I scanned the CAQ's proposed "Constitution of Quebec" and it is turgid reading. It proposes to rename of the Lieutenant Governor as "Officer of Quebec" and make that person appointable by the Premier of Quebec. Tudeau Sr. tried that federally in the late 1970's.
You mean PET wanted to change the title "Governor General" to something else, and make the appointment of that person purely a Canadian affair?
Yes, to be called the "First Canadian" combined with an abolition of the Monarchy. It led to the "Dickey Hatfield like the Queen" clause in the 1982 Constitution Act.
Yes, to be called the "First Canadian" combined with an abolition of the Monarchy. It led to the "Dickey Hatfield like the Queen" clause in the 1982 Constitution Act.
Thanks. I had never heard it confirmed that Pierre Trudeau pondered full republicanism, but I've always thought it woulda made sense, given his lese-majesete gestures against the monarchy, eg. the pirouette, not to mention the modern Liberal Party's more serious movements away from British identity, eg. Mackenzie King mouthing off at Imperial Conferences(*), whole-hog enforcement of the Nickel Resolution, the Suez Crisis, the new flag, and, of course, the Charter.
(*) For confused non-Canadians, "King" was his surname, not his title.
This particular move, which I regard as part of the adolescent cleverness school of republicanism, still leaves the Lieutenant Governor in place as this is both a federal and a provincial office. Mind you, many premiers across Canada have wondered if there be a way for the Lt-Gov to be their appointment, if one be necessary at all-- Premier as Supreme Duce is a popular fantasy among party leaders everywhere-- Legault, Smith and Ford are not the only offenders.
The document is unclear as to the roots of constitutional authority in Québec, perhaps assuming that the will of the national assembly is the expression of the will of the nation. It likes to deal with federal authority by assuming it's not there.
Constitutional trivia nerds might like to know that BC is the only Canadian province with a formal constitution (since 1996). Others must make do with a compilation of orders in council, federal legislation etc. Treaties with the First Nations are a federal matter, but often with implications on the exercise of provincial authority.
I'm not so sure about that. Quebec and Ontario have specific sections of the Constitution Act, 1867 as both provincial governments had to be set up. What goes over the head of most people (Quebec lawyers are big offenders on this) is that such amendments do not affect or bind the federal government or indeed the interpretation of the rest of the document.
It also purports to disallow the Federal Government from acquiring property in Quebec by allowing Quebec to preempt the sale. That passage alone will give it an express ticket to the Supreme Court. Which may have been the point
I'm not so sure about that. Quebec and Ontario have specific sections of the Constitution Act, 1867 as both provincial governments had to be set up. What goes over the head of most people (Quebec lawyers are big offenders on this) is that such amendments do not affect or bind the federal government or indeed the interpretation of the rest of the document.
While these provisions are essential, they are not stand-alone documents, and in the case of Québec, are part of a parcel (maybe even a cascade) of constitutional items from Cardinal Richelieu's Ordinance to the Capitulations of Montréal etc etc. Manitoba, of course, has its own foundation act from 1870 as do Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1905, but they as well have a pacquet of measures which together support their constitutions, such as their legislature acts and the lieutenant-governors' instructions.
But perhaps we're arguing about nomenclature...
I think that the Legault initiative would have more solid ground if he had assembled a drafting committee of the Assembly or, even better, a more broadly gathered one. This would have ironed out some of the ... unevenness... of the proposal. But he's never been a fan of anyone else's opinion.
At the risk of channeling Dennis Denuto, the vibe of the thing seems to be that Quebec should be able to opt out of any federal legislation it doesn’t like, especially that pesky Charter of Rights thing. That and creating a pseudo-court appointed by politicians to interpret the document. At least the oath of loyalty isn’t to Legault personally.
People have occassionally praised my debating skills by saying I should go to law school, but that scene pretty much sums up how I think I'd actually perform in a professional setting.
(In reality, that guy would not likely make it out of law school. But it's a pretty funny scene, so I can suspend disbelief. I did once teach an ESL class in that manner, when I had not familiarized myself with the specific format of the lesson. Boss dropped into the class that day, it did not end well.)
...the vibe of the thing seems to be that Quebec should be able to opt out of any federal legislation it doesn’t like, especially that pesky Charter of Rights thing.
