Talk:Legal dispute over Quebec's language policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Canadian law
This article is part of the Canadian law WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
Quebec
Quebec Portal
This article is part of the Quebec WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Contents

[edit] English language resources

Most of my readings were done in French. I will do my best to find equivalent resources in English so other people may be able to read them and correct possible mistakes on my part. -- Mathieugp 18:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reading this article leaves many false impressions regarding the legal situation, examples
-the paragraph "Before 1982" seems to imply that the British North America Act of 1867 has been replaced, but it is still in force
-the Charter of the French language is "not" more than a "simple act" of Parliament, I understand that you want to convey the idea that it is important (quasi-constitutional), but it remains a law like any other
-please don't use bill numbers to refer to a law (or at least use it together with the official name, e.g. Bill 86 = An Act to amend the Charter of the French language, S.Q. 1993, c. 40), bill = projet de loi, they start back at "1" every session so it's confusing because different bills can have the same number --132.204.219.5 21:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to the comments above

  • If reading the article left you the impression that the BNAA was replaced, then something must not be well-formulated. Feel free to rephrase the part(s) that you feel are unclear.
  • I am aware that the Charter is a law like any other law. However, as you know, a Parliament can pass an unsignificant act which says "It is the opinion of this house that the environment should be preserved" and provide little to actually solve the problems related to preserving the environment, just as it can pass an act which not only states or proclaims something obvious, but details out a policy to achieve certain objectives that will help in preserving the environment. The Charter of the French Language is more on the lines of the second type of laws. I agree though that it is fundamentally a matter of opinion if a law is a "real important law" or if it is just wind. We can certainly rephrase the sentence to avoid using the terms "more than a simple act" which can indeed be misleading.
  • Yes, I wanted to use the full name of the laws, but the name is the same (An Act to amend the Charter of the French language) for both Bill 86 and Bill 178! I thought it would be confusing to refer to two different laws with the same name in the same article. How should we resolve this?

-- Mathieugp 23:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will work on the two first points as soon as I finish my exams, for the third point the solution is very simple, every law that is passed is identified by the year it was passed and a chapter number (e.g. S.Q. 1993, c. 40 means Statutes of Québec 1993 chapter 40), thus...
  • Bill 86 = An Act to amend the Charter of the French language, S.Q. 1993, c. 40
  • Bill 178 = An Act to amend the Charter of the French language, S.Q. 1988, c. 54
the advantage over bill numbers is that the year is clearly indicated --132.204.219.5 02:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I fixed it already. -- Mathieugp 03:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Questions regarding recent edits by Franz1984

  • Why were the dates removed and replaced by only the year? I think it is better to leave the precision that is given by the date, especially if we consider that other facts are going to be inserted over time. Was it removed for readability?
Yes, I thought it was confusing and did not really add meaningful information, the year is enough. It can be changed again if other dates are inserted...
  • This sentence was added in: "In 1987, the British Parliament passed the British North America Act which became the supreme law of the Dominion of Canada (although it was modified several times, it is still part of the Constitution of Canada)."

I find the sentence to be unclear. First, unless I do not understand something, I think it should say 1867 not 1987. Of course the law was modified between 1867 and 1982. True, the BNAA is still in the current constitution (with a different name), but I think we are only confusing people by adding all this (which occured later and maybe should really be under "After 1982").

Sorry about the year, my mistake. As for the sentence, I wanted to make sure people understood the Constitution Act, 1982 did not replace the BNAA (now called Constitution Act, 1867) and that the name "BNAA" includes its modifications.

-- Mathieugp 02:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On the MacIntire case

-- Mathieugp 18:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)