LANGUAGE , EDUCATION AND THE VETO
Mr. Bouchard's assertion:
The Constitution Act of 1982 "reduced Quebec's powers in the fields of language and education--- Rene Leveque refused it. Claude Ryan refused it . The National Assembly refused it." (Oct. 25, l995. 7pm., Radio-Canada television)
THE FACTS
In the areas of language and education, the Constitution Act of 1982 enshrined precisely the "traditional requests from Quebec". Here is what Claude Ryan had to say about it the day after Lucien Bouchard made the above comment. "The Constitution Act of 1982 is not as dreadful as some like to pretend. It is a very reasonable law: it gave a Charter of Rights to all Canadians, Quebecers and others alike, and it reinforced the protection of linguistic rights for francophones throughout Canada." And elsewhere: "I heard Mr. Bouchard last night saying that (the Constitution of 1982 ) had stripped Quebec of important rights in language and education. In my humble opinion, it's not true. It's just not true."
While he disapproved of the "fact that the act had been enacted without Quebec's signature" Claude Ryan recognized that "objectively, the changes brought about by the act of 1982 were very good changes, except where the amending formula is concerned." Oct.26,1995. Interview with Bernard Derome, Radio Canada television and Chateau Frontenac, RDI).
I, myself, shared Mr. Ryan's reservation with regard to the amending formula. But it should be remembered that the formula used in the constitution of l982 was based on the one proposed by Mr. Levesque and the seven other provinces that formed the Gang of Eight. This formula gave no veto to Quebec while the one proposed by my government included a veto.
Thus on Dec.2,l981, Le Devoir published my reply to a letter from Premier Levesque dated Nov.25,l981, requesting a veto for Quebec. I said, in part: "Between l971 and Nov.5, l981 every government I headed put forth an amending formula which would have given Quebec a veto. We only abandoned the principle after you had done so yourself" by signing the Accord of the Eight and after "you had once again proposed (this accord) during our sessions of Nov.2,3,4 and 5."
Furthermore, failing that veto, the Accord of the Eight gave the provinces a right to opt out which was enshrined in section 38 (3) of the Constitution Act of 1982. This allows each province to refuse any constitutional change that would diminish its "legislative jurisdiction" or its "rights and privileges".
Mr. Bouchard is showing that he knows nothing about the 1982 constitution when he alleges that the Chretien government - after a No vote - will want "to perpetuate the current situation which gives the federal apparatus and the English-speaking provinces… the power to impose anything they want on Quebec." (Oct 17,1995, 7:25 p.m., Westin Hotel, Montreal.)
Such stupid allegations- and they were legion- flow more from hallucination than from the science of politics.
THE 1982 PATRIATION
Mr. Bouchard's assertion:
"In 1982, the constitution was patriated against our will …. Because the interests of English Canada impelled them to act in this fashion." (Oct. 27, l995,-Radio Canada TV)
THE FACTS
Mr. Bouchard certainly has a strange way of interpreting our constitutional history! Wasn't it rather the French Canadians who had traditionally striven to free themselves from colonial ties with Great Britain by patriating the Canadian Constitution from London? As for "interests", those of the predominately English provinces were generally the same as Quebec's: to exchange their consent to patriation for increased provincial powers.
Since 1927, every Canadian government , from that of MacKenzie King to that of Bennett, St. Laurent, Diefenbaker and Pearson, has tried in vain to persuade the provinces to end this vestige of colonialism. All had failed and Canada was the only country in the world to have as its constitution a law located in another country which could be amended, for the most part, only by the other country. In 1982, we were emerging from an extensive constitutional debate begun in l967 by the provinces. Canadian citizens had had enough of it and the matter needed to be laid to rest.
-115 years after becoming a country, Canada still depended upon London's consent to amend its constitution. Could Canada face yet another defeat when the only opposition to patriation came from a provincial government set upon destroying the country? Would the project have to grind to a halt because of an adversary who wanted sovereignty for his province, but who refused it for his country?
Three provinces, including Quebec, had asked the Supreme Court of Canada to define the rules of the constitutional game. The ruling was that patriation could happen only in the presence of a "substantial level of provincial consent". This requirement was amply satisfied with nine provinces out of 10 giving their consent.
Quebec's premier was opposed to patriation but, as the rules of the above-mentioned game stated, he had no veto. In any case he had explicitly waived this veto on signing the Accord of the Eight. It was clear that his government wanted nothing to do with a project that could be advantageous to the Canadian federation.
Moreover 70 of the 75 members elected to the federal parliament by Quebec had voted for patriating the constitution while in Quebec's national assembly, 38 members - led by Mr. Ryan - out of l08 had voted on December 1, l981, which for all practical purposes , slammed the door on current efforts to seek compromises.
Thus less than 40% of all elected representatives of Quebec were opposed to the constitutional agreement. One may dispute this arithmetic analysis by arguing that Quebec's government is the only body allowed to speak for Quebecer's, but this claim is the very essence of separatism. If one believes in Canada, one must equally believe that , in matters constitutional, Quebec members elected to the Canadian Parliament represented Quebec's electorate just as much as the members of the Quebec National Assembly did.
