Since 1992, we have done everything we can to not talk about a constitution in Quebec and Canada.
These failures continued because of these experiences “near death”: Mich, Charlottetown, 1995 poll.
Nearly 30 years later, the ban was lifted. In the form of the “return of the oppressed.”
In Quebec, the Legalt government, along with Bill 96, wants to unilaterally change the constitution to recognize itself as a nation and establish French as the only official language in Quebec. Thanks to the slight use of the amended formula (Art. 45), authorization to change the internal constitutions of the provinces.
The initiative sparked a fascinating debate. Initially, Justin Trudeau said he accepted the gesture in principle. But he was under heavy pressure in English Canada to retreat.
It announces interesting debates when the National Assembly examines Bill 96 this fall. They may be pan-Canadian.
Alberta and Ontario
Elsewhere in Dominion, the constitutional “hunger” is growing rapidly.
The Kenyan government in Alberta this week recalled that a referendum would be held this fall on the constitutional equation under Section 36 (2) of the 1982 Act. The Alberta government considers it unfair. However, if it wins on October 18 (which is very likely), the result will spark constitutional negotiations.
In Ontario, the Ford government used any provision to avoid a court ruling on the Election Advertising Act. This raises a cry, among other demands for constitutional negotiations to deprive Canadian politicians of the ability to use this legal shield, even if it is temporary (maximum, five years).
So we should look forward to the autumn marked by constitutional issues.
Quebec political parties must be prepared for that. The embargo was imposed on us long ago, to the extent that some of the knowledge and reflexes in defending Quebec’s fundamental interests seem to have disappeared.
I did not count the interviews with Quebec politicians where they had the impression that these things were coincidental; Unnecessary luxury type. Their advisers are often very outspoken: they laugh openly, so they say over and over again that “the fruit is not ripe” to talk about it again. They see it as a waste of time. “no hungry. “
(Tell them about the debates and divisions of the US Constitution – daily in the United States – their eyes widen with interest! Strange.) But that is changing here. The fruit will ripen. Hunger will return. This is inevitable: a healthy federation can never make its legal rules, its basic contract, a matter of prohibition!
The problem is that, like Robert Bros. Raza, Franசois Legalt wanted to be the first prime minister of the “economy.” However, like Bros. Raza, he can be monopolized by the oppressed constitution, which presents itself in the form of heart-breaking questions that, basically, are considered subversive.
Based on the renewed federalism (with Victoria in 1971, Mich in 1990) and the Quebec Autonomy (Bill 150), we know that Robert Bourasa failed to move us forward.
If they happen again, will Legalt miss the same opportunity?