Talk:Constitutional debate in Canada

Restructuring

How should this article be restructured?

Currently, it does not provide room to develop a lot of the concepts that need to be defined in order to penetrate the debate and make sense of it.

• Theory of the two founding peoples
• Centralization / Decentralization
• Symmetrical and Asymmetrical federalism
• Status quo / Reform / Secession
• Historical demands of Quebec
• Provincial jurisdictions
• Nation State / Multinational State
• Binationalism / Bilingualism / Biculturalism
• Assimilation of Francophones
• Self determination right of Quebecers and Aboriginal peoples

Also, a lot of things are left out like the various commissions called in by the federal government:

• Rowell-Dafoe-Sirois Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations (1940)
• Laurendeau-Dunton Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (1963)
• The Pépin Robarts Commission - Task Force on Canadian Unity (1978)

and the Quebec government:

• Tremblay Royal Commission of Inquiry on Constitutional Problems (1953)
• The Gendron Commission of Inquiry on the Situation of the French Language and Linguistic Rights in Quebec (1972)
• The Bélanger-Campeau Commission on the Political and Constitutional Future of Québec (1991)
• Parliamentary Commitee to Examine Matters Relating to the Accession of Québec to Sovereignty (1992)

I would like to start a serious discussion on this. All opinions welcomed. Mathieugp 15:57, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think this article needs to include a different perspective, one that will help explain the difficulties of making any sort of constitutional change in Canada. Currently it is largely focused on the Ontario-Quebec perspective, and thus oversimplifies the multiple complexities of the country as a whole.

This said, I think the popular dichotomies presented here can serve as a good structural framework. What is necessary though, is to show the broader perspective. In this vein, I would remove any reference to pre-1867 Canada as that starts things out with the limiting Ontario-Quebec perspective, which essentially dismisses the viewpoints of others in the country. While the political rows of Canada East and West are not without significance, the histories of other regions leading up to Confederation would also have to be included; that would then quickly become an unwieldy sidetrack from the article's real subject.

Admittedly, from a demographic and thus parliamentary power viewpoint, only Ontario and Quebec have ever mattered in this country. But, with some minimal Constitutional guarantees, other provinces are necessary pieces of reaching an accommodation. AnthroGael (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is centred on the Quebec-Ottawa relationship, but that is because the initial article [1] was started when I cut & pasted a section on the "National Unity" debate from I believe the Politics of Canada article. Maybe the problem is the name of the article itself. The word "Canada" is quite ambiguous because it was not always synonymous with "British North America" as it is now, and for most of its history had nothing to do with many of the provinces that are today part of the federal union.

Since I think that you are making a valid point, relative to the current article name, I suggest we either place the whole contents of the current article under a section of its own, possibly named "Quebec" or find a new name for the article, one more precisely reflecting its contents. The first option is probably the easiest. It would make room for all the other points of debate that are not covered because they have nothing to do with the central issue of Quebec. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, a more precisely named section would be an easy way to improve/fit the article. However, although generally ignored in Quebec (& Ontario), the complexity of so-called "English Canada" plays a significant role in the ultimate policy options Quebec is faced with on a federal Constitutional level. To detail this would certainly be a more ambitious undertaking, but one that presents an opportunity to flesh out a more complete picture. And, as I mentioned in my first posting, I don't think it would require a complete makeover of the article, just the addition of other points of view and how their streamlining into traditional Canadian mythology makes for a more wrangled debate. AnthroGael (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If you believe you can reshape the article to introduce some of the other points, go ahead. While we are at it, we might as well do a good job and introduce some references to this article. It has been sitting without any source for the past four years! -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed structure

Here is the structure I propose for the article:

Historical overview

• Brief overview of major political/constitutional events

The status quo

• Current constitution of Canada
• Provincial jurisdictions
• Linguistic and cultural portrait of Canada and Quebec
• Federal and provincial language legislations
• First Nations

