New Constitutional Talks for Quebec

[Canuck E Stan]

New Consitutional Talks?

During his speech, Dumont said he wanted to take advantage of the federal government's new political will by trying to reintegrate Quebec into the Constitution, a quarter century after its unilateral repatriation by Ottawa.

Dumont says Quebec must engage in a new dialogue to repair former prime minister Pierre Trudeau's constitutional errors.

Will the Conservative government take this as a sign to get the talks going again,either now or when the conservatives lead the country with a majority?How will the rest of Canada look at this?

[shoop]

It definitely won't happen before the next election.

Maybe, *IF*, the CPC wins a majority next time around they will look at the constitution.

You gotta wonder if Dumont is going to jump to the Conservatives. It would be quite the coup for Harper.

[geoffrey]

It would be a whole constitutional package, involving provincial powers, transfers, an elected senate (or reformed in some way) and inclusion of Quebec. I don't think you'd see another Meech specifically.

[Hicksey]

It would be a whole constitutional package, involving provincial powers, transfers, an elected senate (or reformed in some way) and inclusion of Quebec. I don't think you'd see another Meech specifically.

I hope he does it much smarter than that.

I hope he does it right and gives all the different regions in Canada the same powers.

[scribblet]

Do we need a constitutional change for an elected Senate, I don't think we do, nor for set terms in Parliament. We may see set terms coming sooner than later.

I thought this was funny, another good reason to abolish the Senate as it is now.

- Liberals pulled a fast one on the governing Conservatives in the Senate on budget day last Tuesday, but the government leader in the upper chamber, Sen. Marjory LeBreton, got the last word. Ms. LeBreton was absent from Tuesday's question period to attend a special cabinet briefing on the budget.

In past years, while the Grits were in power, Tories would not exploit the leader's absence with questions that couldn't be answered by anybody but the leader, who is a member of cabinet. A handful of Liberal senators, however, broke with the practice and stood and directed questions to LeBreton's empty chair for about 20 minutes covering everything from the farm income crisis to the renewal of the North American Aerospace Defence agreement with the U.S. Mustering up his old radio and TV voice, Senator Jim Munson started a question by saying, "Empty chairs leave me with an empty feeling." The next day, back in her seat, Ms. LeBreton fired away, accusing the Liberals who participated in the political sideswipe of bringing the Senate into "disrepute." Then she proceeded to answer every question that was asked in her absence to much hooting and hollering from opposition Senators, who had new questions and said Ms. LeBreton was showing disrespect for the chamber. Ms. LeBreton, not unfamiliar with a good verbal scrap, fended off her attackers saying, "I will refer to a quote from Winston Churchill that applies to you people. He once said, 'There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result' "

Toronto Sun Page 27

[geoffrey]

Hicksey,

You bring up a good point. Any privledges that are extended to Quebec must also be extended to all provinces. Personally, in Alberta, I'd like to see alot more protection for provincial resource revenues, as we all know that McGuinty will keep lobbying the Federal govenrment for Alberta to pay for his economic failure as a Premier. All provinces can get something out of the deal, there is no reason to do otherwise.

[shoop]

Wasn't it Munson who tried to start the wave when the Liberals fell? Talk about a guy fighting for respect of the House of Commons.

The article is definitely adds to the case for changing the Senate. Abolition or reform is up for discussion. The status quo is an embarrassment.

I thought this was funny, another good reason to abolish the Senate as it is now.

Mustering up his old radio and TV voice, Senator Jim Munson started a question by saying, "Empty chairs leave me with an empty feeling."

Then she proceeded to answer every question that was asked in her absence to much hooting and hollering from opposition Senators, who had new questions and said Ms. LeBreton was showing disrespect for the chamber.

[Bakunin]

I beleive a constitution is the hearth of a country, it is what should be the consensus of a group of people to form a country, its the rule of the game we are all in...

Any constitutional change without an unanimous consent is a major failure for a country IMO. Also, forcing constitutional change without a strong consent and a referendum is an insult to democracy.

[Riverwind]

Any constitutional change without an unanimous consent is a major failure for a country IMO.

