Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you saying that the parliament could open the constitution to abolish or at least strongly reform the senate based on the 7/50 (or 7/93 since 1995) ?
What is "7/93"? Constitutionally, most amendments still require "7/50"; only a few require "10/100." There is, to the best of my knowledge, no other choice.
What is "7/93"? Constitutionally, most amendments still require "7/50"; only a few require "10/100." There is, to the best of my knowledge, no other choice.
This law stipulates that the government will not present a draft constitutional amendment without the consent of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. For the Prairies and the Maritimes, the government will wait for the agreement of two provinces each group provided those two provinces represent at least 50% of the population of the region.
This additional requirement has led some political scientists that the amending formula is no longer "7/50" (7 provinces with 50% of the population. So the law is respected, if at least 7 provinces agrees, which represent 93% of the population. Some people therefore speak of the phrase "7/93"
That's been the strategy for several Canadian PMs in a row now. Eventually that sweeping of the issue under the carpet may come back to bite us in the butt.
And stirring the pot on the issue doesn't bite you on the butt somehow?
Indeed. For some reason there is a lingering inaccurate perception out there (in Quebec and even in the ROC sometimes) that the Constitution legally does not apply to Quebec because the province did not sign it.
Questions of symbolism and even political legitimacy are a whole other matter of course.
Doesn't Quebec's purposeful invocation of the "notwithstanding clause" constitute an implied ratification of the Charter? As a lawyer I would think that a purposeful invocation of that document constitutes an acceptance.
Latinos have done pretty well in terms of Spanish signage in some public facilities, at the polls, and in many stores despite having no official status. Why would Francophones remaining in the ROC if Quebec secedes or is kicked out do any worse?
Doesn't Quebec's purposeful invocation of the "notwithstanding clause" constitute an implied ratification of the Charter? As a lawyer I would think that a purposeful invocation of that document constitutes an acceptance.
Yes and no. As we've already said, the Constitution and Charter already apply to Quebec whether it has signed it or not. That's the main thing that counts.
As for optics and the political issue, I am not sure that using the Charter's escape clause to get out of parts of the Charter you don't agree with it, really constitutes acceptance of it. You have to go through a lot of logic gymnastics in order to arrive at that conclusion.
But as I said, it still applies in Quebec. The rest is mostly a battle for hearts and minds and nothing else.
Making fun of a minor mistake that I made in my second language, one that I likely write better than 90% of its native speakers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