International comparisons

• United Kingdom / Scotland
• Spain / Catalonia

Debated areas

Significance of the British North America Act

• Pact between two founding peoples
• Foundation of the Nation
• Just another British Act

Nature of Canadian federalism

• Federal provincial powers
• Confederation / federation
• Symmetrical and Asymmetrical federalism

Nationalisms

• Binationalism / Bilingualism / Biculturalism
• Multicultural Nation State / Multinational State

Communication problems

• Language barrier
• Negative self-image

All comments welcomed. Mathieugp 20:03, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comments on the article structure proposed above

It is possible to approach fundamental political arrangements (ie, Constitutions) in at least two ways. That given above is essentially developmental / historical. To wit, we were this way, this changed thus and so, proposals were made about this and that, reactions were this way about those things, etc.

Another is to look at the purpose of bothering with such arrangements at all. To achieve opportunity equality as between <citizens, groups (definable in various ways), economic interests (also definable in various ways)>, or to enact this or that theoretical structure (eg, Marxism, or fascism, or monarchism, or parliamentarianism, or some religious position, ...), or to continue some existing/formerly existing condition (eg, dominance by or favorable treatment for this or that group or interest), ...

The first approach necessarily includes much encrustation by existing or formerly existing arrangements or attempted arrangements. It has the (Burkean) virtue of forcing attention on custom and precedent that worked, or at least worked well enough to get to the stage of discussing possibilities, however unsatisfactory to whomever. Constrast the case of Genghis Khan's polity in which discussion of how things ought to be were, pretty much, not possible as the would be discusants promptly would have become former would be discusants.

The second has the virtue of avoiding all that (if it's possible to do so at all -- people seem to work most comfortably not by starting with a blank slate but by starting with some known (or supposedly known) situation), but the disadvantage of making those with some stake in the existing (or some psychic stake in some formerly existing) circumstance apprehensive. It was to avoid such problems that the Framers of the US constitution decided, almost as the first order of business at he Convention in Philadephia in 1787, to make their discussions secret, and that Madison directed that his notes of the Convention (the only even somewhat complete account of it) be kept secret until decades after his death. Actually leaving 'all that exists' behind also invites problems as no brakes on 'invention' will remain: the Girondists and the Jacobins (and Napoleon too -- eg, the famous 'whiff of grapeshot') demonstrated that.

Burke foresaw it, or something like it, and he's been right far more often than not.

Revolutions are dicey things, by almost all experience. Consider Thucydides 3.82 (the Revolution at Corcyria section especially; the Crawley translation is the most riveting I've found -- read it aloud slowly and feel your flesh crawl) for an even earlier example. The Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the slaughter in Rwanda of the mid 90s, Idi Amin (although that seems to have been perhaps more personal than not), conditions in Liberia since the 'Revolution', the conversion of Rome from Republic to Empire (and what went on before: eg, Marius and Sulla, and well after), most (all?) changes of dynasty in China (and apparently in ancient Egypt also), Hitler in Germany (recall that he was not elected; some thought they could 'control' him), the establishment of Christian 'orthodoxy' here and there (consider that the Library at Alexandria had been pillaged and plundered for centuries before the Arabs famously burned it; remember Hypatia?), the consequences of Peter the Great's rule in Russia (at least to his opponents), the 'young officer' movement in Japan especially after WWI, the 'young Turks' in the Ottoman Empire before WWI, and so on and on. There are few exceptions. The US Revolution, perhaps, or the Costa Rican rearrangement after WWII, Bernadotte in Sweden, and maybe Cincinnatus in old Roman Republic.

Which of these two (or some other, I suppose) approaches is most sensible by some standard (which?) depends on purposes, what people can be gotten to agree to, and other circumstances. It is unlikely, for instance, that any discussion of fundamental political arrangements in the Levant could make any progress if its deliberations are kept secret. There is simply too much suspicion about everything there now. After 100 years of rabble rousing, demogoguing (sp?), propaganda, and general obsfucation, most everyone is too suspicious to 'let anything by'. And, of course, any public discussion will be promptly (has repeatedly been anyway) attacked as some sort of sell out by one group or another. Which killed an Israeli Prime Minister??

