Constitution, Charter, Meech Lake & All That

[August1991]

On the 25th anniversary, the saga continues. Thread continues from here.

The difference concerns compensation. In some cases, a province has the right to opt out and in some cases, the federal government would have to compensate the provincial government for opting out (in lieu of receiving programme services).

Opting out is the Canadian version of a veto. Rather than hold up the entire country, a provincial government could opt out of the change. That's what the notwithstanding clause does.

Is that not what we have in the Constitution?

What exactly did Levesque want in its stead?

The current constitution only offers compensation if a province (ie. Quebec) opts out of a policy concerning education or culture.

In a sense, Quebec lost its veto - although it's not clear that it ever had one.

[Charles Anthony]

Thanks for that.

In a sense, Quebec lost its veto - although it's not clear that it ever had one.

So, Levesque (along with Newfoundland and Manitoba at one point) was negotiating for compensation on all policies. From the sounds of it, they wanted a decentralization of the federal government -- what I would call a breath of fresh air -- or what others may call a sovereignty-association whatever.

[Leafless]

In a sense, Quebec lost its veto - although it's not clear that it ever had one.

Your right, Quebec never had a veto.

"The late-night bargaining included another change: the deal dropped Levesque's prized opting-out clause, which would have allowed the province to opt out of shared federal-provincial programs but receive equivalent funds to set up its own programs.

Levesque, across the river in Hull, was not informed of the unfolding events. When he arrived late for a premiers’ breakfast the next morning, he found that a new deal had been drafted during the night.

Lévesque was incensed.

"We had been betrayed, in secret, by men who hadn’t hesitated to tear up their own signatures, and without their even taking the trouble to warn us," Lévesque said, though he, too, had broken their pact by agreeing to a referendum.

The new deal was signed by Trudeau and nine of the premiers that morning. Only Lévesque refused to endorse it. Lévesque didn’t say anything. He just got up from his chair, spun around, and walked out."

http://history.cbc.ca/history/?MIval=EpisC...id=3〈=E

So, what is the purpose of this thread as we all know what Levesque really wanted was separation?

[Charles Anthony]

So, what is the purpose of this thread as we all know what Levesque really wanted was separation?

In my mind, this thread serves the purpose of showing how good the Constitution COULD have been for all Canadians.

[August1991]

The new deal was signed by Trudeau and nine of the premiers that morning. Only Lévesque refused to endorse it. Lévesque didn’t say anything. He just got up from his chair, spun around, and walked out."

Claude Ryan's Liberals also refused to sign the agreement. No government in Quebec since then has signed either. Nor could it.

Meech Lake was an attempt to get a federalist Quebec government to agree.

Pierre Trudeau always claimed that the 74 of the 75 federal MPs from Quebec who agreed to the patriation were sufficient. Well, Trudeau would say something like that, wouldn't he. The fact is that no English Canadian Prime Minister would have done what Trudeau did - adopt a Constitutional change without the approval of any political party in Quebec.

Leafless, it is ironic that you depend on Trudeau to support your argument.

[August1991]

So, what is the purpose of this thread as we all know what Levesque really wanted was separation?

No, Levesque wanted a mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association. When he didn't get that, in part because Trudeau had promised a renewed Confederation during the referendum campaign, Levesque negotiated in good faith to renew Canada's confederation. Seven provincial governments initially agreed with Levesque's proposals until that is, the night of the long knives.

[Leafless]

So, what is the purpose of this thread as we all know what Levesque really wanted was separation?

No, Levesque wanted a mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association. When he didn't get that, in part because Trudeau had promised a renewed Confederation during the referendum campaign, Levesque negotiated in good faith to renew Canada's confederation. Seven provincial governments initially agreed with Levesque's proposals until that is, the night of the long knives.

Trudeau couldn't promise what the other premiers of Canadian provinces did not want.

Levesque was acting like a spoiled little child as what the premiers agreed to was to simply to repatriate the constitution without opening it up and making any changes at that time. He could not even agree to that and why could he not realize there are other provinces in Canada just as important as Quebec who have just as much voice as Quebec concerning any constitutional changes and that Trudeau was powerless to do anything about it.

A little of the point, but a hotel is the last place to wrangle out important decision making, concerning our constitution.

[Bakunin]

The Meech Lake accord would be the minimum requirement for me to start to feel as a part of canada. I don't want to associate myself to a trudeauist country.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Pierre Trudeau always claimed that the 74 of the 75 federal MPs from Quebec who agreed to the patriation were sufficient. Well, Trudeau would say something like that, wouldn't he. The fact is that no English Canadian Prime Minister would have done what Trudeau did - adopt a Constitutional change without the approval of any political party in Quebec.

The night of the long knives was definitely f*cked up.

I spoke to somebody in the room when the deal was agreed to.