The Charter already has Section 33(aka the right-wing western rednecks' gift to Quebec sovereigntists), so as far as that goes, I suspect Legault is just inventing a mesmerizing but ultimately redundant trophy for the nationalists to pursue.
I come from the Pierre Trudeau school of federalism: you have to annoy at least two provinces every day before breakfast or they start to go feral. Alberta doesn't count, it is annoyed by your mere existence.
Yes, my allusion to a head-waiter was refering to Pierre Trudeau's disparaging characterization of a PM in a decentralized federation. Apparently, it was directed specifically against Joe Clark during Clark's leadership of the tories.
Clark, or course, framed the vision as "a community of communities", which sounds all warm and fuzzy, but in practice amounts to "Every province gets to shit on whatever minorities they want and Ottawa can't do anything about it."
I'm not so sure about that. Quebec and Ontario have specific sections of the Constitution Act, 1867 as both provincial governments had to be set up. What goes over the head of most people (Quebec lawyers are big offenders on this) is that such amendments do not affect or bind the federal government or indeed the interpretation of the rest of the document.
While these provisions are essential, they are not stand-alone documents, and in the case of Québec, are part of a parcel (maybe even a cascade) of constitutional items from Cardinal Richelieu's Ordinance to the Capitulations of Montréal etc etc. Manitoba, of course, has its own foundation act from 1870 as do Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1905, but they as well have a pacquet of measures which together support their constitutions, such as their legislature acts and the lieutenant-governors' instructions.
But perhaps we're arguing about nomenclature...
I think that the Legault initiative would have more solid ground if he had assembled a drafting committee of the Assembly or, even better, a more broadly gathered one. This would have ironed out some of the ... unevenness... of the proposal. But he's never been a fan of anyone else's opinion.
Actually, there is something significant here. Provincial "constitutions" and I use the quotation marks intentionally, don't really matter in Canada. Every province has identical powers and those are contained in Sections 92 - 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and nowhere else. Every province has to have a Lieutentant Governor, every province has the judges of its superior and appeal courts appointed and paid for by Ottawa. Appeal for all provincial laws lies to the Supreme Court of Canada. Anything else a province enacts, whether it bears the title of Constitution or not cannot override the Constitution Act's power sections or inhibit federal power in any way.
The only thing a provincial "constitution" can do is to establish a legislature and tinker around the edges. The rest is just statute law in fancy dress and since it isn't entrenched and does not bind the Federal Government; it is just statute law.
Which is the reason most provinces aren't bothered. It just doesn't amount to much.
The document is hard to interpret because some of the things in it are so wild it’s virtually impossible to believe they are seriously intended. And just enough pulling back from the edge to give plausible deniability to its wilder aspects.
The opt-out from the 1982 Constitution Act seems to be a general power of opt-out that is broader than contemplated in section 33 of the Charter. The basic concept is that the Canadian Charter can be replaced by the Quebec Charter (already in existence) which is incorporated into the Constitution and is to be interpreted by the constitutional council. The latter is a body with no pretence of judicial independence whose members need have no professional qualifications, can be hired and fired at the will of a supermajority of the National Assembly, and get paid if and when the National Assembly feels like it. The document is silent on the relationship between this body and the real section 96 courts with real judges.
I come from the Pierre Trudeau school of federalism...
Just out of curiousity, how would you have voted on the Charlottetown Accord in 1992?
For myself, I voted Yes, even though I was still pretty much a devotee of trudeauite federalism, but I figured the deal might end the constitutional squabbling, and people who were paying closer attention than I was assured me there were safeguards in place to assure the extra powers didn't hand the whole country over to the provincial yokels.
In retrospect, it was one of the few votes in my life that I regret. Not that it mattered anyway, because the Accord didn't come anywhere near carrying the day.
One thing I remember about that whole Meech/Charlottetown period was rhetoricians on both sides invoking Sir John A. Macdonald to bolster their arguments. Trudeau, of course, appealing to him as the supporter of strong federal perogative, while the pro-distinct society crowd dug up his old quotes about how the "French Canadians" were "a nation" and should be treated as such.
I voted "yes" reluctantly, as I thought that the First Nations-related provisions were the most useful moves to date and overcame some of the worst aspects of Meech Lake. I thought that the Senate reform aspects were ill-thought-out (I am being polite). I was not distressed by its defeat although, like @stetson, I had hoped that it would quell the squabbling.
