Quebec plans to reopen constitutional debate

[geotag277]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...bate-1.4140567

All in all, I think it's a good move. The last one was such a boondoggle that people are literally pretending that any dimension of constitutional revisions are strictly off the table until the end of time just because we screwed the last one up.

We could potentially settle a bunch of issues along the way, including First Nation concerns, and most importantly finally putting the constitutional booeyman to bed.

I think we are on the cusp of entering an era where the largest provinces will all be doing relatively well economically. I think it is well timed.

[Truenorth00]

Those conditions are non-starters. This is not going anywhere.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Those conditions are non-starters. This is not going anywhere.

No kidding.

[SignalHillHiker]

We scuttled Meech Lake primarily because it would give Quebec increased jurisdictional powers compared to other provinces, but that's really already the case.

I'm fine with whatever they want provided control of our fishery is transferred completely to St. John's. Meech didn't go far enough in that regard, which really is the core of the disagreement between Peckford and Wells. The rest of his opposition was just marketing.

A looser federation is better for everyone as Canada isn't strong enough federally to provide the full benefits of the alternative (for example, a national transportation system or full freedom of movement for professionals and goods). We're kind of halfway between two workable options.

[p_xavier]

About time. Canada needs to finally decide if it's a centralized country or a union of mostly free states. The statu quo is bad for everyone.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Those conditions are non-starters. This is not going anywhere.

Funny - my first reaction (after my stomach settled!) was that the conditions didn't look as bad as they might have back in the day. "Distinct society" would need to be fully defined (an agreement on what it implies might be impossible to achieve). The the terms of restraint on federal spending power, including exceptions, would need to be made explicit. The constitutional veto would probably need to be expanded to apply to all provinces or to the five (now 6?) regions.

In exchange for all this, there would also need to be a constitutional amendment to make the creation of a new province, or the secession of a province, subject to the constitutional amendment formula.

I would not want to bet money on any/all of it happening, but it all seems to me like the kind of thing that reasonable people could discuss. Sadly, it's not the reasonable people who will garner public attention.....

EDIT: One thing missing from the CBC report is who Quebec's partner(s) will be in taking their show to the rest of the country. Academic institutions in the first instance?

[Acajack]

The knee-jerk "no" reaction to something that, in the end, won't affect the reactors' lives in any tangible way, was baffling and shocking to me as a highly involved and interested university student in the early 90s.

I remain baffled by this persisting irascibility in 2017.

I am not sure if he will get anywhere with this, but you gotta hand it to Couillard. He said he would and he is doing what he said he'd do. I honestly thought he'd put that pledge on ice.

[lio45]

I'm always amused by people who think old texts should never, ever be revisited again, regardless of technological and social evolution, and context. Seems ridiculous. A constitution isn't sacred nor infallible.

And it would seem perfectly normal for Canada's constitution to be palatable to, and signed by, its founding, and second biggest, province.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lio45

I'm always amused by people who think old texts should never, ever be revisited again, regardless of technological and social evolution, and context. Seems ridiculous. A constitution isn't sacred nor infallible.

And it would seem perfectly normal for Canada's constitution to be palatable to, and signed by, its founding, and second biggest, province.

I think it would be difficult to find a sentient Canadian who thinks Canada's constitution is sacred and/or infallible (if they do they are in desperate need of an education in Canadian constitutional law and history). Obviously, the resistance reflects other issues that are not influenced by whether Quebeckers find the current arrangements palatable. Not saying what those issues might be or whether I'd agree with them, but it seems pretty clear.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The knee-jerk "no" reaction to something that, in the end, won't affect the reactors' lives in any tangible way, was baffling and shocking to me as a highly involved and interested university student in the early 90s.

I remain baffled by this persisting irascibility in 2017.

I am not sure if he will get anywhere with this, but you gotta hand it to Couillard. He said he would and he is doing what he said he'd do. I honestly thought he'd put that pledge on ice.

You'd need to explain that to me.

[flar]

I would simply grant Quebec four of the five at face value. The limits on federal spending power is more complicated.

However, I don't think the ROC, especially west of Ontario, has much appetite for this debate and it will be just as intractable as ever.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

You'd need to explain that to me.

What's unclear? Take Corndogger for example. He lives in Calgary.

