babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
reopen constitution good bad or else?
May 27, 2011 - 11:10pm
reopen constitution good bad or else?
crickets
It's hard to say.
On the one hand opening it in the past has been disastrous. History shows us that it always leads to just about every group with an axe to grind wanting their special rights recognized. And if we don't recognize those rights in a reformed constitution they will ipso facto oppose any attempts to reform the constitution, thus giving the impression that the whole exercise is a waste of time at best, while at worst exacerbating various regional, linguistic, ethnic and social conflicts within Canada. If we re-open the constitution with the goal of getting Quebec to sign, why won't every other group who objects to the current status-quo want their specific rights recognized in a way that the current Constitution doesn't? Afterall this is exactly what happened during Meech and Charlottetown.
On the other hand, Quebec did send a pretty strong message to the rest of Canada by tossing out the Bloc Quebecois and electing a federalist party. That message being we're willing to try something new, provided the rest of you are too. The rest of Canada would be stupid not to reciprocate in some way, whether there's a Harper majority or not.
So while I'd err on the side of caution and normally be against re-opening the constitution, I think it's something we'd need to consider provided that it could be done in a far more controlled way than it was during the Meech and Charlottetown Accords. Since it probably can't, I don't see it being re-opened and successfully getting Quebec's signature. Especially if the PQ beats the Liberals in the next Quebec election. Since it's unlikely the PQ even wants Quebec's signature on the constiution. Then again I could be wrong. If it's clearly stated what exactly it is Quebec wants, what exactly it is the Federal Government is willing to give up and that this is the only aspect of this constiutional negotiation that will be addressed, then perhaps it is possible.
If you had honest, earnest, unencumbered negotiators on both sides, it might be possible to come up with a deal. Unfortunately, you've got politicians who are more interested in advancing their party's interests than helping out the country. Jack Layton's bone-headed, clumsy handling of the "50%+1" question proved to me that this issue should be left alone.
If it's going to be raised, it should be raised by Quebec.
It's already open. Never closed. It's just been sitting off in a dark corner staring with doleful eyes.
As long as it is to get rid of the Senate
It is a gaping wound that will not heal, and that a lot of people want to conveniently ignore. Unfortunately it is a question that is ultimately tied to Quebec's future in confederation, so I doubt it can be resolved outside of the context of that larger question.
Of course that means it may never be resolved. (sorry to be a pessimist).
(edit)
Interesting that our PM claims to recognize Quebec as a nation, yet ridiculed the thought of re-opening the constitution as something we don't have time for.
It's necessary but I don't know how to avoid having everything but the kitchen sink thrown into it as happened with Charlottetown.
The only thing worse than ignoring a gaping wound is to have it treated by bumblers with all sorts of side agendas. I would just as soon have Cheech and Chong trying to fix this mess as Harper and Layton. Harper cares nothing for Canada aside from trying to model it in his neoconservative image (and Quebec is unlikely to fit into that). And Layton has already shown himself to be way over his head. He and his bunch of "accidental MP's" could well prove to be more dangerous than the Bloc ever was.
You take the politicians out, and instead charge a non-partisan, constitutional comission. This comission should operate in every individual constituency, and frist and foremost, educate grassroots Canadians about constitutional issues, why they are important, and what the sticking points are. Then it should get everyday Canadians, from all walks of life, anglophone, francophone, east coast, west coast, far north, First Nations, new Canadians, young, old, men, women, urban, and rural talking to each other and get them to come up with a solution. Once they come up with a solution, it should be taken to the provincial legislatures and ratified, and then ratified by the federal government pending the passage in a referendum.
Sound ambitious? It is. But if you leave it up to the politicians, every interest group in the country is going to feel slighted and the whole process will come unravelled. That's why Meech and Charlottetown failed miserably. Venezuela did a similar grassroots approach.
This is a very intriguing idea.
Huh? How were the Bloc dangerous in trying to get the best for Quebec?
I think it is called democracy. We see it so seldom it is good to name it when it rears its head.
Flutter flutter (just couldn't help myself with a bit of comic relief after Mr. Put Down who obviously is pissed that Jack hit it right on)
Oh really - gee that's not Don Martin had to say about "A youth movement as new MPs hit Ottawa" and sure do like this weekend spread about Jack of Hearts in the "Globe and old white male" this weekend.
So what? A couple of puff pieces in the newspaper (neither of which have anything to do with Layton's fumbling of the unity issue) prove that we can trust Jack to negotiate the future of the country??? I don't think so.
What's really funny is to hear you dippers cry incessantly about right wing media bias. Where' the bias now?
The Bloc were (are) a team of arrogant fools as are PQ and the rest of the separatists. They play a high stakes game of liars poker where the country hangs in the balance. They can't make a cogent argument for separation so instead they play to pride, prejudice and ego. They foster this arrogant, insulting myth of two founding peoples. As if only the Battle of the Plains of Abraham matters to Canada; as if what came before and after is irrelevant. They pretend that Quebec is a uniform united nation and that the other 9 provinces and 3 territories are some uniform group that can be lumped together as "The Rest of Canada".
