec wants? Separatist Quebec governments want Quebec to have all the powers of a sovereign state, thereby making it no longer a part of the federation of Canada. Extend that deal to all provinces and what do you have?

[jacee]

Wait are you talking about the constitution or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? That thing PET brought us that we really didn't need 30 years ago.

I'm just sayin' ...

The PQ flag issue is no more disrespectful to Canada than Harper and his western separatist minions dissing the Constitution/Charter, and also dissing the Supreme Court.

And I stand with Quebec against the western whiners who are trying their best to tear the country apart, with their snobbery, racism, rancor, ill will, pettiness and disrespect.

The west is rich with oil. We get it ... but that gives no one the right to harass others.

Quebec will never suck up to Alberta. Neither will I.

Just sending a bit of the rancor right back where it came from.

Edited September 19, 2012 by jacee

[g_bambino]

What was repatriated was the British North America Act, so that we no longer needed any rubber stamp from Britain. Until 1982, we didn't really have a formal constitution!

The constitution has always consisted of more than simply the British North America Act 1867; more documents plus many ancient conventions. All of that came fully under the control of only the parliament of Canada in 1982, with a few amendments to some preexisting acts, the addition of an amending process, and the Charter.

[g_bambino]

The PQ flag issue is no more disrespectful to Canada than Harper and his western separatist minions dissing the Constitution/Charter, and also dissing the Supreme Court.

Since when were the Charter and the Supreme Court national symbols? Is a copy of the Charter or, better, a Supreme Court justice ever hoisted on the Peace Tower flagpole as representaion of the country?

Apples and oranges, as they say.

[jacee]

Does that not depend on the deal the government of Quebec wants? Separatist Quebec governments want Quebec to have all the powers of a sovereign state, thereby making it no longer a part of the federation of Canada. Extend that deal to all provinces and what do you have?

Stronger provinces and weaker federalism.

Could be a good thing.

In fact, that's the way Canada started: The powers of the Crown were actually vested in the then existing territories - Upper and Lower Canada, the Maritimes, and the Western territory, I believe.

The territories lend their power to the feds.

I think it makes some sense to consider returning to that model, if it helps quell the animosity currently evident.

Having universal social supports, the same no matter where you live, is a nice thing but perhaps not worth the resentment and ill will it is currently generating.

Alberta doesn't want to contribute to - eg, OAS for seniors in the Maritimes ... I get that but ... know what? When the codfish was king ... Some of those Maritime senior fishermen paid federal taxes that sent extra money to Alberta when it was a 'have not' province.

What comes around goes around ...

At least that's the way it's designed.

But if Alberta and the west want to now take their dirty-oil money and run?

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Smallc]

I'm not quite sure what you're actually trying to say.

[jacee]

Since when were the Charter and the Supreme Court national symbols? Is a copy of the Charter or, better, a Supreme Court justice ever hoisted on the Peace Tower flagpole as representaion of the country?

Apples and oranges, as they say.

What does the flag symbolize, then?

What defines "the country"?

Edited September 19, 2012 by jacee

[g_bambino]

What does the flag symbolize, then?

What defines "the country"?

How is that an answer to my question?

[Boges]

And I stand with Quebec against the western whiners who are trying their best to tear the country apart, with their snobbery, racism, rancor, ill will, pettiness and disrespect.

See that's where you lose all credibility. If anyone is racist it's Quebecors and their intolerance of people who don't speak French.

[g_bambino]

Stronger provinces and weaker federalism.

Could be a good thing.

Could be. Could not.

In fact, that's the way Canada started: The powers of the Crown were actually vested in the then existing territories - Upper and Lower Canada, the Maritimes, and the Western territory, I believe.

The territories lend their power to the feds.

Wong on all counts. What originally became Confederation were three British colonies: the Province of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. The powers of the Crown exercised in each flowed through the British parliament and Cabinet. At the time of Confederation, the new country was constructed as a highly centralised one (this done partly in reaction to the American Civil War); the Fathers of Confederation saw the provinces as subordinate to Ottawa (hence, lieutenant governors are appointed by the governor general; lieutenant governors can pass provincial bills on to the federal Cabinet for approval or denial of Royal Assent, etc.). That quickly changed, however; the provincial governments resisted certain federal diktats and in 1882 the equality of the provincial governments with the federal one was established and has remained ever since. The provinces now derive their power directly from the Canadian Crown - not via the federal parliament or the governor general - in the same way the federal jurisdiction does.

