Harper wants to re-write constitution
Wed, 2008-04-02 17:15
#1
Harper wants to re-write constitution
Wed, 2008-04-02 17:15
#2
quote:
The Harper government is telling Quebec that if the Conservatives win a majority in the next election, they will look to reopen the Constitution and give more meaning to their recognition of Quebeckers as a nation.Emphasizing the Conservative receptiveness to “Quebec's historical demands,” Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn raised the possibility of winning 30 to 40 seats in the province, up from the current 11.
“The recognition of the Quebec nation within Canada allows us to think that we can put some meat around it, and that a majority government is more able to do a number of things, while being respectful of all of the provinces,” Mr. Blackburn said in an interview.
“When you're a minority, you never know what can happen, so it's not obvious to do that type of thing in the actual context,” Mr. Blackburn said on the topic of constitutional change.
The Conservatives are treading carefully to manage expectations and avoid a backlash in the rest of Canada. Still, they are hoping to make significant gains as a federalist, pro-Quebec alternative to the Bloc Quйbйcois, which now holds 48 of the 75 ridings in the province.
Mr. Blackburn spoke positively, albeit guardedly, of launching further constitutional talks with the provinces if the Conservatives form a majority.
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080402.wquebec02/BN...
This is extremely dangerous because if he gets his way on the Constitution, the real prize will be to weaken up the Federal Government to such a point that no future government will ever be able to pass a national programme (like the Health Act) again.
Enshrining Property Rights will be another prize ensuring a privatised / corporate society.
NAFTA will be the third enshrinement ensuring US oversight of our nation.
quote:
“Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be.”
[url=http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/05/20/So_What_DID_Harper_Say/]Harper's speech as NCC President in 1994[/url]
[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]
Wed, 2008-04-02 17:41
#3
We all remember what happened to the Progressive Conservative Party after they started fooling with the constitution.
Meech Lake -> Charlottetown -> Reform + BQ -> 2 seats
If you don't like Harper and the Conservatives, you should encourage them to continue down this track.
Wed, 2008-04-02 17:53
#4
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle John:
We all remember what happened to the Progressive Conservative Party after they started fooling with the constitution.
This was discussed on Newman's Politics program tonight, and, to pacify the west, Harper will also include an elected senate, with more seats for Alberta.
Also, nothing will happen until Harper wins a majority and firmly in power for four years. Four years is a long enough time to make changes to the Constitution and do damage repair afterwards.
Wed, 2008-04-02 18:08
#5
Boom Boom, I saw that same interview and when the rabid Alberta right wingers support it, you know something's up.
Its also important to remember the three other changes that will also be included (restricted federal powers, property rights and NAFTA) will guarantee elites and American colonialists across the country will be lining up behind it like the Free Trade debate of the 80's. Only this time you can guarantee there will be no vote attached (democracy's far too messy for anything this important).
As with the FTA, all elections will be rendered meaningless once these constitutional changes take hold. The right always know that if you entrench the system you maintain the power (no matter who wins elections).
[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]
Wed, 2008-04-02 18:19
#6
remind
Oh I am sure there will be more changes than that, how about freedom of privacy, security and mobility, say nothing of conscience, will ALL be lost.
Wed, 2008-04-02 18:32
#7
For sure but the others will be the ones they use to sell it.
Prepare for spin like "its time to stop Ottawa from ever having a NEP again", "your house belongs to you and it should be guaranteed in the constitution" and the triple E senate crap heard today on the Newman interview.
But I'm sure the other stuff will be there as well (probably sold along the lines that "we must target the evil doers to protect our freedoms" or something equally Orwellian).
All will be designed to hide the true agenda of permanently establishing a corporate state.
[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]
Wed, 2008-04-02 19:48
#8
Let's remember that amendments to the constitution can only be passed by the Canadian House of Commons, the Senate, and a two-thirds majority of the provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of the national population (the 7/50 formula). If a constitutional amendment only affects one province, however, only the assent of that province's legislature is required. (Lifted almost verbatim from this [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Canada]wi... article[/url].)
It's important to bear in mind how hard it is to amend our constitution (unless the amendment only affects one province). You would need seven provincial legislatures onside. Because of the 50% population rule, merely having seven provinces onside would not suffice. If Ontario and Quebec opposed an amendment, it would fail. If Ontario and BC opposed an amendment, it would fail. If Ontario, Alberta and X opposed an amendment, it would fail, for any province X except PEI.