Explain to me how trying to break up the country is "trying to get the best for Quebec". In a post separation scenario, Canada would probably be worse off but Quebec would be much worse off. Nobody ever seems to challenge the separatists to explain how exactly Quebec will be better off outside of Canada. Nobody ever seems to be able to articulate exactly how Quebec is not able to meet its aspirations within the country.
That sounds like a terrible idea. Then you're going to have each and everyone one of these "interests" demanding their rights be recognized in a constitution. Now you may wonder why I'm opposed to that. I'm not actually. But if you try to solve everyone's problems at the same time you're bound to have conflicting interests. It's exactly what happened the last few times the constitution was opened and it would again if you keep the terms of reference wide. The point is if you want to say, get Quebec's signature on the constitution, why make the process more complicated? And while you're trying to say that you'd "take the politicians out of it", it still remains political by involving all of these political actors. That by its very definition is not what a constitution is supposed to be. Hence, you're idea won't work. Canada is not Veneuzela.
oh well, whatever! NDP have better things to do than waste time fighting with Liberals - especially when watching the Cats fight among themselves! It's a much enjoyable pass time!
Huh. Remind me, again. From which province did Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Jean Chretien come?
Really. Speaking of the devil being in the details, what exactly do you think those people are thinking when they say that they are willing to give Quebec more autonomy? And exactly what autonomy is it that Quebec needs that it doesn't already have? Provinces in Canada already have a lot of independence under the current structure.
More fucking political gamesmanship from the NDP.
NDP Beat the Nationalist Drums in Quebec.
Really, does it matter to Jack Layton that he's potentially bumbling with the fate of a country? Or is any gamble in the service of the greater glory of the NDP worth the risk?
In my opinion, your whole series of rants in this thread are unsupported by anything like evidence. You cite some article by a fool who thinks that Quebecers can be forced to remain in Canada by tough love as if it made even an iota of sense. You excoriate Layton and Mulcair for foolishly giving expression to what is clearly the opinion of the vast majority of Quebecers, sovereignist or not. The detachment from reality that you and your information sources represent is mind boggling. If there is any way of persuading Quebecers that their best move is to remain within Canada, it is to engage the millions of proud nationalists who still think independence might not be necessary, exactly as Layton and his caucus are doing. Your position is as foolish as suggesting that the best way to fight a fire is to pour on some gasoline.
Yes, provinces have lots of autonomy. And plenty of capability to raise money. And when it comes to Quebec specifically, it is a perennial recipient of equalization payments - almost $8 billion in 2011-2012 alone.
And I think it matters a great deal where Trudeau and Chretien (and don't forget Mulroney!) are from. Quebec separatists like to blame Quebec's problems on Canada. But who has been running Canada? Over the past 50 years at least, we've had Prime Ministers from Quebec most of the time. What if Quebec's problems have little to do with Canada? What if they're just mostly to do with Quebec? Then what??
The last time politicians thought they could open up the constitution to make Quebec happy, the result was a referendum that nearly cost us the country. Since then, there's been 15 years where this has been on the back burner. So, what is the burning need to bring it up again now?? Is there some poll that suggests this is a top priority in Quebec right now?? No?? Then Jack is just one more do-gooder whose mindless meddling is going to stir up the hornet's nest. Again.
The Clarity Act is a good piece of legislation, a necessary piece of legislation. It has been ratified by the Supreme Court of Canada and it is the law in Canada. All of Canada. Layton's simpleton approach of currying favour by watering it down and discrediting it is asinine beyond belief. Perhaps Jack thinks he's going to be the first president of Quebec???
And as for Layton's insistence that Quebec needs more HoC seats, maybe he should consult the facts. British Columbia and Alberta combined have 300,000 more people than Quebec. Yet, Quebec has 17% more seats in the HoC than the other two provinces put together. That is simply not in keeping with democratic principles. Yet, here is Smilin Jack insisting that Quebec should be permanently guaranteed 24% of the HoC seats in perpetuity, regardless of population changes. Well, excuse me, Mr. Opposition Leader. Before I agree that my vote is worth less than someone in another province, I'd like you to come out here to the wacky west coast and explain it to me. Why does Quebec need this guarantee? What will happen without it? Are we getting something in return? Is this the only concession or will the separatists keep on ratcheting up the demands until the country breaks anyway?
In a country as diverse as Canada, you will always have provinces paying into equalization, and provinces receiving funds from it. Sometimes those provinces change. Equalization payments have been around for about 70 years to ensure a uniform quality of life throughout Canada.
What exactly was Layton asked, and what exactly did he say? It's quite possible that something was lost in the paraphrasing.
Well, lemme see.... maybe if we open up Mr. Hyperlink, it will tell us. Yeppers, here it is:
Seems pretty clear to me.
And here he is talking about "winning conditions". On Jack's entire communication team, is there not one bright light in the bunch who remembers what the phrase "winning conditions" means in Quebec??? Talk about incompetence.
I have no issue with the cnocept of equalization payments. I'm simply pointing out that Quebec is a long-time beneficiary. Currently, they amount to about $1,000 annually for every person in that province. That's a pretty substantial benefit for a province that seems to be convinced they're getting a raw deal.