Furthermore, polls have shown that the patriation of the constitution was not being rejected by the people. In March 1992, a CROP poll indicated that 48 percent of Quebecers blamed Mr. Levesque's government for refusing to sign the accord, while only 32 per cent agreed with it. In June of the same year, a Gallup poll found 49% of Quebecers agreed with the Constitution Act and only 16 per cent disapproved. -------------------------------------------
Mr. Bouchard's assertion:
The Constitution Act of 1982 "reduced Quebec's powers in the fields of language and education--- Rene Leveque refused it. Claude Ryan refused it . The National Assembly refused it." (Oct. 25, l995. 7pm., Radio-Canada television)
THE FACTS
In the areas of language and education, the Constitution Act of 1982 enshrined precisely the "traditional requests from Quebec". Here is what Claude Ryan had to say about it the day after Lucien Bouchard made the above comment. "The Constitution Act of 1982 is not as dreadful as some like to pretend. It is a very reasonable law: it gave a Charter of Rights to all Canadians, Quebecers and others alike, and it reinforced the protection of linguistic rights for francophones throughout Canada." And elsewhere: "I heard Mr. Bouchard last night saying that (the Constitution of 1982 ) had stripped Quebec of important rights in language and education. In my humble opinion, it's not true. It's just not true."
While he disapproved of the "fact that the act had been enacted without Quebec's signature" Claude Ryan recognized that "objectively, the changes brought about by the act of 1982 were very good changes, except where the amending formula is concerned." Oct.26,1995. Interview with Bernard Derome, Radio Canada television and Chateau Frontenac, RDI).
I, myself, shared Mr. Ryan's reservation with regard to the amending formula. But it should be remembered that the formula used in the constitution of l982 was based on the one proposed by Mr. Levesque and the seven other provinces that formed the Gang of Eight. This formula gave no veto to Quebec while the one proposed by my government included a veto.
Thus on Dec.2,l981, Le Devoir published my reply to a letter from Premier Levesque dated Nov.25,l981, requesting a veto for Quebec. I said, in part: "Between l971 and Nov.5, l981 every government I headed put forth an amending formula which would have given Quebec a veto. We only abandoned the principle after you had done so yourself" by signing the Accord of the Eight and after "you had once again proposed (this accord) during our sessions of Nov.2,3,4 and 5."
Furthermore, failing that veto, the Accord of the Eight gave the provinces a right to opt out which was enshrined in section 38 (3) of the Constitution Act of 1982. This allows each province to refuse any constitutional change that would diminish its "legislative jurisdiction" or its "rights and privileges".
Mr. Bouchard is showing that he knows nothing about the 1982 constitution when he alleges that the Chretien government - after a No vote - will want "to perpetuate the current situation which gives the federal apparatus and the English-speaking provinces… the power to impose anything they want on Quebec." (Oct 17,1995, 7:25 p.m., Westin Hotel, Montreal.)
Such stupid allegations- and they were legion- flow more from hallucination than from the science of politics.
THE 1982 PATRIATION
Mr. Bouchard's assertion:
"In 1982, the constitution was patriated against our will …. Because the interests of English Canada impelled them to act in this fashion." (Oct. 27, l995,-Radio Canada TV)
THE FACTS
Mr. Bouchard certainly has a strange way of interpreting our constitutional history! Wasn't it rather the French Canadians who had traditionally striven to free themselves from colonial ties with Great Britain by patriating the Canadian Constitution from London? As for "interests", those of the predominately English provinces were generally the same as Quebec's: to exchange their consent to patriation for increased provincial powers.
Since 1927, every Canadian government , from that of MacKenzie King to that of Bennett, St. Laurent, Diefenbaker and Pearson, has tried in vain to persuade the provinces to end this vestige of colonialism. All had failed and Canada was the only country in the world to have as its constitution a law located in another country which could be amended, for the most part, only by the other country. In 1982, we were emerging from an extensive constitutional debate begun in l967 by the provinces. Canadian citizens had had enough of it and the matter needed to be laid to rest.
-115 years after becoming a country, Canada still depended upon London's consent to amend its constitution. Could Canada face yet another defeat when the only opposition to patriation came from a provincial government set upon destroying the country? Would the project have to grind to a halt because of an adversary who wanted sovereignty for his province, but who refused it for his country?
Three provinces, including Quebec, had asked the Supreme Court of Canada to define the rules of the constitutional game. The ruling was that patriation could happen only in the presence of a "substantial level of provincial consent". This requirement was amply satisfied with nine provinces out of 10 giving their consent.
Quebec's premier was opposed to patriation but, as the rules of the above-mentioned game stated, he had no veto. In any case he had explicitly waived this veto on signing the Accord of the Eight. It was clear that his government wanted nothing to do with a project that could be advantageous to the Canadian federation.
Moreover 70 of the 75 members elected to the federal parliament by Quebec had voted for patriating the constitution while in Quebec's national assembly, 38 members - led by Mr. Ryan - out of l08 had voted on December 1, l981, which for all practical purposes , slammed the door on current efforts to seek compromises.
Thus less than 40% of all elected representatives of Quebec were opposed to the constitutional agreement. One may dispute this arithmetic analysis by arguing that Quebec's government is the only body allowed to speak for Quebecer's, but this claim is the very essence of separatism. If one believes in Canada, one must equally believe that , in matters constitutional, Quebec members elected to the Canadian Parliament represented Quebec's electorate just as much as the members of the Quebec National Assembly did.
Furthermore, polls have shown that the patriation of the constitution was not being rejected by the people. In March 1992, a CROP poll indicated that 48 percent of Quebecers blamed Mr. Levesque's government for refusing to sign the accord, while only 32 per cent agreed with it. In June of the same year, a Gallup poll found 49% of Quebecers agreed with the Constitution Act and only 16 per cent disapproved. -------------------------------------------