On eve of 25th anniversary of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada was plunged once again into an existential debate over very nature of Canadian political community. As so often in past, issue was Quebec's political elites have long referred to province, its institutions, its symbols and its collective goals in national terms. Over course of summer and fall of 2006, Canada debated whether Quebec should be formally recognized as To large extent, debate was fuelled by Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff, who called for Canadian Constitution to be amended to explicitly acknowledge the national status of Quebec. Ignatieff's proposals dominated Liberal leadership race over course of fall and badly divided party, and threatened to spill over into House of Commons, when separatist Bloc Quebecois announced that it would table motion that would that Quebeckers form nation. Facing dissension from within his own caucus, Prime Minister Harper responded with resolution of his own, to recognize Quýbýcois as a nation within united The motion was easily passed by House of Commons, drawing this round of constitutional politics to close. It would be tempting to analyze this episode in purely political terms. But instead, I want to draw attention to puzzle and curious omission. The puzzle, stated by Liberal Party leader and political scientist Stephane Dion, is this: constitutional recognition of Quebec as nation generated heated debates, it was strictly symbolic measure that would have had no legal effect. To Dion, constitutional symbol, although desirable, is not necessary. Yet constitutional symbols mattered centrally to both proposal's proponents and detractors. The question is why. The curious omission is Charter. The Charter was direct response to centrifugal pressures of Quebec nationalism. So not surprisingly, it was Quebec which objected most to Charter. And it was adoption of Charter over Quebec's objections that sparked two decades of constitutional politics to reach constitutional accommodation with that province, including Ignatieff's proposals. In short, Charter is an integral part of how Canada found itself debating Quebec's status as nation nearly 25 years after it was adopted. Yet Charter was hardly mentioned at all during debate over Ignatieff's proposal. I want to tie debate over constitutional recognition of Quebec as nation to impact of Charter on Canadian constitutional culture. Support for Ignatieff's initiative was sharply polarized on linguistic grounds. Francophones within Quebec were its most enthusiastic supporters, whereas Anglophones outside of Quebec were its most vociferous critics. This pattern of political opinion reflects differing underlying patterns of national identification. Francophones inside Quebec tend to view Quebec as their primary national political community, whereas Anglophones outside Quebec tend to identify with Canada. My view is that these competing patterns of national identification reflect rather mixed legacy of Charter. The Charter was intended to serve as centerpiece of common Canadian nationality that transcended linguistic divide. But while Charter has been an effective tool for anglophone nation-building, it has been unsuccessful in combating Quebec (read: Francophone) nationalism. Indeed not only did Charter not offset Quebec nationalism; it may have made things worse. Had Charter been effective at combating Quebec nationalism and serving as glue of pan-Canadian national identity, last twenty years of constitutional politics would not have happened. There would have been no Meech Lake Accord, no Charlottetown Accord, and no referendum in 1995 in which country came close to break-up because of threat of unilateral declaration of independence in event of yes vote. Because all of these things did happen, one of basic political purposes of Charter was not met. This is cautionary tale to multinational polities faced with same challenge as Canada - of building common political identity against backdrop of competing nationalisms and which attempt to do so through bill of rights.