pol214 reading reflection

section 1

1. 1982 patriation of constitution w/o quebec created a constitutional legitimacy deficit/breach

2. As a federation, we need consent of all provinces in order to stand, and failures of both accords shows that no repair is coming

3. We persevere and remain strong because Canada's legitimacy does not stem from one source only → because reform is impossible, Canada's manages around the breach 

section 2 pt 1

1. Very compelling due to his application of abeyance to canada 

   1. As discussed in lecture 3, define it → deep conflicts that constitutional systems cannot resolve and instead choose to suppress 

   2. Stability comes from mutual restraint and the unspoken agreement to not force a resolution 

   3. Applies to canada because the 1982 agreement sit on top of something unsurmountable, in which political actors have to cooperate to keep conflict below the surface 

   4. Successful abeyance in canada would allow both visions of canadian constitutionalism and quebecois self-determination 

   5. Legitimacy is not all or nothing, we can sacrifice a little and maintain stability, 

   6. we have not descended into a state of chaos bc voters have kept the issue of the centre of politics 

   7. Quebecois still accept legal system and show historical attachment to canada 

section 2 pt 2

1. Use of PQ to demonstrate abeyance in action

   1. Won in 2012, formed government with a weak electoral mandate showing that the Quebecois were mostly unwilling to move towards sovereignty

   2. Tried to establish and  push a more nationalist campaign, which voters rejected in 2014

   3. Abeyance must be actively maintained → stability chosen over symbolism 

   4. Legitimacy deficits do not automatically destabilize federations

   5. Canada managed around the legitimacy breach 

section 3

1. Most glaring limitation is the erasure of indigenous people under abeyance framework

   1. Cameron only focuses on Quebec as the only obstacle of conditional legitimacy, which can seemingly only be granted through formal recognition 

2. Feels like a colonial assumption → for the indigenous peoples, legiitimacy deficit cannot be captured in the same way 

3. Relationship to state is not withholding agreement ot he conditional, but imposed sovereignty 

4. Abeyance does not explain how this order suppresses people

5. Matters because it shows that Canada's stability may be resting on exclusion, which makes us question if abeyance is really neutral/managing or convenient to avoid justice to Indigenous peoples