I have always enjoyed reminding the Senate reform crowd that the broad masses rejected an elected Senate at the Charlottetown vote.
I voted "yes" reluctantly, as I thought that the First Nations-related provisions were the most useful moves to date and overcame some of the worst aspects of Meech Lake.
IIRC, the worst aspect of Meech Lake for indigenous people was that their issues weren't addressed at all, one way or another, this being Elijah Harper's reason for blocking approval in the Manitoba legislature.
I thought that the Senate reform aspects were ill-thought-out (I am being polite). I was not distressed by its defeat although, like @stetson, I had hoped that it would quell the squabbling.
The defeat of Charlottetown pretty much ended Senate reform as a relevant issue, even in Alberta.
FWIW, I voted for the drunk-driving Liberal in Getty's symbolic senate-election in 1989. The standard left-wing tactic was to abstain as a protest against the right-wing populism behind the stunt, but I think people really overestimate the political impact of low-voter turnout.
That vote was won by Stan Waters, thus making him the second Reformer elected to any position in Ottawa. He died before the 1993 election.
Not exactly a great surprise, based on past performance, though one might have thought he’d maybe learned something from the results of the last election. Apparently not.
I wonder if he's not suffering from a case of Justinitis-- of just exchanging ideas with a small circle of the likeminded, and then assuming that the rest of the world is listening with the same assumptions.
I think there is a high likelihood of that. Ideologues tend to do that (speaking from NDP experience).
Yeah. When you spend all your time in political circles, you start to assume that the whole world thinks like you and your friends.
In my days of ministerial servitude, I found that most of my local friends were artsies or writers or medical. It was a lot more interesting, but it ended up limiting my post-minister's-office opportunities. Curiously, my old boss made a point of staying in touch with me, less so with the political junkies.
Comments
You mean PET wanted to change the title "Governor General" to something else, and make the appointment of that person purely a Canadian affair?
Thanks. I had never heard it confirmed that Pierre Trudeau pondered full republicanism, but I've always thought it woulda made sense, given his lese-majesete gestures against the monarchy, eg. the pirouette, not to mention the modern Liberal Party's more serious movements away from British identity, eg. Mackenzie King mouthing off at Imperial Conferences(*), whole-hog enforcement of the Nickel Resolution, the Suez Crisis, the new flag, and, of course, the Charter.
(*) For confused non-Canadians, "King" was his surname, not his title.
The document is unclear as to the roots of constitutional authority in Québec, perhaps assuming that the will of the national assembly is the expression of the will of the nation. It likes to deal with federal authority by assuming it's not there.
Constitutional trivia nerds might like to know that BC is the only Canadian province with a formal constitution (since 1996). Others must make do with a compilation of orders in council, federal legislation etc. Treaties with the First Nations are a federal matter, but often with implications on the exercise of provincial authority.
Legault is scared stiff of the PQ.
Sorry, what document are we discussing here?
EDIT: Just looked back at the last page. The proposed Constitution of Quebec.
https://www.assnat.qc.ca/Media/Process.aspx?MediaId=ANQ.Vigie.Bll.DocumentGenerique_213841en&process=Original&token=ZyMoxNwUn8ikQ+TRKYwPCjWrKwg+vIv9rjij7p3xLGTZDmLVSmJLoqe/vG7/YWzz
1) Disallow it. The provinces have been getting unruly and need to be checked.
2) It is intentionally meant to be troll-bait or appeal-bait.
While these provisions are essential, they are not stand-alone documents, and in the case of Québec, are part of a parcel (maybe even a cascade) of constitutional items from Cardinal Richelieu's Ordinance to the Capitulations of Montréal etc etc. Manitoba, of course, has its own foundation act from 1870 as do Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1905, but they as well have a pacquet of measures which together support their constitutions, such as their legislature acts and the lieutenant-governors' instructions.
But perhaps we're arguing about nomenclature...
I think that the Legault initiative would have more solid ground if he had assembled a drafting committee of the Assembly or, even better, a more broadly gathered one. This would have ironed out some of the ... unevenness... of the proposal. But he's never been a fan of anyone else's opinion.
People have occassionally praised my debating skills by saying I should go to law school, but that scene pretty much sums up how I think I'd actually perform in a professional setting.
