[VitaminC]

hwacker hwacker:

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

$1:

Go read a book I'm not your teacher, I know the facts. Oh and pass this on to Dion.


The French lost to Britain. We setup the government. Not QUEBEC.

Nice dodge.

True, the English set up our government, after they tore down the French one.

Tore down meaning killed the french into surrender.

So when "English" is spread by the sword it's a noble and proud event, but when Islam is spread by the sword it's not? You are such a joke.

Quebec will be celebrating it's 400th Anniversary next year, Canada is just over 100 years old.

[VitaminC]

What the hell do you mean "we" set up the government. "We" are not British. My ancestors were from Scotland, and they were killed, conquered and raped by the English the same way that Quebec was. Don't include me in that "we".

[hwacker]

VitaminC VitaminC:

hwacker hwacker:

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

$1:

Go read a book I'm not your teacher, I know the facts. Oh and pass this on to Dion.


The French lost to Britain. We setup the government. Not QUEBEC.

Nice dodge.

True, the English set up our government, after they tore down the French one.

Tore down meaning killed the french into surrender.

So when "English" is spread by the sword it's a noble and proud event, but when Islam is spread by the sword it's not? You are such a joke.

Quebec will be celebrating it's 400th Anniversary next year, Canada is just over 100 years old.

1600 -1750 yeah that’s a huge difference from 2007. I know those are big numbers, are you still struggling with your GED?

[hwacker]

VitaminC VitaminC:

What the hell do you mean "we" set up the government. "We" are not British. My ancestors were from Scotland, and they were killed, conquered and raped by the English the same way that Quebec was. Don't include me in that "we".

I'm Scottish my family came here in 1714 and have no problem with the English. I guess your family got no land

[VitaminC]

hwacker hwacker:

VitaminC VitaminC:

What the hell do you mean "we" set up the government. "We" are not British. My ancestors were from Scotland, and they were killed, conquered and raped by the English the same way that Quebec was. Don't include me in that "we".

I'm Scottish my family came here in 1714 and have no problem with the English. I guess your family got no land

My family came in the 1920s or the 1930s.....I guess I'm less Canadian than you. We need someone to set up a java applet to compute how Canadian we all are.

I don't have a problem with the English. But I know that I'm not an Englishman and certainly accept none of the blame or the credit for what they have done in the past.

In Quebec they consider themselves like the Irish of Canada, because of how England treated Northern Ireland.

[hwacker]

VitaminC VitaminC:

hwacker hwacker:

VitaminC VitaminC:

What the hell do you mean "we" set up the government. "We" are not British. My ancestors were from Scotland, and they were killed, conquered and raped by the English the same way that Quebec was. Don't include me in that "we".

I'm Scottish my family came here in 1714 and have no problem with the English. I guess your family got no land

My family came in the 1920s or the 1930s.....I guess I'm less Canadian than you. We need someone to set up a java applet to compute how Canadian we all are.

I don't have a problem with the English. But I know that I'm not an Englishman and certainly accept none of the blame or the credit for what they have done in the past.

In Quebec they consider themselves like the Irish of Canada, because of how England treated Northern Ireland.

That’s an insult to the Irish right there

[ReliableIntelligence]

The first 'Parliament of Canada' was in Kingston, Ontario - as far as I know.

That doesn't change the fact that the earliest major european settlements were in Quebec (I don't count the viking settlements on the east coast as 'major', despite their historical significance - before anyone asks).

That Quebec played a significant role in Canada's founding is beyond dispute.

But I don't think that undercuts the historical role that all the provinces have had in making this country what it is. Nor can you discount the aboriginal nations, or even the various immigrant communities that have come and contributed to making our country great.

Canada is so much better than the sum of it's parts. I don't understand how anyone can look at this country and not come to that conclusion.

[RUEZ]

VitaminC VitaminC:

Quebec will be celebrating it's 400th Anniversary next year, Canada is just over 100 years old.

So what are you saying? Age before beauty?

[Clogeroo]

$1:

Yes, you (incorrectly) pointed out that the Clarity Act was an act that allows provinces to separate. You should read up on the Supreme Court decision regarding Quebec separation. Quite interesting. AS for self-determination--well, if Alberta wants to separate that would be "Alberta-determination" not "Self-determination."

No, where in the constitution it says provinces cannot leave though? But there is little to provide for a secessionist movement either. I think it would just be a matter of removing a province from the constitution as long as the government approves it then I see no reason why it couldn't happen. It is not much different then adding a province but that does have a note in the constitution but with little details how that will be done. You are also correct the Clarity Act puts the power into the supreme court over any referendum question in Quebec.

