Meech Lake Part II

[August1991]

As summarized by Maple Leaf Web, Robert Bourassa posed five key requests so that the Quebec government would sign the Constitution:

In June 1985, Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa laid down the five basic constitutional demands that would need to be met in order for Quebec to sign the Constitution Act, 1982:

• constitutional recognition of Quebec as a distinct society;
  
• a Constitutional veto for Quebec over constitutional change;
  
• a role for Quebec in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada;
  
• a constitutional guarantee of increased powers in the field of immigration; and,
  
• a limitation of the federal spending power.
  

Harper has arguably and de facto admitted one of these requests (distinct society) when he passed the resolution recognizing the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada. Harper seems to be getting ready to assent to another of these five: a limit to the federal spending power. Quebec now has control over many aspects of immigration to Quebec.

The others would require constitutional amendments and they would probably be controversial simply for that reason alone. For some reason, Canadians see red when they see the word "constitution". One has the impression that they fear someone is fiddling with their birthright.

It is noteworthy that all three final Liberal leadership candidates were in favour of Meech Lake.

As Ontario premier, Rae was a vociferous defender of Meech. This is how the Canadian Encyclopedia describes Dion:

Dion says he would never have needed to come to Ottawa had it not been for the chain of events Meech Lake set in motion. He thinks it would have been worthwhile to pass the accord, especially the distinct society clause, as a "gesture of recognition" towards Quebec. But as for the dire warning that the country was doomed if the accord failed, he has made it a personal mission to make it more difficult for any future politician to raise the fear that a breakup is imminent.

Here's how Andrew Coyne (ever the Ontarian centrist) describes Ignatieff's position on Meech:

Now that ol' debbil deux nations, which held the Conservative party in its spell for the better part of three decades, not to be expunged until the party itself had been extinguished and reconstructed, has suddenly reappeared, this time in the person of the front-running candidate for Liberal leader. Only perhaps I should say plusieurs nations, or better yet beaucoup de nations, or even centaines de nations. For it isn't only Quebec that Michael Ignatieff proposes should be constitutionally recognized as a "nation," but also aboriginal groups -- sorry, "the indigenous nations of Canada" -- at last count some 600 in all.

There's no Trudeau around to call any one of these guys a weakling. (There's only Coyne and he doesn't have quite the same stature or following.)

-----

Can Harper ignore this? No, he can't.

The BQ and the PQ are now using the successful argument that all these Tory Quebecers going to Ottawa (Bernier, Blackwood, Verner, Lebel etc) will soon face the same result as Mulroney (and Bouchard) faced in Meech: The intransigeance of English Canada. Remember that the victory of the PQ in 1994 came after the collapse of Meech and the 1995 referendum also.

When Quebecers voted to have (now) 11 Conservative MPs in Ottawa, they were stating their trust in this enterprise called Canada. Canadians outside Quebec should realize that the Quebec National Assembly unanimously rejected the Constitutional amendments of 1982. Historically, Canada has always found a way to compromise and include everyone.

I think Harper has the political acumen (and the experience of Mulroney) to steer the government through the shoals of constitutional reform. He will have to do it if not in this upcoming mandate, the next one after if he can get one. I would hope that Dion would still be around to negotiate this.

If Harper fails on this, or even ignores it, then we'll be back to the division of the Conservative Party into two wings (BQ and Reform) and a certain rise in sovereignist sentiment in Quebec. It is worth noting that Mario Dumont stood beside Parizeau on the Yes committee platform in 1995.

Edited October 7, 2007 by August1991

[geoffrey]

Realistically, Quebec cannot have a veto. It cannot have a say in Supreme Court justices.

To do so, it would require all other provinces to take a subservient role to Quebec's mighty interests. It's unacceptable and would never pass. Quebec is, as usual, beter off on it's own in this regard. The sooner they seperate, the better.

[August1991]

Realistically, Quebec cannot have a veto. It cannot have a say in Supreme Court justices.

To do so, it would require all other provinces to take a subservient role to Quebec's mighty interests. It's unacceptable and would never pass. Quebec is, as usual, beter off on it's own in this regard. The sooner they seperate, the better.

At present, by tradition, three of the nine Supreme Court justices come from the civil code system (and the six others come from the common law system). [bTW, Canada is one of the few jurisdictions in the world where these two methods of law so closely co-exist. To my knowledge, McGill is the only law school in theworld that teaches both. It's a great strength. German lawyers and American lawyers, for example, simply cannot understand each other.]

