reopen constitution good bad or else?
Comments
WRT your final point, you seem to be implying that an independent Quebec or a Quebec that negotiates some kind of sovereignty association will still be receiving equalization payments. There is no way that will happen. There is a huge emotional attachment to this country and that includes Quebec. But if Quebec rejects this country, you can expect that emotional attachment to quickly turn to a groundswell of resentment.
Do what you will. But do it with your eyes wide open.
Of course not. An independent Quebec would collect all taxes on its territory and by not being part of Canada, Quebec would not be part of Canadian programs. As for losing out on the deal, that's debatable.
Andrew Coyne: Time to end the myth that the 1982 Constitution was bad for Quebec
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/13/andrew-coyne-time-to-end-...
Thirty years later they are still at it: the grievance nursers, the unity warners, the federalism renewers and the statesman solvers and the whole shambling constitutional industry, still rolling, still meeting, still funded. Still.
There are people approaching their fifties who were not old enough to vote when the Queen signed the Constitution Act 1982 into law, snipping the last legislative strings tying the Constitution of Canada to the Parliament of Great Britain, entrenching a homegrown process of amendment within it, adding a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and much else.
After several decades of failed attempts, this ought to have been a moment for great national celebration — as it should be now, on its thirtieth anniversary. But that is to reckon without this country’s capacity for pointless politicization, sterile debates and perpetual indignance. And so the only people who will be marking the occasion, aside from a little gathering of Liberals in Toronto, will be the ones most convinced the country suffered some terrible calamity with patriation that they alone can put right: the constitutional industry, again.
What's so special about the 30th anniversary? Was there a big hullabaloo on the 25th? I doubt the Harperites will celebrate the 30th anniversary because Trudeau is in all the photos from 1982.
Don't forget the Premier who insisted on the Not Withstanding Clause and told Trudeau that without final parliamentary control he would never sign a new constitution.
I agree.
The Crown is still King Three decades after the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enshrined in the Constitution, the Crown's prerogative powers remain as vigorous as ever, writes Philippe Lagassé
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Crown+still+King/6458473/story.html
The idea that charter rights must occasionally give way to discretionary executive authority may be unsettling. Yet this is what the Supreme Court has concluded. Nor is this notion incompatible with founding principles of the Charter. Section 1 of the Charter specifies that there are "reasonable limits" tied to the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in a liberal-democracy.
Should a degree of judicial deference still be shown to the prerogative powers of the Crown? Before answering this question, we must first deepen our understanding of these powers and how they are used by prime ministers and cabinets. Britain recently undertook a comprehensive study of the British's Crown remaining prerogatives and their contemporary use and relevance. Considering the authority they confer on governments and the deference they evoke among the courts, perhaps it is time that Canadians debate the prerogative powers of their Crown, too.
I have always liked the idea of the notwithstanding clause. I know it could be used with disasterous effect, but I am glad it is there. Mind you, I never foresaw a Republican like government like Harper's. But, I believe any law can be overturned, so I don't worry as much as I otherwise might. Given the kind of cur Harper is, this is hard to do.
Actually the reason that Allan wanted the Not Withstanding Clause was because it represented the power of parliament against the power of the Crown and Crown appointed Judges. I had a lot of problems with it when it was included but Allan convinced me that the automatic expiry was a good balance. I came to share his concern about unelected power and that is what Judge made law is.
I think that parliament is the proper body to put fetters on the prerogative powers of the Crown not judges. But of course that takes having statespeople for MP's.
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
Listening to people complain about other parts of Canada is like listening to siblings argue about who had it toughest growing up. It's a debate that can't be won or lost - everyone has just had a different experience. Compared with most of the world, we've all had it pretty damned good.
Excellent points - and I would say that's a pretty rosy assessment. Emotions are likely to run high and I think it's fair to assume there will be other problems. You haven't even touched on the whole 'if Canada is divisible so is Quebec theme'. And it would definitely come up.
That's putting it mildly.