The Constitution
What's up with the Canadian Constitution (and the American one, for that matter) ?
Why aren't more fundamental freedoms being protected?
i.e. Talks about privatization fo health care need to stop; instead the right to quality health care must be entrenched in our constitution.
The American Constitution is even worse as it does not guarantee the right to vote and to be a candidate in an election; yet it guarantees the right of citizens to bear arms (ironic, don't you think? )
Furthermore, a Constitution must have a amendment process (that is more comprehensive then the normal law), yet supple at the same time. The mere existance of a modification process, than there should be constant debates and discussions regarding constitutional amendment. Has that been the case in Canada? Well, since 1982 (the repatriation of Canada's Constitution), and other than some discussions about Quebec's role in the federation (i.e. Meech Lake, Charlottetown Accords) , I am of the opinion that the federal government has not done a sufficient job of ongoing constitutional discussion.
While I am in no way shape or form a fan of the Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney (PM of Canada from 1984 - 1993), I am a fan of the discussions that he embarked upon. While both Meeth Lake and Charlottetown failed, it was in these Accords that fruitful debates occurred. And, in the case of the Charlottetown Accord, sparked wholesale public debate.
Thus, I say it is time for a "Meech Medical" , and a "Charlottetown Accord for Democratic Renewal"; by doing this, the public will be engaged in fervent discussion, progress will be made....and Canada will be a better country tomorrow
posted by Uncle J @ 5:31 p.m.
6 Comments:
Mr. Martin lost a confidence vote this spring and did NOT visit the Governor General. It was a clear violation of constitutional law in Canada. He also ignored the will of parliament when he proceeded to split Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
And we didn't care as Canadians.
Jean Chretien refused to tackle fixing the constitution between 1993 and 2003. Martin said he would (i.e. Senate reform) and has since backtracked and now just ignores the constitution when it doesn't suit him.
No political career has ever been benefitted by opening up that Pandora's Box. Our current government leaders do not have the backbone to do what you ask so long as it costs them popularity, and by extension, power.
I have to disagree with u there Andrew:
Statement: "Mr Martin lost a confidence vote this spring and did NOT visit the Governor General"
Fact: According to constitutional convention, and law Mr. Martin DID NOT lose a confidence vote. Rather, he lost a motion to recommend to a COMMITTEE that the government has lost confidence and should resign. THOSE ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.
When the actual confidence vote occurred, and I would like to remind you that at this time ALL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE VOTED, Martin won the confidence motion; at the Motion for the reference to the committee, all the members of the house WERE NOT there... I hope you the gravity of such an error....
You're other points though, I do agree with...Liberals especially believe that the document Trudeau formed is sacrosaint and CANNOT be touched or amended....that is the ONLY area where I will commend Brian Mulroney for being better at
lol...
We'll have to disagree there. You know I'm no lawyer. But I do think that the intent was certainly there to defeat the government, and the motion was done properly, and the motion was carried.
In other words - the House clearly stated that it had lost confidence in the government.
Therefore, I feel that the explanation you had provided is the same one that Martin uses to sleep at night; that semantics and loopholes are more important than repsecting the democratically expressed will of the people.
Andrew,
Paul Martin is not dealing with semantics....maybe loopholes...but there are constitutional conventions that must be followed (or else this country would crumble)
Thus, I suggest that the Conservative Party get crackin on their constitutional knowledge, 'cause it was quite lacking this spring.
Bottom line: a Motion to recommend something to a committee is VERY DIFFEERENT than an ipso facto Motion before the House; in that, the latter is more serious
I agree with you that there is some ressemblance between the two; and i would agree with your premise, if all the members of parliament were there when this Motion to Committee was sent; in that case, the government would know that when the actual Motion came before the House, THEY WOULD be defeated. However, as this was not the case, Martin had every right and should not have declared that the government had lost the confidence.
Why? The term "Vote of No confidence" means that the MAJORITY of the TOTAL members of the House do not believe that the government can continue to govern.
Based on this definition, I got a question for you Andrew: Which one of the votes last spring meets those criteria (A vote where the MAJORITY of the TOTAL members of the HOUSE voted on the question of if the government could continue to govern)?
Sometimes these rules might seem stupid, but they are there for a reason. And, it is one of the reasons why Canada is one of the most stable countries in the word & one of the best countries in the world in which to live.
I'm not going to pretend to know how to combat the knowledge of law.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard of a confidence motion requiring a vote from every single member. A majority of the total members of the house present for that vote did vote against the government. Just because PM knew he didn't have the numbers and let Cotler and Efford skip doesn't excuse it. PM then named Belinda into his cabinet without having the authority of parliament to govern in order to get his numbers up.
Regardless, I'm sure you are right because there has been no action taken on this matter. I will never, however, defend this kind of action that was clearly contrary to the will of the people at that point in time.
canadiantruth, i must disagree;
Martin's proposal to remove the notwithstanding clause was to do exactly the opposite of what you suggest; ensure liberties and Charter rights cannot be limited by the will of Parliament (or any government). In point of fact, he was limiting his power. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is more in line with fundamental liberalism, if you ask me.
However, I do not agree with Martin's proposal, because I believe that there are situations, and instances (rare as they might and should be), where Parliament must exert its power (the people) must have the ability to (i.e. as Harper suggested, a case involving Child pornography).
Overall, the notwithstanding clause has never been used by the federal government in it's twenty-four year existence, and it is good to be included in our Charter if used with extreme reticence.
please elaborate your position canadiantruth
Post a Comment
<< Home