$1:

WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that, in Canada, the secession of a province, to be lawful, would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, that such an amendment would perforce require negotiations in relation to secession involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada, and that those negotiations would be governed by the principles of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and the protection of minorities;

So in order it to be lawful negotiations and an amendment must be put forward which means if these two things happen it is lawful thus provides an exist from Canada. As I said it won't all happen over night. Getting the vote would just be the first step. Although if a majority of people want to leave and it is not recognised we could just do it the old fashioned way and take off anyway.

[Always4Iggy]

Clogeroo Clogeroo:

No, where in the constitution it says provinces cannot leave though? But there is little to provide for a secessionist movement either. I think it would just be a matter of removing a province from the constitution as long as the government approves it then I see no reason why it couldn't happen. It is not much different then adding a province but that does have a note in the constitution but with little details how that will be done. You are also correct the Clarity Act puts the power into the supreme court over any referendum question in Quebec.

While this is a good point, Clog, you may also mention that Canada at present has only a PROPOSED constitution, and until every province accepts it, it remains as such.

Quebec has not.

So we have a proposed constitution and a 'try and buy' country, meanwhile we are a confederation of former British colonies. No one colony is heir to the British Empire, so no province has rights to rule Quebec any more than they have the right to rule any OTHER british colony, for instance, India.

We do hope that Quebec, having tried us, will buy Canada, but it is still a hope.

No deal done yet, despite Trudeau's 'Night of long knives'.

[ReliableIntelligence]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

While this is a good point, Clog, you may also mention that Canada at present has only a PROPOSED constitution, and until every province accepts it, it remains as such.

Quebec has not.

Quebec joined confederation on July 1, 1867, becoming subject to the Constitution Act 1867 at that time.

They did not agree to the Consitution Act 1982, and there are still some that regret that, but it doesn't make our constitution any less valid or binding on any province.

[Always4Iggy]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

While this is a good point, Clog, you may also mention that Canada at present has only a PROPOSED constitution, and until every province accepts it, it remains as such.

Quebec has not.

ReliableIntelligence ReliableIntelligence:

Quebec joined confederation on July 1, 1867, becoming subject to the Constitution Act 1867 at that time.

They did not agree to the Consitution Act 1982, and there are still some that regret that, but it doesn't make our constitution any less valid or binding on any province.

Well, explain a couple of things to me.

a.If we had a consitution act of 1867, why do we need another one in 1982?

b. When you say 'it doesn't make our constitution any less valid' are you referring to the 1867 act or the 1982 act?

c. If you are referring to the latter, then how do you explain Trudeau's 'Night of long knives', when he secretly got all the other provinces to accept the act of 1982, so that Quebec would be presented with a union of all the provinces against it? Why did they need this charade?

[1Peg]

Canadaka Canadaka:

I should just fucking ban all you seperatist fucks, you make me sick.

Ban people for having their OWN opinions, beliefs.

Ban away!


P.S.

It`s ok to talk about banning "seperatists",in Alberta, what about all the Anti- American posts here on this site?

Are you going to ban all the "haters" too? Im doubting it!

Good day.

[ReliableIntelligence]

a. The Constitution Act 1982 requested the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution, established a formula for amending the original constitutional document (which is a british act) that could be done entirely within Canada, and established the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is part of our constitution. It did not replace the 1867 Act.


b. Both. Our constitution has three parts - the Constitution Act 1867, The Constitution Act 1982, and the 'unwritten constitution' (the ever evolving body of law that surrounds the constitution). All of these are binding on Provinces that were part of the original confederation, or have joined since.

c. The supreme court ruled in the patriation reference that the federal parliament had the right to request patriation unilaterally without even seeking the consent of any of the provinces. By the letter of the law, any change to the constitution act 1867 (then known as the British North America Act, 1867) needed only to be adopted by the UK parliament.

However, the supreme court said it would be 'preferable' if a 'substantial' number of first ministers agreed to the request.

The constitutional rounds started up, but agreement was only reached when Chretien met with 9 of the 10 first ministers in the kitchen of the lord elgin hotel. The Quebec delegation was staying across the river in Hull, and Premier Levesque wasn't called about the meeting. Agreement was reached in the kitchen between the rest of the premiers and Chretien, who offered the inclusion of the 'notwithstanding clause' in return for the premiers dropping their insistance on an 'opt out' for the provinces.

Trudeau was persuaded to accept the agreement, and Levesque came the next day only to find he'd lost his allies.

Levesque (perhaps justifiably) felt betrayed, and dubbed the kitchen conference 'the night of long knives'. However, with 9 of 10 provinces on side, Trudeau requested the adoption of the Canada Act 1982 by British Parliament, which contains and ratifies the Constitution Act, 1982.

