Grit Support Back Up

[Guest eureka]

There was nothing at all in the Constitution Act that could be called badly written. If anyone wants to keep insisting that it was, then give me an example.

The Act did include Quebec. It included all Canada. The patriation of the BNA was also agreed to by Quebec's Parliamentary representatives. Because a separatist government refused to sign it does not mean that there was anything wrong with it. It merely meant that the PQ in Quebec thought it had the right to interfere in National affairs but that the nation had no right to act for the people of Canada and Quebec.

There was nevr any legal requirement that Quebec should sign. The Act was the federal constitution and the provinces had no role to play. The asking for signatures was merely a courtesy by the federal government and Levesque was too much of a boor to respond with grace.

Ryan, August was a self important ideologue. Once at a meeting we had with him to see whether we could work with the QLP, he entered the room saying: "You can say what you want but I won't change my mind." That was before any discussion. I ended it there by tearing a strip off him. I hung him on his own boast that his trade was words. I did this by explaining to him that he was indeed a tradesman only with no understanding of the reality that words and language were the identity and personality of people: that people were what they speak.

[tml12]

There was nothing at all in the Constitution Act that could be called badly written. If anyone wants to keep insisting that it was, then give me an example.

The Act did include Quebec. It included all Canada. The patriation of the BNA was also agreed to by Quebec's Parliamentary representatives. Because a separatist government refused to sign it does not mean that there was anything wrong with it. It merely meant that the PQ in Quebec thought it had the right to interfere in National affairs but that the nation had no right to act for the people of Canada and Quebec.

There was nevr any legal requirement that Quebec should sign. The Act was the federal constitution and the provinces had no role to play. The asking for signatures was merely a courtesy by the federal government and Levesque was too much of a boor to respond with grace.

Ryan, August was a self important ideologue. Once at a meeting we had with him to see whether we could work with the QLP, he entered the room saying: "You can say what you want but I won't change my mind." That was before any discussion. I ended it there by tearing a strip off him. I hung him on his own boast that his trade was words. I did this by explaining to him that he was indeed a tradesman only with no understanding of the reality that words and language were the identity and personality of people: that people were what they speak.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It included Quebec to the effect that it included all of Canada...

okay then can you explain why we are still talking about the Constitution today???

[August1991]

Because a separatist government refused to sign it does not mean that there was anything wrong with it.

The provincial Liberals also refused to sign it. Worse, in 1980 during the referendum, Trudeau promised to change Canada. He did not say at the time that the only change would be a Charter of Rights.

There was nevr any legal requirement that Quebec should sign.

True, as the federal Supreme Court at the time interpreted.

But as Mulroney noted, it's equivalent to enacting a new Bill of Rights in the US despite the unanimous opposition of the State legislatures of New York, California and Texas - and then giving each individual State the power to override the new Bill of Rights by a simple majority vote.

For this "great" legacy, the CBC declares Trudeau a "great" Canadian.

Ryan, August was a self important ideologue.

eureka, I recall seeing Ryan in person on one occasion and I read many of his editorials. He was an honest man and a staunch federalist and a good Canadian.

[fellowtraveller]

This behavoir leads me to believe that the next parliment will look exactly like this one.

I agree, except that this time the Libs will have fewer seats, the NDP will have more and we may have an actual coalition, with some NDP Cabinet Ministers. It is unlikely that the CPC can form any alliances with any Party, and their life as a minority would be short and cruel.

All of this of course plays totally into the Bloc/PQ hands. They must be dazed with wonderment at all this manna from heaven. Best of all, they face a trio of weak and crippled 'federalist' parties for the foreseeable future.

Bye bye Quebec. Let the handwringing begin.

[Guest eureka]

We are still talking about the Constitution only because Quebec is determined to have it amended to give Quebec "national" powers. That and the wish of a provincial politicians to further their own ambitions while having the federal government fund them.

August, I am surprised at your quoting Mulroney over that. It was just one of the Mulroney frauds on the people, wasn't it? Every Province of Canada had agreed to the Charter so it is not in any way the same as America enacting a new Bill of Roghts ovr opposition. It was not a very intelligent comment of Brian's either since the federal government could enact a new Bill even if every state opposed it. It would be a federal Bill within federal jurisdiction.

Of course, it would have the same legal effect as the original, though. It would be effective only against the federal governnment.

In what way was Trudeau to change Canada? Change could only come about with the agreement of the provinces. What change was there to be? In fact, Canada was changed and the "distinct society"; the de facto granting of autonomy to Quebec was allowed to creep upon is. Quebec's language regime was enshrined in law in all its barbarity. Quebec was allowed to contro; immigration on the basis of a racial distinction to the rest of Canada.

Change enough.

Ryan an honest man! Indeed he was. He was too steeped in his religion to be otherwise. That does not say much about what that led him to believe or how he could justify his own preference for the ethnic supramacy of one group.

If you read his editorials, then you should not be so convinced that he was a "staunch federalist." Surely you remember his urging Quebeckers to vote for the separatist party? He was a federalist in the same way as posters like Bakunin. A federalist for as long as Canada paid the bills and Quebec got its own way about everything. A Bourassa federalist.

[shoop]

Not every province agreed to the Charter.

If the U.S. Federal government enacted a new Bill of Rights without the agreement of all provinces it would be much like the Canadian Bill of Rights. Take a look there is one on the books, but because it was enacted unilaterally it has NO power.

August, I am surprised at your quoting Mulroney over that. It was just one of the Mulroney frauds on the people, wasn't it? Every Province of Canada had agreed to the Charter so it is not in any way the same as America enacting a new Bill of Roghts ovr opposition. It was not a very intelligent comment of Brian's either since the federal government could enact a new Bill even if every state opposed it. It would be a federal Bill within federal jurisdiction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>