Basically Levesque wasn't going to sign anything. The PM and the nine other Premiers recognized that. They thought it was better to get a deal without Quebec than to leave without a deal.

I personally thought that wasn't a reason to justify the bad deal that was struck. The constitutional headaches of the decade or so following the night of the long knives is evidence of what a bad deal it truly was...

[August1991]

The Meech Lake accord would be the minimum requirement for me to start to feel as a part of canada. I don't want to associate myself to a trudeauist country.

Bakunin, I agree.

It's rather simple, when you think about it.

Quebec is not a province like the others. This is patently obvious. Meech Lake is a minimum but I would go so far as recognizing Quebec as an independent state associated with the Canadian provinces.

As an adult, I have always felt that we the people should define our government institutions rather than having the government define us as a people. I never liked Trudeau or Hebert because they believed in the perfectibility of humans. They wanted to change people. (Trudeau wanted to make himself into something other through discipline.) Levesque wanted Quebecers to do better but he accepted people as they are.

We are what we are and our governments should be organized as we are. We create governments; they don't create us.

There are some people in Quebec who detest the English and they vote for the PQ out of hatred or frustration. They truly want revenge. But most simply want to be what they are and have a society as they wish with a government doing what they desire. In Quebec, this would be so simple to achieve while remaining part of Canada. English-speaking Canada will have a country from sea to sea and Quebec will have a country too. It's not hard to imagine. Two countries in one country. Why not?

[August1991]

Basically Levesque wasn't going to sign anything.

That's the Trudeau/federal Liberal line.

Levesque, at that point, would have accepted a Meech Lake type agreement. But Trudeau would have none of it. As I posted above, no English Canadian PM could have done what Trudeau did. The seven premiers went along with Trudeau, and the Night of the Long Knives occurred.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Levesque, at that point, would have accepted a Meech Lake type agreement. But Trudeau would have none of it. As I posted above, no English Canadian PM could have done what Trudeau did. The seven premiers went along with Trudeau, and the Night of the Long Knives occurred.

Fair enough, but there is a reason that Meech Lake was so reviled in public opinion.

That is probably the reason why we won't see Quebec sign onto the constitution.

*distinct society* *nation* use whatever term you want but The Rest of Canada won't accept special status for Quebec enshrined in the Constitution.

[August1991]

Bob Rae blathers about Meech Lake and all that:

Question: Do you think that Quebec constitutes a nation?

Answer: Yeah. Nation, people, distinct society. It's all the same. It's just words. It's a set of words. It means that you recognize the distinctiveness of the collectivity of quebec. It is something we should have done in 1985 in Meech and in 1992 with Charlottetown. And something we should be doing. Harper's problem is that he fought against Meech and he fought viscerally against Charlottetown. So you know I have always thought the love affair between the people of Quebec and Stephen Harper made less sense than, you know, than Britney Spears's first marriage. None of these things make sense to me. It's not based on any compatibility or affection and I think that will become clear as time goes on. I think he represents a series of contradictions on Quebec. And I can tell you that, as someone who fought hard for Meech and Charlottetown, I can tell you who the opponents [were] and what kind of arguments [they] were using and what their essential view was of the French fact of Canada was. Not very generous. And Mr. Harper has been playing with that base for a long long time.

Question: Would a Rae government reopen the constitution?

Answer: I'd answer that this way. I would say that the file is always open because we still have unfinished business as my friend and mentor Peter Russell writes, he once described it as an unfinished odyssey. I think that's right, it is an unfinished odyssey. The practical political question, the question for political judgment is what is the right moment to take steps and to try to get it done. Right now you'd have to say it is going to be difficult. You'd have to say why would you think you could do it now if you could not do it in '92? What have we learned from Meech? What have we learned from Charlottetown? What lessons have we drawn from that experience and from patriation? That when we've got something we can do — because of the referendum realities in the provinces you would really have to think about how exactly can we do it as we go forward. And I would have to think long and hard about how it would be done. But to say to me is the file still open, absolutely it is still open.

Paul Wells

[jbg]

The night of the long knives was definitely f*cked up.

The real "Night of Long Knives" was June 30, 1934, when Hitler consolidated his power by having the head of the "Brown Shirts" killed, allegedly because he was gay. The misuse of that term in other contexts is somewhat, though mildly, offensive.

[jdobbin]

The real "Night of Long Knives" was June 30, 1934, when Hitler consolidated his power by having the head of the "Brown Shirts" killed, allegedly because he was gay. The misuse of that term in other contexts is somewhat, though mildly, offensive.

It isn't the first time an historical event as borrowed a word or phrase. I seem to remember Holocaust being adopted by a group of people to describe what happened to them in World War II.

It was a phrase adopted from the Armenian Holocaust of 1915-1917.

And before that, it was the Greeks who used it.

So does someone own that word now?