[Always4Iggy]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

While this is a good point, Clog, you may also mention that Canada at present has only a PROPOSED constitution, and until every province accepts it, it remains as such.
Quebec has not.

ReliableIntelligence ReliableIntelligence:

Quebec joined confederation on July 1, 1867, becoming subject to the Constitution Act 1867 at that time.

They did not agree to the Consitution Act 1982, and there are still some that regret that, but it doesn't make our constitution any less valid or binding on any province.

You cannot 'add back' the 1982 act to the 1867 act, since you imply that any province which has accepted the 1867 act would automatically accept the 1982 act. By that logic, then any future act is also automatically accepted. For instance, in a 2007 act, Stephen Harper could declare that French speaking people should not have voting privileges, so that they may not vote for separation.

Would that be binding on Quebec?

I think not.

I think the Supreme Court has made it clear that while the 1982 act is all encompassing and includes earlier acts and even unwritten agreements and understandings, it is not Constitution in a province till it is accepted by the province. So we have a draft act, and a 'try and buy' country, all right.

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

Well, explain a couple of things to me.

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

a.If we had a consitution act of 1867, why do we need another one in 1982?

ReliableIntelligence ReliableIntelligence:

a. The Constitution Act 1982 requested the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution, established a formula for amending the original constitutional document (which is a british act) that could be done entirely within Canada, and established the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is part of our constitution. It did not replace the 1867 Act.

The composition of the Constitution of Canada is defined in section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 as consisting of the Canada Act 1982 (including the Constitution Act, 1982), all acts and orders referred to in the schedule (including the Constitution Act, 1867), and any amendments to these documents. Effectively, this includes all British legislation that predates or modifies the British North America Act. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the list is not exhaustive and includes unwritten doctrines as well. Nevertheless, almost all constitutional jurisprudence focuses on the Constitution Act, 1867, the Constitution Act, 1982, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the so-called unwritten constitution.

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

b. When you say 'it doesn't make our constitution any less valid' are you referring to the 1867 act or the 1982 act?

ReliableIntelligence ReliableIntelligence:

b. Both. Our constitution has three parts - the Constitution Act 1867, The Constitution Act 1982, and the 'unwritten constitution' (the ever evolving body of law that surrounds the constitution). All of these are binding on Provinces that were part of the original confederation, or have joined since.

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

c. If you are referring to the latter, then how do you explain Trudeau's 'Night of long knives', when he secretly got all the other provinces to accept the act of 1982, so that Quebec would be presented with a union of all the provinces against it? Why did they need this charade?

ReliableIntelligence ReliableIntelligence:

c. The supreme court ruled in the patriation reference that the federal parliament had the right to request patriation unilaterally without even seeking the consent of any of the provinces. By the letter of the law, any change to the constitution act 1867 (then known as the British North America Act, 1867) needed only to be adopted by the UK parliament.

However, the supreme court said it would be 'preferable' if a 'substantial' number of first ministers agreed to the request.

The constitutional rounds started up, but agreement was only reached when Chretien met with 9 of the 10 first ministers in the kitchen of the lord elgin hotel. The Quebec delegation was staying across the river in Hull, and Premier Levesque wasn't called about the meeting. Agreement was reached in the kitchen between the rest of the premiers and Chretien, who offered the inclusion of the 'notwithstanding clause' in return for the premiers dropping their insistance on an 'opt out' for the provinces.

Trudeau was persuaded to accept the agreement, and Levesque came the next day only to find he'd lost his allies.

Levesque (perhaps justifiably) felt betrayed, and dubbed the kitchen conference 'the night of long knives'. However, with 9 of 10 provinces on side, Trudeau requested the adoption of the Canada Act 1982 by British Parliament, which contains and ratifies the Constitution Act, 1982.

Sorry, but I do not agree. It cannot be a constitution unless it has 10 out of 10 provinces. As I said above, 9 english provinces can gang up against one french speaking province, and that cannot be morally right.

Trudeau loved Canada, and was willing to bulldoze almost half the Quebecers into the Constitution. In a similar way, Dion bulldozed through the Clarity Act, which made a seccessionist referendum close to impossible.

One day, when Canada is a legally proper country, and our Constitution is legally binding, these two persons will be hailed as the true creators of Canada.

But that day is not yet here. Today, I think Canada is a 'Try Before You Buy' country, and its constitution is a Draft Constitution.

It is meaningless in terms of constitutional law world wide that a supreme court can decide that it can be ratified by a 'substantial number of first ministers' or anyone else. As each day passes, and as constitutional law becomes more and more sophisticated world wide, such a ruling of the supreme court becomes more decadent and less meaningful.

I may point out that even Scotland is reconsidering separating from Britain! And the constitutional documents written up to bind Scotland are far more metallic than the hoops that bind Quebec to us.