The current constitution was approved by a majority of MPs in the House of Commons which included most of the representatives elected by the people of Quebec.

Also, forcing constitutional change without a strong consent and a referendum is an insult to democracy.

There was no referendum for the orginal BNA Act. The tradition of holding referendums for constitutional change started in the 1990s. Changes made before then are as legimate as the original BNA Act because they were approved according to the norms of the time. That said, I agree that any future constitutional change should require a referendum.

[Bakunin]

Any constitutional change without an unanimous consent is a major failure for a country IMO.

The current constitution was approved by a majority of MPs in the House of Commons which included most of the representatives elected by the people of Quebec.

Also, forcing constitutional change without a strong consent and a referendum is an insult to democracy.

There was no referendum for the orginal BNA Act. The tradition of holding referendums for constitutional change started in the 1990s. Changes made before then are as legimate as the original BNA Act because they were approved according to the norms of the time. That said, I agree that any future constitutional change should require a referendum.

Sometime representativity doesnt mean a strong consentment. The constitution is a good sample, evry provincial government in quebec refused to sign the constitution.

I totally agree with the second segment of your reply on the BNA act. For the 1982 constitution it was supposed to be a referendum. I think it was one of the worst mistake ever from a canadian prime minister.

[gc1765]

I would be very surprised if this happened, especially with a minority government.

I think most people have given up on incorporating Quebec into the constitution after meech lake and charlottetown. I don't think people want another referendum on this issue, but I also don't think it will happen without a referendum.

[Nocrap]

I would be very surprised if this happened, especially with a minority government.

I think most people have given up on incorporating Quebec into the constitution after meech lake and charlottetown. I don't think people want another referendum on this issue, but I also don't think it will happen without a referendum.

Like most Canadians, I would love to see an end to any sessionist talks, and a workable solution to feelings of alienation by Quebec.

However, for decades, all governments offer more and more to the province to get elected or stay in power, with or without follow through. The whole thing is a mess.

If the CPC can find a workable solution, then I'm onboard; so long as it means the same for all provinces.

I wonder how the Bloc will see all this.

[scribblet]

Maybe the question is, how much is the rest of Canada willing to hand out out or over to Quebec, in order to keep them in Confederation. Where should it stop, and at what point do we just sa NO.

[Shakeyhands]

Everyone.. slope... Slope... meet everyone.

[geoffrey]

Maybe the question is, how much is the rest of Canada willing to hand out out or over to Quebec, in order to keep them in Confederation. Where should it stop, and at what point do we just sa NO.

We should have said no longer ago, Quebec shouldn't be in Canada, there is really no reason for us to hold onto this idea that Canada must be one country as it has been. We've been adding on provinces, haven't subtracted any yet.

Let's the face the reality that Canada is too big, too diverse, and too regionally focused to function under one federalist rule. Quebec has had it easy, they have a large voice in Ottawa. But for the West, we've been ruled by people that don't have a clue about life out here and what we demand from our government.

All this sillyness, no reason why we can't move to a Canada that functions like the EU with one foreign policy and currency and more independant provinces. Instantly, all the regionalism disappears, everyone is happy...

[uOttawaMan]

All I have to say is..

NIMTOO

[Riverwind]

We should have said no longer ago, Quebec shouldn't be in Canada, there is really no reason for us to hold onto this idea that Canada must be one country as it has been. We've been adding on provinces, haven't subtracted any yet.

Geoffrey, It is incredibly naive to think the country could be broken up with creating a decade or more of economic choas. If Canadians cannot agree on a constitution they have zero chance of agreeing on mutually acceptable terms of division. For better or for worse, Quebec should remain part of Canada.

All this sillyness, no reason why we can't move to a Canada that functions like the EU with one foreign policy and currency and more independent provinces. Instantly, all the regionalism disappears, everyone is happy...

The EU is a more or less dysfunctional organization with problems that makes the Canadian federation look pretty good. The EU is most definitely the wrong model for Canada. Personally, I think Harper's plan to get the feds out of areas of provincial jurisdiction is the only fix this country needs. The best part about Harper's plan is it does not require any constitutional changes or divisive referendum to implement.