Talk:Patriation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Canadian law, an attempt to co-ordinate articles on Canadian law, produce common standards and fill in the gaps. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). |
[edit] Patriation is not known to have been used in New Zealand.
Patriation is not known to have been used in New Zealand. As far as I am aware, it is solely a Canadian term. - (Aidan Work 05:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC))
[edit] Kitchen Accord
I removed a bit of the Afterward of the Kitchen Accord article to help with the flow of the article. Should some of it be added back, or is it covered better in other articles?Habsfannova 04:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- What did you remove? In my view, this article should be expanded quite a bit, particularly concerning the events of November-December 1981 and January 1982. There were numerous protests against the Canada Act, not just from Quebec sovereignists but from aboriginal groups, trade unions, etc. --Mathew5000 00:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That was awhile ago...just more of a transition thing than anything else, since the article was merged. Habsfan
|t 01:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Notwithstanding clause
This seems like a rather odd claim on the surface:
- Until the Quebec Liberals came to power in 1985, every law passed in Quebec used the "Notwithstanding Clause."
Er, why? I'm aware of the notwithstanding clause being used on Bill 101, but surely there were all kinds of laws passed by the National Assembly in this time period which would not be in comflict with the Constitution and would therefore not require the use of the clause? Is the sentence alleging that the PQ was repeatedly using the clause simply out of spite? --Saforrest 20:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- The statement is accurate- see Peter Hogg's book. I agree probably not all the legislation was unconstitutional, but the notwithstanding clause was used anyway as a protest against patriation. It was also a blanket notwithstanding clause against sections 2 and 7-15, contradicting earlier expectations that if the notwithstanding clause is used specific sections of the Charter would have to be named. However, when asked the Supreme Court replied blanket notwithstanding clauses were within the right of the Quebec National Assembly to use. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- An online source for this fact is this Parliament of Canada research report. The relevant Supreme Court of Canada decision is here. Other relevant links: [1][2][3]--Mathew5000 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- The statement is accurate- see Peter Hogg's book. I agree probably not all the legislation was unconstitutional, but the notwithstanding clause was used anyway as a protest against patriation. It was also a blanket notwithstanding clause against sections 2 and 7-15, contradicting earlier expectations that if the notwithstanding clause is used specific sections of the Charter would have to be named. However, when asked the Supreme Court replied blanket notwithstanding clauses were within the right of the Quebec National Assembly to use. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