[The_Squid]

The west is rich with oil.

We are?

There may be some offshore oil reserves in BC, but we are not exploiting that resource at this time (for good reasons, imo).

You still need to provide a definition of "the west". You seem to be confusing Alberta with the rest of the provinces out west.

[The_Squid]

See that's where you lose all credibility. If anyone is racist it's Quebecors and their intolerance of people who don't speak French.

Neither are racists. You are both using that term rather loosely. It takes away and credibility of your argument. It sounds like whining...

[jacee]

We are?

There may be some offshore oil reserves in BC, but we are not exploiting that resource at this time (for good reasons, imo).

You still need to provide a definition of "the west". You seem to be confusing Alberta with the rest of the provinces out west.

So does Alberta, so until the rest of the west speaks up and says Albertans don't speak for us, you are going along with them, as Easterners see it.

[jacee]

Neither are racists. You are both using that term rather loosely. It takes away and credibility of your argument. It sounds like whining...

Excuze me ... ethnic prejudice is more accurate.

[Smallc]

So does Alberta, so until the rest of the west speaks up and says Albertans don't speak for us, you are going along with them, as Easterners see it.

Or, at least, to people as ignorant as you.

[g_bambino]

Just as a side-note: Marios has been sworn in as premier. Let the games begin!

[Boges]

Just as a side-note: Marios has been sworn in as premier. Let the games begin!

Did she flinch when she had to pledge allegiance to the Queen?

[jacee]

Could be. Could not.

Wong on all counts. What originally became Confederation were three British colonies: the Province of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. The powers of the Crown exercised in each flowed through the British parliament and Cabinet. At the time of Confederation, the new country was constructed as a highly centralised one (this done partly in reaction to the American Civil War); the Fathers of Confederation saw the provinces as subordinate to Ottawa (hence, lieutenant governors are appointed by the governor general; lieutenant governors can pass provincial bills on to the federal Cabinet for approval or denial of Royal Assent, etc.). That quickly changed, however; the provincial governments resisted certain federal diktats and in 1882 the equality of the provincial governments with the federal one was established and has remained ever since. The provinces now derive their power directly from the Canadian Crown - not via the federal parliament or the governor general - in the same way the federal jurisdiction does.

Thanks for correcting the original colonies.

My point was that (some) provinces - the original colonies - had powers of the Crown vested directly in them, which they lent to the new federal govt at Confederation: Those powers were not, and could not be taken away from them. They shared them with the feds, then took some of those powers back, as you alluded to, because they had the legal right to ... and still do.

My real point is that so called 'western alienation' is destroying the country, and I'd prefer we cut them loose and revert to provincial powers or the original confederation. I don't wish to be associated with their ethnic prejudices, (The whole world saw it in the stupid 'ethical oil' debacle ... federally funded, of course.) general nastiness, stinginess and apparent hatred for most of the rest of Canada.

I'm no longer a fan of federalism, if it creates such nastiness. It isn't worth it.

I think the East can work out it's own federation. We have much more in common with Quebec than with Alberta.

Alberta does the damage with bogus complaints, raises the separatist ire of Quebeckers, and Ontarians rush by thousands to Quebec to let them know we don't agree with the ignorant Albertans.

Enough.

It's clear Albertans don't have a commitment to making Canada work, so I say ... let them go.

The East will function better without them.

It isn't about Quebec separating. It's about the East standing up to the bullies.

Edited September 19, 2012 by jacee

[g_bambino]

My point was that (some) provinces - the original colonies - had powers of the Crown vested directly in them, which they lent to the new federal govt at Confederation

They had no such thing. They were colonies; as I said, all the powers they had they derived from the Crown through the British parliament and Cabinet. They therefore had nothing to "lend" to the new federal government created in 1867. That federal government then drew its power via the British parliament and Cabinet, just as the pre-Confederation colonies had.

I don't know what any of this has to do with western alienation.

[ed.: +]

Edited September 19, 2012 by g_bambino