[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Martha (but not Stewart) ]
Wed, 2008-04-02 20:40
#9
remind
Thanks Martha, so anything pertaining to PQ would have to approved by their legislature only.
Wed, 2008-04-02 21:05
#10
Constitutional ammendments on issues affecting only one province have to be passed, I believe, by three bodies: the federal House of Commons, the federal Senate, and the provincial legislature. So a constitutional ammendment concerning some internal Quebec matter would have to be approved not only by the Quebec National Assembly, but also by the federal House and the federal Senate.
Also, I am not sure how far this goes. As far as I know, since 1982, there have been seven constitutional amendments of the kind that only affect on province: these have all concerned what seem to be internal matters. These seven ammendments are as follows:
1. Constitution Amendment, 1987 (Newfoundland Act): extended education rights to the Pentecostal Church in Newfoundland (repealed by 1998 Amendment).
2. Constitution Amendment, 1993 (New Brunswick): added Section 16.1 to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which made English and French linguistic communities in New Brunswick equal, with the right to distinct cultural and educational institutions.
3. Constitution Amendment, 1993 (Prince Edward Island): allowed for a "fixed link" bridge to replace ferrying services to Prince Edward Island.
4. Constitution Amendment, 1997 (Newfoundland Act): allowed the Province of Newfoundland to create a secular school system to replace the church-based education system.
5. Constitution Amendment, 1997 (Quebec): permitted the Province of Quebec to replace the denominational school boards with ones organized on linguistic lines.
6. Constitution Amendment, 1998 (Newfoundland Act): ended denominational quotas for Newfoundland religion classes.
7. Constitution Amendment, 2001 (Newfoundland and Labrador): changed the name of the "Province of Newfoundland" to the "Province of Newfoundland and Labrador".
Now, suppose that Quebec wanted to change the constitution in order to introduce a special Quebec citizenship. I do not know whether that would count as a purely internal matter, to be decided only by the three bodies listed above (i.e. the federal House of Commons, federal Senate, and Quebec National Assembly). I guess that this is the kind of thing that might be referred to the Supreme Court. Suppose that Ontario wanted to split itself into two provinces. I would guess that, though this might look like an internal matter, it would have sufficently far-ranging consequences that it would have to be approved of by 2/3 of the provinces, etc. Or suppose that Manitoba wanted to eliminate the office of Lieutenant Governor, and replace it with a President of Manitoba. Again, I would guess that, though this might look like an internal matter, it would have sufficently far-ranging consequences that it would have to be approved of by 2/3 of the provinces, etc. But I really don't know where the line is drawn between a purely internal matter to be decided only by the three bodies listed above, or a more general matter to be decided by the whole country.
Mostly, here, I'm taking educated guesses. I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not a constitutional expert. But the above is what strikes me as plausible.
[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Martha (but not Stewart) ]
Wed, 2008-04-02 21:13
#11
remind
In order for them to meet the 50% rule, that would only take BC PQ, SK and AB voting in accord to make constitutional amendments.
Wed, 2008-04-02 21:37
#12
You need [b]both[/b] the 50% rule [b]and[/b] 7 out of ten provinces. So no four provinces (e.g., BC, PQ, SK and AB) would be enough even if they represented over 50% of the Canadian population. Those four provinces would be enough to [i]veto[/i] a proposed amendment, but not to bring about an amendment.
Wed, 2008-04-02 21:48
#13
remind
Okay, so it takes both, to pass, do you really think if Harper had a majority that he could not get 3 other provinces to buy into his twisted concept of human rights?
We know that currently he would have BC AB and SK for sure, given the governments in those provinces. Perhaps also PQ. I have no faith that 3 Atlantic provinces would not come on board either.
Wed, 2008-04-02 22:05
#14
It's true that if an amendment had the support of the federal House and the federal Senate and of BC, AB, SK and PQ, then it would only need three more provinces (any three) to pass.
Would this be easy for Harper to get?
I think that it would very much depend on the particular amendment. Enshrining property rights might actually fly. Enshrining NAFTA or any particular treaty with one or more countries? I doubt that this is the kind of thing that would fly as a new part of our [i]constitution[/i], even if legislators like it as a [i]treaty[/i]. (Is there any country in the world that has enshrined a treaty with another country in its constitution?)
Restricted federal powers might fly. It depends on the details. It [i]is[/i], I admit, the kind of thing that some provincial legislatures might like.
But removing freedom of privacy, security and mobility, and of conscience? (Your list of examples.) I doubt the conservative government wants that; but even if they did, I doubt that they could get seven out of ten provincial governments to go along. Would all of your list (BC, AB, SK, PQ) go along with removing or unduly restricting freedom of privacy, or of conscience? Plus three more provinces? It seems extremely unlikely to me.