How to organize the discussion for this article? I don't know. But there are meta considerations. ww

You wrote so much there that I don't know how I could possibly reply to all of it! ;-) There are lot of things to consider in this debate indeed. Philosophy, history, culture and other big words. However, since this article aims at explain what the constitutional debate of Canada is, and not an abstract debate of any constitution, we can easily narrow our scope: it will have to deal with the sequence of events which lead to the debate, the steps taken by all parties involved in it and the stated reasons for the conflicts by the interested parties. We will have to let people click on the links themselves if they desire more background on other similar conflicts past or present. After reading it, the visitor should get a sense of what has been going on, what happened in the facts, who was involved, who said what. Everything else would be off topic, would involve speculation, would involve claiming to know what others think or what secret intentions they supposedly have. Mathieugp 19:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are basically three positions in our everlasting debate: those who don't want anything to change (establishement, currently winning, a minority in Quebec, a majority in the Rest of Canada), those who want constitutional reforms (very broad coalition, failed attempts at reform multiple times of the past century, seem to gather support of the majority in Quebec, but not in the ROC), those who want secession (Quebec nationalist coalition, reject reforms, failed to gain majority support in two referendums). There are millions of different reasons for an individual to support either one of the three camps, but nevertheless the three positions originated from somewhere before gaining media attention and gain the approval or the disapproval of Mister and Madam Everyone in Canada. Most people will recognize themselves somewhere inside the three groups. We will have to be very careful in defining the camps. It will have to be very abstract and include only the stated goals of each, otherwize it will soon degenerate into a battle of insults. Mathieugp 19:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The most difficult task will be to pinpoint all sources of opinions, ie, who said/wrote what and when. Who propaged the idea and who supported it in reality. Hopefully, as the article evolves, things will become clearer. The idea of course is to allow the truth to emerge from the fog so that people can forge their own opinion on the matter if they care to. Mathieugp 19:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like I misunderstood the purpose here. You are committed to the historical/developmental approach and an explanatory mode, not debate on what should be/might be/ideally would be and so on. My mistake. Don't bother to reply to most of it. Unless, you might find some of it interesting in its own right. ww 20:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do actually. I have a passion for politics. A popular class who cares about the affairs of the State. Such is the only good thing that came out of the British Conquest of our country. :-) Mathieugp 21:22, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

The article says "This, as Lord Durham had recommended in his report, resulted in English political control over the French-speaking part of Canada, and ensured the colony's loyalty to the British crown." However, legislative deadlock between English and French led to the movement for a federal union. The traditional joint premiership also seems inconsistent with the idea of the English controlling the French. Trontonian 23:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I decided there's no contradiction between these statements as long as "English political control" means "political control by England." And disagreement is the soul of democracy, eh? So I added a sentence about the movement for a federal union. Trontonian 23:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And in the end I decided there's no contradiction no matter what "English political control" means. Perhaps the idea could be expanded upon, though. For example, the control of the Lower Canadian Tories was certainly weakened, eventually, by union. But English political control persists to this day in areas of federal responsibility. Trontonian 16:32, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Franco-Quebecer's presence in the United States

