The questions are getting tougher. I'm trying to put myself inside the head of a Quebec politician, and not particularly succeeding.

The main objection of some Quebecers (politicians or people) to all this seems to be, as I said earlier, that they just want the rest of Canada to go away. The question whether or not a given law is beneficial to them is irrelevant.

The Charter is much like the Bill of Rights in the U.S. It spells out basic human rights and freedoms. All laws are subject to it. Some people object to it on the basis that the courts are given the power to overturn laws, or parts of laws, which run counter to the Charter, therefore the judicial branch acquires supremity over the legislative branch. They may be right. The Charter may go too far in this direction -- especially since the judges are appointed and paid by the government, rather than being elected, as in the U.S. In any event, I think the Charter's heart is in the right place, and the questions about it are merely questions of administration.

Again, I don't think the Quebec government wants to return to a constitution amended in Britain, they just want a reason to object to anything coming out of the rest of Canada.

Hoping (against hope) that clarifies things a bit... But it helps me clarify my thinking a bit as well.

By the way, I don't think the majority of the Quebec population feel this way, just certain politicians (Bloc québécois federally, Parti québécois provincially -- unfortunately they form the provincial government) and those who support them.