Talk:Patriation

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))

Its not a term with widespread currency in Canada. The standard term is still Repatriation. Patriation has been invented as a word, by people who resent the idea of "repatriation" with the Can. Const. Its completely stupid, because a citzen can be repatriated to a country they have never been in so we dont need a special word for it. Repatriation is the only valid term and Patriation unnatural IMHO 69.196.188.194 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The proper term is not repatriation, but patriation, since you cannot repatriate something that was never in the country in the first place. That is just common sense. BTW, the definition of REPATRIATE, at Merriam-Webster Online is "to restore or return to the country of origin, allegiance, or citizenship <repatriate prisoners of war>." I don't see anything there about going back to a country you had never inhabited before!

For you to call the use of the word "patriation" "stupid" is rather childish, to say the least. For example, the Historica-Dominion Institute uses the term "patriation" at the article: "The Patriation of the Constitution." At The Free Dictionary, the article "Patriation Reference" uses the same term. Also look here: Wikt:patriation. Your own opinion is just that, your own opinion. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

To clear up the use of the Notwithstanding clause, since its creation the clause has only been used 4 times. One of which, a labour law in Saskatchewan, was later ruled to be consistant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The clause has been used only 2 times in Quebec. One of which is, as it was already mentioned, Bill 101. The other use was on December 21, 1989. When the Premier of Quebec employed the clause in order to override freedom of expression, section 2b, and freedom of equality, section 15. The only other use was in Alberta when Prime Minister Ralph Klein used it to prevent the supreme court from allowing the marriage of same-sex individuals in Alberta. {*TEE DUB*} 18:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Link to the French page

Hey all - I deleted the link to the French page because the whole article on Patriation just links to the 'Night of the Long Knives' in French. Though this is certainly a subset of the patriation debate, unless it links to a proper article on the entire patriation process like on the English page it presents a decidedly Quebec nationalist bias. vckeating 01:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the interwiki from fr:Nuit des Longs Couteaux (Québec) to this article. Phe-bot (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Trudeau-Lévesque Bios?

This statement in the 'Conference' section seems suspect to me and needs a citation:

Both books agree that both men agreed to such a referendum, and both agree that Trudeau was, in effect, lying to Lévesque - though Trudeau is not quite so straightforward in saying it as Rene.

It accuses a former Prime Minister of Canada of lying, so I think we need a citation at least. If there is none, it ought to be deleted. I smell a hint of Quebec nationalism in it, as many sovereignists have a habit of referring to Lévesque lovingly by his first name (as is done in the quoted sentence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmcdonald (talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Patriation is not known to have been used in New Zealand - again

I noticed this section above. In fact the word "patriation" was backformed from repatriation and is a Canadian term. I will change the page. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Topic of Article

Shouldn't this whole page just be about the word itself, and the who patriation of Canada's Constitution be its own page?

Mystic eye (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Also this sentence doesn't make any sense

'The term "patriation" is based upon the word repatriation, because of people used of the word "repatriation" pointed out that the constitution could not return to Canada, as it was not formulated in Canada in the first place.'

I'm not sure what it should even say.

Mystic eye (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal Questions

In reading the section legal questions, Paul Romney's 1999 book is cited (and quoted), page 272 (the actual text is on 273), the section of the book (1940-1982) describes the situation prior to 1982, where UK laws did not have status in Canada, unless the Canadian goverment requested the UK legislature to "legislate" for Canada. The citation and source are valid, however have been used in a manner that leads one to interpert the situation as still current. The Canada Act/Constitution Act 1982 removes the "except at the request" provisions that existed. How can we fix this section? Thanks--UnQuébécois (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)