IOW, there are in effect three Quebec justices on the Supreme Court. It would not be out of line to vet new appointments through the Quebec government - or request that the Quebec government suggest names and then the federal justice minister could choose. (I think that's what Meech proposed.) This could be enlarged to include the other provincial governments.

I think Bourassa's intent was to make explicit in the constitution that the Supreme Court would always three Civil Code justices.

The veto is another matter.

Trudeau offered to formalize the Quebec government veto in Victoria in 1971. Bourassa, advised by Claude Morin, balked. Then, leading up to the 1982 changes, it was conveniently "discovered" that the Quebec government never had a veto.

Of the four European languages that crossed the Atlantic, Quebec is the largest jurisdiction in the New World where people principally speak French - and in some ways, it's the only jurisdiction that matters. Moreover, Quebec is like a small Finland on the side of a large continent where everyone else speaks mostly (and only) one language.

As a minimum, if Quebec is to continue to be part of this political entity called Canada, then the Quebec government should have the right to say no to a major change in how we organize ourselves. This doesn't mean French Canadians would have power greater than their numbers - it merely means that if Canada wants to do something significant and contrary to the interests of the French in North America, the government of Quebec should be able to say no.

Reaching back into Canadian history after 1759, this is how - much to our credit - we have conducted our affairs.

Edited October 7, 2007 by August1991

[geoffrey]

It would not be out of line to vet new appointments through the Quebec government - or request that the Quebec government suggest names and then the federal justice minister could choose. (I think that's what Meech proposed.) This could be enlarged to include the other provincial governments.

The 3 of 9 is reasonable only because of necessecity of expertise. In a real country, Quebec would have been forced to adopt common law (or Canada would have adopted the much superior civil law). If Quebec appoints 3 out of the 9 justices, then Alberta and BC together should appoint an equal amount. That only leaves 3 for the remainder of the country, Ontario might be a little ticked.

It's unreasonable for a small minority to hold such sway on critical areas just because they choose to be different. There is no way in which that should be acceptable to Canadians. I would certainly move closer to the seperatist ideals out here if we were so democratically disadvantaged.

I think Bourassa's intent was to make explicit in the constitution that the Supreme Court would always three Civil Code justices.

No need to make it explicit. It's needed because you need judges that understand how it works at a very high level.

The veto is another matter.

Trudeau offered to formalize the Quebec government veto in Victoria in 1971. Bourassa, advised by Claude Morin, balked. Then, leading up to the 1982 changes, it was conveniently "discovered" that the Quebec government never had a veto.

It should not have a veto. That is, unless all provinces had a veto.

Quebec should have no special status when it comes to making democratic choices.

As a minimum, if Quebec is to continue to be part of this political entity called Canada, then the Quebec government should have the right to say no to a major change in how we organize ourselves. This doesn't mean French Canadians would have power greater than their numbers - it merely means that if Canada wants to do something significant and contrary to the interests of the French in North America, the government of Quebec should be able to say no.

And if, by chance, the government wants to do something contrary to the interests of Western Canada, we should be able to stand up and say no, can't happen. I'm sure we would have loved the chance to veto the NEP.

Reaching back into Canadian history after 1759, this is how - much to our credit - we have conducted our affairs.

No reason not to consider Quebec's opinion. Lots of reason why Quebec shouldn't be at a privledged position to express it.

[Visionseeker]

If one looks at constitutional talks as occurring in a Quebec-Ottawa vacuum, it might be easy to think that such “demands” can be satisfied. However history shows that the enterprise is not confined to those two actors and necessarily involves all other provinces.

If we held such discussions today, I would strongly suspect that BC, SK, MB, ON, NB, PEI, NS and NL would not be warm to capping federal spending powers if they were to accurately represent the wishes of their own populations. Polls consistently show that these provinces hold strong majorities in favour of Ottawa retaining such power.

I also think geoffrey accurately expresses the difficulty with the whole judges question. The perception that one province has an ability to influence a third of the national High-Court’s composition is simply untenable. But more importantly, it undermines the concept of judicial independence by creating an implicitly subservient relationship of provincial political pleasure serving as the mechanism whereby a Quebec judge can ascend to the Court.

As for a Quebec veto, good luck with that. It was possible 40 years ago, but not anymore.

But this only speaks to what we would expect to be on the table based on the history of Meech. And while these alone present grounds for disagreement, we must readily expect that other provincial actors might have their own demands.