Wed, 2008-04-02 22:16
#15
remind
No, actually I do not think it unlikely, the governments really are not the people, eh? Moreover, personal security has become a diminshed thing already, as has mobility, and in fact so has privacy. And freedom of conscience, well now that just depends on what they want to spio that as eh?!
Thu, 2008-04-03 09:29
#16
Talk of changing the constitution is one thing that's sure to make most Canadians run screaming. I hope Stephen Harper talks about it more.
Thu, 2008-04-03 10:12
#17
The amending formula you have here is the the legal one: 7 provinces, 50% of the population. Practically speaking it is not so simple: experience tells you that you need both Ontario and Quebec. We have all seen the implications of going without Quebec. I doubt anyone would do that again. Going without Ontario can be discussed in theory with a Minority government but practically, leaving Ontario unhappy with almost a third of the House of Commons seats is not a move a government that wants to get any future majorities would seriously consider.
There are provinces that require referenda for constitutional change and certainly there would always be some which would not want to carry the can on a divisive issue so they would hold a referendum to avoid paying that price (49% of the population can be left unhappy after a vote but no government would want 49% angry with them when a ballot has not been held). The changes would therefore have to be either not controversial (meaning not those discussed here) to get them through or they would have to be accepted by the population in a referendum.
One motivation may be in this debate not to actually succeed since any change would be more divisive than a discussion you can have without doing the complete math on each change. Perhaps the Conservatives would prefer to try and fail at least showing Quebec that it is the Cons in their corner not the BQ and not the Liberals. Of course such a gamble can be both dangerous for the party and for the country if anything goes wrong. Perhaps Harper would like this policy to be one more to founder on the rocky shores of Ontario which he can continue to demonize.
With respect to the Alberta-Quebec axis it is probably worth noting that there is no real certainty that Mulroney would have lost those two provinces had he led the party in that last election. It was Kim Campbell that lost those. Mulroney was screwed in Ontario and less than popular elsewhere especially among those who did not support the Tories. However, he did have residual support personally both in his home of Quebec and Alberta. I am sure teh upstart BQ and Reform parties were grateful they were running against Campbell. What she brought was greater hope for the Cons in other places including Ontario. As the election wore on that hope fizzled. Later people say that it was Mulroney who did the Cons in but during the election it certainly did not look that way as the Cons led when the writ was dropped. Later Canadians remembered their disgust with Mulroney and have chosen to remember that period differently opting to remember Campbell's defeat as a foregone conclusion, a take that is overly generous to her-- and frankly to the voters. The truth is when Campbell started to lose the Mulroney factor became a bandwagon issue that took them to the bottom but it was not a factor before she tanked them.
Anyway, there is a lot of risk to himself, his party and the country for Harper to be musing about the constitution and there is more likelihood of failure- nothing to show for it other than damage to the country.
Thu, 2008-04-03 12:26
#18
Martha (but not Stewart):
quote:
Enshrining property rights might actually fly. Enshrining NAFTA or any particular treaty with one or more countries? I doubt that this is the kind of thing that would fly as a new part of our constitution, even if legislators like it as a treaty. (Is there any country in the world that has enshrined a treaty with another country in its constitution?)Restricted federal powers might fly. It depends on the details. It is, I admit, the kind of thing that some provincial legislatures might like.
And this is the real danger because even if only property rights (which is the holy grail of neo-liberalism) and restrictions on future governments to undo the damage is passed, they would have succeeded in building the perfect corporate state.
Sean, as much as the hurdles you mention exist, I'm having a hard time trying to think of any Premier (McGuinty is the only question mark) who wouldn't jump at more powers for them and enshrining property rights for their corporate masters.
The way it will be sold is that not just Quebec but everyone's getting this great deal to destroy our social fabric.
Thu, 2008-04-03 14:24
#19
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by a lonely worker:
Boom Boom, I saw that same interview and when the rabid Alberta right wingers support it, you know something's up.
Absolutely. By the way, [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=006228&p=...'s[/url] an earlier thread on [b]Harpoon's next big battle - Property Rights [/b]. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2008-04-03 20:52
#20
quote:
Or suppose that Manitoba wanted to eliminate the office of Lieutenant Governor, and replace it with a President of Manitoba.
I think that one would require unanimity of the federal government and [b]all [/b] of the provinces, as the LGs are vice-regal appointments similar to the GG.