(In reality, that guy would not likely make it out of law school. But it's a pretty funny scene, so I can suspend disbelief. I did once teach an ESL class in that manner, when I had not familiarized myself with the specific format of the lesson. Boss dropped into the class that day, it did not end well.)
The Charter already has Section 33(aka the right-wing western rednecks' gift to Quebec sovereigntists), so as far as that goes, I suspect Legault is just inventing a mesmerizing but ultimately redundant trophy for the nationalists to pursue.
Well, THAT's not being a very accomodating head-waiter.
Clark, or course, framed the vision as "a community of communities", which sounds all warm and fuzzy, but in practice amounts to "Every province gets to shit on whatever minorities they want and Ottawa can't do anything about it."
Actually, there is something significant here. Provincial "constitutions" and I use the quotation marks intentionally, don't really matter in Canada. Every province has identical powers and those are contained in Sections 92 - 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and nowhere else. Every province has to have a Lieutentant Governor, every province has the judges of its superior and appeal courts appointed and paid for by Ottawa. Appeal for all provincial laws lies to the Supreme Court of Canada. Anything else a province enacts, whether it bears the title of Constitution or not cannot override the Constitution Act's power sections or inhibit federal power in any way.
The only thing a provincial "constitution" can do is to establish a legislature and tinker around the edges. The rest is just statute law in fancy dress and since it isn't entrenched and does not bind the Federal Government; it is just statute law.
Which is the reason most provinces aren't bothered. It just doesn't amount to much.
The opt-out from the 1982 Constitution Act seems to be a general power of opt-out that is broader than contemplated in section 33 of the Charter. The basic concept is that the Canadian Charter can be replaced by the Quebec Charter (already in existence) which is incorporated into the Constitution and is to be interpreted by the constitutional council. The latter is a body with no pretence of judicial independence whose members need have no professional qualifications, can be hired and fired at the will of a supermajority of the National Assembly, and get paid if and when the National Assembly feels like it. The document is silent on the relationship between this body and the real section 96 courts with real judges.
Just out of curiousity, how would you have voted on the Charlottetown Accord in 1992?
For myself, I voted Yes, even though I was still pretty much a devotee of trudeauite federalism, but I figured the deal might end the constitutional squabbling, and people who were paying closer attention than I was assured me there were safeguards in place to assure the extra powers didn't hand the whole country over to the provincial yokels.
In retrospect, it was one of the few votes in my life that I regret. Not that it mattered anyway, because the Accord didn't come anywhere near carrying the day.
One thing I remember about that whole Meech/Charlottetown period was rhetoricians on both sides invoking Sir John A. Macdonald to bolster their arguments. Trudeau, of course, appealing to him as the supporter of strong federal perogative, while the pro-distinct society crowd dug up his old quotes about how the "French Canadians" were "a nation" and should be treated as such.
I have always enjoyed reminding the Senate reform crowd that the broad masses rejected an elected Senate at the Charlottetown vote.
IIRC, the worst aspect of Meech Lake for indigenous people was that their issues weren't addressed at all, one way or another, this being Elijah Harper's reason for blocking approval in the Manitoba legislature.
The defeat of Charlottetown pretty much ended Senate reform as a relevant issue, even in Alberta.
FWIW, I voted for the drunk-driving Liberal in Getty's symbolic senate-election in 1989. The standard left-wing tactic was to abstain as a protest against the right-wing populism behind the stunt, but I think people really overestimate the political impact of low-voter turnout.
That vote was won by Stan Waters, thus making him the second Reformer elected to any position in Ottawa. He died before the 1993 election.
Thanks for the summation and analysis.
Yeah. When you spend all your time in political circles, you start to assume that the whole world thinks like you and your friends.
In my days of ministerial servitude, I found that most of my local friends were artsies or writers or medical. It was a lot more interesting, but it ended up limiting my post-minister's-office opportunities. Curiously, my old boss made a point of staying in touch with me, less so with the political junkies.
The leadership contestants are holding open houses in Ottawa this week. Montreal will be next. I have not made up my mind one way or another.
As would I. But poking a psychotic bear is not always a winning game.
I was going to say pretty much the same thing using pretty much the same words.
But not a happy situation to understate the case.
I'd give him just enough to hang himself.