Please explain to me which of these measures, if adopted, are even remotely likely to have an impact on his life:

■Recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.
■Limits on federal spending power.
■Guaranteed Quebec representation on the Supreme Court.
■A constitutional veto right.
■Increased control over immigration.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by flar

I would simply grant Quebec four of the five at face value. The limits on federal spending power is more complicated.

.

The Supreme Court and immigration ones are pretty much in place already anyway.

[kwoldtimer]

Well, the implications of "distinct society" are, afaik, undefined so I couldn't say whether there's a tangible national impact. In the case of immigration, it seems that something more than the status quo is expected. Since immigrants to Quebec can and do move elsewhere in Canada, that seems to be a potential tangible impact. The most obvious one is the (undefined) limits on federal spending power. Absent more information, I can only think that it has potential tangible effects on all Canadians. Ditto for a new constitutional amendment formula, which affects all Canadians, regardless of the formula.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Well, the implications of "distinct society" are, afaik, undefined so I couldn't say whether there's a tangible national impact. In the case of immigration, it seems that something more than the status quo is expected. Since immigrants to Quebec can and do move elsewhere in Canada, that seems to be a potential tangible impact. The most obvious one is the (undefined) limits on federal spending power. Absent more information, I can only think that it has potential tangible effects on all Canadians. Ditto for a new constitutional amendment formula, which affects all Canadians, regardless of the formula.

Trying hard to think of an Alberta constitutional amendment that Corndogger personally has on the drawing board and that could potentially be stymied by a Quebec veto...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What's unclear? Take Corndogger for example. He lives in Calgary.

Please explain to me which of these measures, if adopted, are even remotely likely to have an impact on his life:

■Recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.
■Limits on federal spending power.
■Guaranteed Quebec representation on the Supreme Court.
■A constitutional veto right.
■Increased control over immigration.

The immigration one can have an effect in Western Canada - already with the current QIIP it seems that plenty of Chinese billionaires buy their passage with the program then end up in Vancouver.

I heard of ideas getting floated around of accepting immigrants but having them restricted to a certain region for a while (fair enough, IMO). It seems loopholish that the QIIP can be used as a bridge like that. Quebec's increased controls over its own immigration would likely, logically, have to come with a special resident status.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

The immigration one can have an effect in Western Canada - already with the current QIIP it seems that plenty of Chinese billionaires buy their passage with the program then end up in Vancouver.

I heard of ideas getting floated around of accepting immigrants but having them restricted to a certain region for a while (fair enough, IMO). It seems loopholish that the QIIP can be used as a bridge like that. Quebec's increased controls over its own immigration would likely, logically, have to come with a special resident status.

And that's fine. Doesn't seem like an insurmountable hurdle, no?

[SignalHillHiker]

That'd be great. The Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program (basically makes immigration to Atlantic Canada easier than elsewhere, excluding Quebec) likewise has no mechanism to require new immigrants to stay here. It's linked to employment, so that is a strong factor for retention, but they are free to go elsewhere once they're here. Having some form of permanent residency that is restricted to a single province of entry would be beneficial - and would encourage more Immigration to pursue full citizenship.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

That'd be great. The Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program (basically makes immigration to Atlantic Canada easier than elsewhere, excluding Quebec) likewise has no mechanism to require new immigrants to stay here. It's linked to employment, so that is a strong factor for retention, but they are free to go elsewhere once they're here. Having some form of permanent residency that is restricted to a single province of entry would be beneficial - and would encourage more Immigration to pursue full citizenship.

Oh no, we can't have that now. That's a slippery slope to separation!

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

That'd be great. The Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program (basically makes immigration to Atlantic Canada easier than elsewhere, excluding Quebec) likewise has no mechanism to require new immigrants to stay here. It's linked to employment, so that is a strong factor for retention, but they are free to go elsewhere once they're here. Having some form of permanent residency that is restricted to a single province of entry would be beneficial - and would encourage more Immigration to pursue full citizenship.

Would you seriously want to go down the rabbit hole of restricting mobility rights in Canada? I wouldn't. And I'm not aware of anything that suggests that the mobility within Canada of permanent residents is related in any way to their obtaining Canadian citizenship - the clock keeps ticking wherever they are in Canada.