Political Crossfire Forums

[Nostradamus]

Canada is thinking of "outing" the governor general position, complaining that it's just a waste of money. This is a world where high school kids don't even know that we have one. And yet, she is spending millions on a trip to Europe taking all her high class friends. I say drop it, and for anyone who says it will lead to bad relations with Europe, I'm sure none of them really give a damn what Canada does.

[Canada_Rocks]

Nostradamus wrote: Canada is thinking of "outing" the governor general position, complaining that it's just a waste of money. This is a world where high school kids don't even know that we have one. And yet, she is spending millions on a trip to Europe taking all her high class friends. I say drop it, and for anyone who says it will lead to bad relations with Europe, I'm sure none of them really give a damn what Canada does.

Well, if we drop the Governor General, I say rewrite the constitution, Drop the monarchy all together..and drop the Senate.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Canada_rocks wrote: Nostradamus wrote: Canada is thinking of "outing" the governor general position, complaining that it's just a waste of money. This is a world where high school kids don't even know that we have one. And yet, she is spending millions on a trip to Europe taking all her high class friends. I say drop it, and for anyone who says it will lead to bad relations with Europe, I'm sure none of them really give a damn what Canada does.

Well, if we drop the Governor General, I say rewrite the constitution, Drop the monarchy all together..and drop the Senate.

Rewriting the constitution is almost next to impossible. With Meech Lake and Charlottetown, every single person in Canada wanted to have something in the constitution, which turned out to be a disaster.

[Snow Patrol]

Canada_rocks wrote: Nostradamus wrote: Canada is thinking of "outing" the governor general position, complaining that it's just a waste of money. This is a world where high school kids don't even know that we have one. And yet, she is spending millions on a trip to Europe taking all her high class friends. I say drop it, and for anyone who says it will lead to bad relations with Europe, I'm sure none of them really give a damn what Canada does.

Well, if we drop the Governor General, I say rewrite the constitution, Drop the monarchy all together..and drop the Senate.
Surely a simpler solution is just to strip the position of most of it's budget and privileges, hence cutting costs without the fuss of scrapping the position, monarchy and having to re-write the constitution.

Of course that's coming from the point of view that you're grievance is about the money wasted on a largely ceremonial position. If on the other hand you're coming from the point of becoming a republic, that's a different matter.

[Canada_Rocks]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Canada_rocks wrote: Nostradamus wrote: Canada is thinking of "outing" the governor general position, complaining that it's just a waste of money. This is a world where high school kids don't even know that we have one. And yet, she is spending millions on a trip to Europe taking all her high class friends. I say drop it, and for anyone who says it will lead to bad relations with Europe, I'm sure none of them really give a damn what Canada does.

Well, if we drop the Governor General, I say rewrite the constitution, Drop the monarchy all together..and drop the Senate.

Rewriting the constitution is almost next to impossible. With Meech Lake and Charlottetown, every single person in Canada wanted to have something in the constitution, which turned out to be a disaster.

Not true

Meech Lake:
Quote: Because the accord would have changed the constitution's amending formula, it needed the unanimous consent of all provincial and federal legislative houses within three years before being proclaimed into law. It failed to be ratified in the Manitoba Legislative Assembly when Elijah Harper filibustered until the deadline expired. Once it became clear that the Manitoba Legislative Assembly would not pass the resolution, the Newfoundland House of Assembly also abandoned debate on the accord. The accord was approved by the other eight provinces and the federal houses.

But many fought the Accord. In an interview with CBC journalist Barbara Frum, former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau broke his silence on the Accord, claiming it was a sell out. In the interview, Trudeau argued that Quebec, whilst distinct, was no more distinct than many other places in the nation, and should be treated as such.

Only NFL, PEI, New Brunswick and Ontario and NW Territories voted in favour of the Charlottetown accord

Amendments can only be passed by the Canadian House of Commons, the Senate of Canada, and a two-thirds majority of the provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of the population.

The government can also remove Acts listed in the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms via the Notwithstanding clause (section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Quote: (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).


Quote: The federal Parliament or a provincial legislature may declare a law or part of a law to apply temporarily "notwithstanding" countermanding sections of the Charter, thereby nullifying any federal/provincial or judicial review by overriding the Charter protections for a limited period of time. This is done by including a section in the law clearly specifying which rights have been overridden.

Such a declaration lapses after five years or a lesser time specified in the clause, although the legislature may re-enact the clause indefinitely. The rationale behind having a five-year expiry date is that it is also the maximum amount of time that the Parliament or legislature may sit before an election must be called. Therefore, if the people wish for the law to be repealed they have the right to elect representatives that will carry out the wish of the electorate. (The provisions of the Charter that deal with elections and democratic representation are not among those that can be overridden with the notwithstanding clause.)

The argument has been made that if fundamental rights--such as freedom of conscience and freedom of religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and freedom of expression, including freedom of the press (which includes other media of communication); freedom of assembly; and freedom of association--can be overridden, then it is questionable whether the people in fact do have a true right to overrule Parliament's actions. However, scholars of British constitutional law, upon which much Canadian constitutional jurisprudence is based, stress that if the fundamental jus commune or law of the land was to be overridden in such a cavalier way by a Parliament exercising such arbitrary parliamentary supremacy the people would have the ability to revolt against their government much as the rebels revolted against the Crown in the thirteen colonies. This type of reasoning was used by the jurists who developed the theory of the Implied Bill of Rights before the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


with that, the government can vote the democratic rights "Notwithstanding":

Quote: equality rights: equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination

democratic rights: the right to participate in political activities, to vote and to be elected to political office and similar rights

legal rights: the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right to retain a lawyer and to be informed of that right, and the right to an interpreter in a court proceeding are examples

mobility rights: the right to enter and leave Canada, and to move to and take up residence in any province or to reside outside Canada

language rights: generally, the right to use either the English or French languages in communications with Canada's federal government and certain of Canada's provincial governments

minority language education rights: generally, French and English minorities in every province and territory have the right to be educated in their own language

making it impossible for Canadian citizens to vote in a plebiscite. Apparently.