Alberta could demand that Ottawa surrender its role in environmental regulation. NL & BC could call for Ottawa’s exit in controlling the fisheries and offshore resources. Ontario might advance that a single federal financial markets regulator be entrenched and “appropriately” located in Toronto. Then there’s the matter of senate reform. In fact, the list of provincially advanced issues would be mind-numbing.

Beyond this, non-provincial actors are sure to weigh-in. Aboriginal groups will advance a series of demands; Women’s groups will have their own; and community interests groups in both the pro and con camps in the reasonable accommodation debate will seek their own aims.

If anarchy is what Harper wants, then by all means let him entertain constitutional reforms.

[August1991]

And if, by chance, the government wants to do something contrary to the interests of Western Canada, we should be able to stand up and say no, can't happen. I'm sure we would have loved the chance to veto the NEP.

The NEP was money. Language is a matter of breath.

Geoff, let me try to put you in the picture.

The NEP occurred about 30 years ago. Albertans soon overcame the NEP.

People in Quebec have a different view of 1759 - something that happened about 250 years ago. Given the situation on the continent and history, a better guarantee is required. And it's not about the price of oil. It's about life itself.

Harper would be wise to approach a Meech Lake Part II with trepidation, but with strong support in English Canada. Harper is not Scottish, but he should be practical like Macdonald in putting this country back together. Unlike Macdonald, Harper should not abuse his construction.

Edited October 7, 2007 by August1991

[Leafless]

The NEP's Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax (PGRT) instituted a double-taxation mechanism that did not apply to other commodities, such as gold and copper.

The NEP heightened distrust of the federal government in Western Canada, especially in Alberta. Many Albertans believed that the NEP was an intrusion of the federal government into an area of provincial jurisdiction.

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

Quebec being in the energy business was left alone with its hydro electric projects (even though hydro electricity is classified differently than oil it should nevertheless be taxed) to export and fully profit from the sale of hydro energy to the U.S.

The federal government never gave Albert a chance to be a key player in the aerospace industry.

Alberta was not allowed to compete in the transcontinental line dominated by Montreal based Trans Canada Airlines also known as State owned Air-Canada. all Western airlines were eventually devoured by Air-Canada.

It's true Alberta never had much of an aerospace manufacturing sector. But how could it? The industry was joined at the hip with Ottawa from day one, and taxpayers poured tens of billions into companies like Bombardier and Canadair in Montreal and deHavilland in Toronto, while hinterland outfits like Spar and Cascade fought over the crumbs. And when the crumbs got too big, like the CF-18 maintenance contract awarded to Winnipeg's Bristol Aerospace in 1986, the federal cabinet ordered it relocated to Montreal. In 2002, Quebec manufacturers accounted for 54% of Canadian aerospace and defence production. Ontario had a 31% share, while Alberta had 2.1%. In terms of aerospace research and development spending, Quebec and Ontario accounted for 99%.

Its a fact August, Alberta was not treated like Quebec by the Fed's, a small province that could also have used federal help and Quebec up to now was left alone to profit from tax payers initiatives and why shouldn't Alberta.

http://www.albertaventure.com/abventure_47...tml?doc_id=6744

[Keepitsimple]

This topic was initiated with a reference to Robert Bourassa's "demands" back in 1985. Personally, I don't think that Harper will start any formal process like Charlottetown or Meech. I think he'll slowly but surely make incremental changes that will continue to make Quebec feel more comfortable within confederation - in a spirit of fairness to other provinces. The "Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada" is a perfect example - it doesn't really impact other provinces but it has great meaning for Quebecers. I believe that Harper would like to use this incrementalism to create conditions - over a long period of time - whereby a Quebec premier, on behalf of Quebecers, asks to initiate a process of Constitutional reconciliation. This would only occur at a time when incremental changes had already taken effect and the majority of the older generation of "old stock" Francophones had passed on or lessened their influence. It's really a change of attitude between the Federal and Quebec governments. Gilles Duceppe phrased it accurately when he said that the former Liberal government had a "Father knows best" attitude - a heavy-handed centralist approach. That approach has been replaced with one of obvious respect for provincial areas of responsibility - and make no mistake - that attitude adjustment has had a profound effect on Quebecers' view of Federalism. Liberals still cannot accept this. It'll take time for everything to congeal - I'd bet anywhere from 10 to 15 years - slow and steady.