[jbg]

It (the "Night of Long Knives") was a phrase adopted from the Armenian Holocaust of 1915-1917.

And before that, it was the Greeks who used it.

So does someone own that word now?

The Armenian and Jewish Holocausts deserve the ownership of that term. Giving Nazi terms over for mere political maneuverings among a bunch of @ssholes (i.e. Trudeau, Levesque, Chretien, et. al.). cheapens the event.

[jdobbin]

The Armenian and Jewish Holocausts deserve the ownership of that term. Giving Nazi terms over for mere political maneuverings among a bunch of @ssholes (i.e. Trudeau, Levesque, Chretien, et. al.). cheapens the event.

It wasn't me who came up with the term. It was Levesque. He tried to be proactive with words. He once called Anglos in Quebec "White Rhodesians."

As far as I know, no Liberal came up with the term so any quote you see is courtesy of Levesque.

[jbg]

The Armenian and Jewish Holocausts deserve the ownership of that term. Giving Nazi terms over for mere political maneuverings among a bunch of @ssholes (i.e. Trudeau, Levesque, Chretien, et. al.). cheapens the event.

It wasn't me who came up with the term. It was Levesque. He tried to be proactive with words. He once called Anglos in Quebec "White Rhodesians."

As far as I know, no Liberal came up with the term so any quote you see is courtesy of Levesque.

I never knew that. Thanks for the info on the source of the term. I had always found it offensive. From Levesque, doubly so.

His reference to Anglos in Quebec as "White Rhodesians" is also quite offensive. Does he believe that the French actually built very much in Montreal, for example?

[jdobbin]

I never knew that. Thanks for the info on the source of the term. I had always found it offensive. From Levesque, doubly so.

His reference to Anglos in Quebec as "White Rhodesians" is also quite offensive. Does he believe that the French actually built very much in Montreal, for example?

Montreal was and is an English/French effort in terms of being a cosmopolitan city. It has always been the more resistant to separatist forces.

Levesque ignored critics when it came to racially and ethnically charged language. He was probably one of the most emotional leaders the country has ever seen.

[August1991]

In response to Kimmy's unanswered query (from another thread) and given Bob Rae's good quote above, I'm resurrecting this thread with a linked post:

Is there a parallel between the response this event elicits in Quebec to the response the NEP elicits in Alberta? By which I mean, is this a show-pony that a political party can trot out at its convenience to make a large section of the voting public feel a wave of anti-federal, anti-Liberal nausea?

-k

{the ghost of eureka1891 arrives, rattles chains, and moans "The provincialists, children! The provincialists!" ...then hovers off to reminisce about the time he debated Haultain at the Bagbeigh Theatre in Upper Yorkton before the great fire of '27. Hitchcock shakes his head disapprovingly.}

I agree.

IMV, the perception in Quebec of the "Night of the Long Knives" has very much the same regional weight as the NEP in Alberta. The comparison is apt.

Like the NEP, the Night of the Long Knives (la Nuit des longs couteaux) is a talisman referring to injustice. A federal politician refers to a "knife "in Quebec at her or his peril. Provincial politicians use the term when necessary - and everyone understands the reference. I suspect in Alberta it's the same.

Outside of Alberta, many Ontarians (Canadians?) view the NEP differently. (The non-Albertans usually know nothing about the NEP, or argue that the NEP was really good for Canada or claim that Albertans are in error about the NEP's effect on the economy.)

Similarly, outside of Quebec, many Canadians view the Night of the Long Knives differently. (The non-Quebecers usually know nothing about it, or argue that the Constitution was really good for Canada or claim that the Night was a non-event.)

Ironically, many Albertans would agree that Canada's natural resources should benefit all Canadians just like many Quebecers would agree that the Charter of Rights is a defining statement of Canada.

[jbg]

August 1991, the problem with the "Night of Long Knives", as I see it, is that it delayed rather than solved a problem; Quebec's role in a federated Canada. Since it wasn't consensual, it did nothing to further unity. And since, as a result of the "notwithstanding" clause and political realities Canada's writ, including the Charter, effectively does not run in Quebec, the enactment of the Charter accomplished nothing for Quebeckers.

As to the NEP, it aggravated already serious losses from the 1981-6 drop in energy prices. The fact that it was unconstitutional didn't help matters. What really hurt was the cold calculation that Albertan's votes didn't matter since the higher-population Ontario-Quebec axis could ram anything they wanted down the West's throat, whatever the role of the constitution. I used the small "c" in "constitution deliberately, realizing that it is a patchwork of the BNA Act, the Quebec Act, the Westminister Act of 1931, the Charter, common law and other sources.

[Leafless]

His reference to Anglos in Quebec as "White Rhodesians" is also quite offensive. Does he believe that the French actually built very much in Montreal, for example?

Quebecers were often referred to by different Quebec sources as 'white niggers of Canada'.