The fact that hundreds of thousands of Franco-Quebecers emigrated to New England, settled there and lived there is very relevant, otherwize people can get the impression that French Canadians could have only existed inside the Canadian federation. In fact, for a long while, there were literally more Francophones of Quebec origin in the United States than in Canada. These people were still calling themselves Canadiens, as they had always done, even a few generations after their arrival. The Franco-Americans were eventually assimilated and it accelerated when they stopped battling to keep their own cultural institutions. They integrated the great American melting-pot and are today regular American citizens. Mathieugp 04:10, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In Quebec history, the exile to the US was the source of great worries among Quebec's elites. After the Riel affair, Francophones didn't feel welcomed in the West and many chose the United States instead. The Church tried to workaround what they saw as the source of the problem by opening new lands north of the St. Lawrence inside Quebec (Abitibi, Saguenay regions etc) at the same time the British Canadians were expanding westward (like the Americans). That socio-historical reality partly explains why Quebec nationalists such as Mercier and Bourassa for example were trying to get the Canadian federation to become a bi-national, bi-lingual, bi-cultural country from 1867 until the 1960s. They understood the confederation as a pact between two founding peoples and demanded the respect of the constitutional deal. They were trying to stop the "bleeding" (la grande saignée) to the US and give a permanant home to these exiled in other Canadian provinces. Mathieugp 04:10, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

All those historical references are relevant to understanding the arguments used by all sides. The fundamental law of a State has everything to do with what people or peoples live in the country. It could even be argued that had it not been for that, Francophones may have occupied all parts of Canada like English Canadians and have developped a pan-Canadian nationalism just like them. Under those considitions, Quebec nationalism may have never existed at all. Mathieugp 04:10, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Stats

I added numbers for Francophones and Anglophones from Statscan:

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/popula.htm#lan

I add up the single responses with the multiple responses to get the numbers I typed in. I find this better than not counting people born in bilingual families at all. Mathieugp 14:55, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

I am confused about the recent draft changes to the introductory passage. For example, "the place of French-speaking Canadians and the predominantly French-speaking province of Quebec" has been deleted. Surely the place of Quebec and French-speaking Canadians has been a key issue in the constitutional debate and should not be deleted.

Several vague passages have been added. For example, I am not sure what "The significance of the British North America Act" is supposed to mean.

The specific and clear passage on federal provincial relations ("the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments") has been replaced by one that is vague ("The relation between the provinces and the Dominion").

I assume these changes were made for a reason and am reluctant to revert without giving the opportunity for a discussion here. Does anyone have a strong opinion one way or the other on this? HistoryBA 02:04, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello. As you may have noticed, the page in fact did not change. What changed is In development section which I started a while ago. I recently started to contribute again. I was hoping to merge the changes soon. Basically, what we have right now will be moved to Constitutional history of Canada and hopefully will evolved on its own there. Meanwhile, Constitutional debate of Canada will present the debate. It will focus on the post-1867 debate, as the previous debates are of a different nature and over different legal documents and they would make this article a mess of confusion. I favor having the debates over the Constitutional Act, the Quebec Act, the Proclamation Act etc inside there respective articles.

I agree that the word "relation" is vague. However, I wanted to include "the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments" and the question of symmetry / asymmetry under the same title. I really can't think of a better word than "relation". Any suggestion? (I guess we would also need to change "the relation between the United Kingdom and the Dominion" also.)

For the "The significance of the British North America Act", I meant how the Act itself was interpreted, what it meant to Canadians and Quebecers (who were formerly the Canadiens as you know). I had already written these three global views of the Act:

• Pact between two founding peoples

In Canada East (Quebec), the confederation project was promoted by the Parti bleu and opposed by all other parties. George-Étienne Cartier supported and promoted the project as a way to regain the political autonomy that Lower Canada had lost with the forced Union. The Catholic clergy supported confederation.

• Foundation of the Nation

In Canada West (Ontario), it was promoted as the act of foundation of a new British nation. The project generally received wide support. The Anti-Confederation movement was strong in Nova Scotia. After the passing of the BNA Act, 36 out of 38 seats of the provincial legislature went to the anti-Confederation candidates. A majority of candidates also opposed the project in New Brunswick.

• Just another British Act

The Parti rouge (Quebec) opposed the confederation, just as they had opposed the Union. The rouges demanded that the project be submitted to a vote by the people, convinced it would be rejected.

All your comments are welcomed. -- Mathieugp 14:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List of documents

The list of documents is quite long. Should we create a List of documents in the consitutional history of Canada?

-- Mathieugp 20:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)