On a related point, the Liberals used to be viewed as the party that could hold the country together. It's obvious they will not get their act together before the next election. Quebec has totally rejected the Liberal Party. If the Liberal Party somehow gets back into power in the next election, it would be like the Rest of Canada smacking Quebec in the face. That's why it's important for Liberals to have a fairly long walk in the wilderness - so they can come to grips with the reality of how Canada and Quebec can strengthen the federation. As they stand now, Liberals are yesterday's party.

[Leafless]

I think he'll slowly but surely make incremental changes that will continue to make Quebec feel more comfortable within confederation - in a spirit of fairness to other provinces. The "Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada" is a perfect example - it doesn't really impact other provinces but it has great meaning for Quebecers.

Separatist groups in Quebec will continue to use 'nation' according to their own definition no matter what Mr. Harper says.

QUEBEC - A group of "young patriots" is asking Quebecers to vote online for the greatest "traitor" to the Quebec nation -- both Liberal leaders, in Quebec and Ottawa, are on the hot seat.

The contest is a mockery of the search for the greatest Canadian launched by CBC in 2004.

The organizers say the non-scientific and humorous poll is a way to counterbalance the shortlist of the CBC that they say "hailed Canadians who despised Quebec's nation, such as Don Cherry and Mordecai Richler."

Oh sure, using 'nation' as in the sense of a country and as if no one is allowed to poke fun at Quebecers or their politics.

The real traitor in this contest should have been George Etienne Cartier (one of the Quebec Fathers of Confederation) should of insisted with dealing with no other country but France.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...b0-87705ce6d4e8

Just like the recent sign controversy outside Quebec city reading, 'Welcome to the National capital."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ca...67-7ef280341d6b

One must ask the question, 'why do Canadians continue to tolerate all of this'?

Edited October 8, 2007 by Leafless

[Keepitsimple]

Separatist groups in Quebec will continue to use 'nation' according to their own definition no matter what Mr. Harper says.

You're missing the point. My example of "Quebecois as a nation" as part of Harper's incremental approach is winning over, if not converting "soft" separatists. Of course there will always be die-hard zeolots - they are only going to go away as they die off.

[Leafless]

You're missing the point. My example of "Quebecois as a nation" as part of Harper's incremental approach is winning over, if not converting "soft" separatists. Of course there will always be die-hard zeolots - they are only going to go away as they die off.

And what is that, approx. 50% of Quebec's voting population?

[Keepitsimple]

And what is that, approx. 50% of Quebec's voting population?

Best estimates are that die-hard separatists are only about 20% of the population....personally, I think that's on the high side because of all the baloney that they've been fed by the Bloc and the PQ. The baloney is starting to go mouldy.

[fellowtraveller]

Can Harper ignore this? No, he can't

He can and he will.

Another OP from the guy who claims Canada does not understand Quebec, while demonstrating he hasn't much clue about the rest of the country.

[Leafless]

Best estimates are that die-hard separatists are only about 20% of the population....personally, I think that's on the high side because of all the baloney that they've been fed by the Bloc and the PQ. The baloney is starting to go mouldy.

Separatist ideologies are associated with Quebec nationalistic aspirations.

Threaten their nationalism and they become instantaneously, separatist.

Harper will be towing a dangerous line and one that should not be tolerated in this country as it politically discriminates against the rest of Canada's provinces.

[fellowtraveller]

Separatist ideologies are associated with Quebec nationalistic aspirations.

Threaten their nationalism and they become instantaneously, separatist.

Harper will be towing a dangerous line and one that should not be tolerated in this country as it politically discriminates against the rest of Canada's provinces.

We have a special word for that 'line' in Canada.

We call it 'tradition' or 'politics as usual'.

[Leafless]

We have a special word for that 'line' in Canada.

Who the hell is "we" , or are you one of the ones that believe in a total lack of democracy other than the privilege of voting for your MP?

We call it 'tradition' or 'politics as usual'.

NOT IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE CONSERVATIVE AND NOT FROM QUEBEC or at least, please supply proof, that I am wrong, which in turn if you don't supply proof, will prove YOU ARE WRONG!

[August1991]

This topic was initiated with a reference to Robert Bourassa's "demands" back in 1985. Personally, I don't think that Harper will start any formal process like Charlottetown or Meech. I think he'll slowly but surely make incremental changes that will continue to make Quebec feel more comfortable within confederation - in a spirit of fairness to other provinces. The "Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada" is a perfect example - it doesn't really impact other provinces but it has great meaning for Quebecers.

I agree too that Harper will approach this slowly but at some point, he is going to have to make a move for constitutional change of some sort. Edited October 10, 2007 by August1991