[timmtc]

It is so difficult to actually ammend the consitution though. Of course it can be done, but for something so drastic it is highly unlikely.

[Canada_Rocks]

timmtc wrote: It is so difficult to actually ammend the consitution though. Of course it can be done, but for something so drastic it is highly unlikely.

The main problem isnt amending the constittuion. it is the introduction of legislation into the House of Commons. In order for it to suceed, the majority party would have to agree with the legislation, then vote for it. If it doesnt pass, in the house, senate or commitee a non confidence vote may be required...the present gove may not want to risk losing its seats.
Once the government institutes the Notwithstanding clause, they may have a chance to overpower voters and provincial legaslative assemblys

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Canada_rocks wrote: timmtc wrote: It is so difficult to actually ammend the consitution though. Of course it can be done, but for something so drastic it is highly unlikely.

The main problem isnt amending the constittuion. it is the introduction of legislation into the House of Commons. In order for it to suceed, the majority party would have to agree with the legislation, then vote for it. If it doesnt pass, in the house, senate or commitee a non confidence vote may be required...the present gove may not want to risk losing its seats.
Once the government institutes the Notwithstanding clause, they may have a chance to overpower voters and provincial legaslative assemblys

The whole non-confidence vote has turned into a joke because it makes the party discipline so strict that individual MPs are becoming irrelevant. I think we have to follow the British model where they only have non-confidence vote for some specific legislations like the budget, etc. Their party discipline is less strict.

[Canada_Rocks]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Canada_rocks wrote: timmtc wrote: It is so difficult to actually ammend the consitution though. Of course it can be done, but for something so drastic it is highly unlikely.

The main problem isnt amending the constittuion. it is the introduction of legislation into the House of Commons. In order for it to suceed, the majority party would have to agree with the legislation, then vote for it. If it doesnt pass, in the house, senate or commitee a non confidence vote may be required...the present gove may not want to risk losing its seats.
Once the government institutes the Notwithstanding clause, they may have a chance to overpower voters and provincial legaslative assemblys

The whole non-confidence vote has turned into a joke because it makes the party discipline so strict that individual MPs are becoming irrelevant. I think we have to follow the British model where they only have non-confidence vote for some specific legislations like the budget, etc. Their party discipline is less strict.

We do..money votes..or in america..money bills, we do have regulations, hence why harper had to wait for the budget in order to call the the non confidence vote..... or wai for a constituional amendment.

[Canada_Rocks]

And rememer Reservation and dissallowance..twho major principles in section 92 of the Canadian constitution that basically give the federal goverment free reign over legastative decisions in the provinces

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Canada_rocks wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Canada_rocks wrote: timmtc wrote: It is so difficult to actually ammend the consitution though. Of course it can be done, but for something so drastic it is highly unlikely.

The main problem isnt amending the constittuion. it is the introduction of legislation into the House of Commons. In order for it to suceed, the majority party would have to agree with the legislation, then vote for it. If it doesnt pass, in the house, senate or commitee a non confidence vote may be required...the present gove may not want to risk losing its seats.
Once the government institutes the Notwithstanding clause, they may have a chance to overpower voters and provincial legaslative assemblys

The whole non-confidence vote has turned into a joke because it makes the party discipline so strict that individual MPs are becoming irrelevant. I think we have to follow the British model where they only have non-confidence vote for some specific legislations like the budget, etc. Their party discipline is less strict.

We do..money votes..or in america..money bills, we do have regulations, hence why harper had to wait for the budget in order to call the the non confidence vote..... or wai for a constituional amendment.

So why is the party discipline so strict? :?

[Canada_Rocks]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Canada_rocks wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Canada_rocks wrote: timmtc wrote: It is so difficult to actually ammend the consitution though. Of course it can be done, but for something so drastic it is highly unlikely.

The main problem isnt amending the constittuion. it is the introduction of legislation into the House of Commons. In order for it to suceed, the majority party would have to agree with the legislation, then vote for it. If it doesnt pass, in the house, senate or commitee a non confidence vote may be required...the present gove may not want to risk losing its seats.
Once the government institutes the Notwithstanding clause, they may have a chance to overpower voters and provincial legaslative assemblys

The whole non-confidence vote has turned into a joke because it makes the party discipline so strict that individual MPs are becoming irrelevant. I think we have to follow the British model where they only have non-confidence vote for some specific legislations like the budget, etc. Their party discipline is less strict.

We do..money votes..or in america..money bills, we do have regulations, hence why harper had to wait for the budget in order to call the the non confidence vote..... or wai for a constituional amendment.

So why is the party discipline so strict? :?

Tradition.

Going against your party will tend to land you as an independant in the legislature..Meaning you got booted.
It is the way it has been for a long time. If you disagree with your party, you can "cross the floor" to the other side to join another party. Something that a conservative MP did prior to the non-confidence vote for the budget..she joinded the liberals..ultamately winning the vote..Chuck Cabbman (Rest his soul) an independant from Surrey/Walley constituancy in BC also voted in favour of the government.

Canadian government is all about taking sides and obeying your party.

[thundertaker]

Do they have three-line whips in canadian bills? In Britain, you can only be booted out of your party for disobeying a three-line whip to vote a certain way, usually for something like a money bill or manifesto pledge, anything else is either a matter of individual conscience, or weiging up your chances of getting a nice job on the front bench.....

[ToonArmyIsComing]

thundertaker wrote: Do they have three-line whips in canadian bills? In Britain, you can only be booted out of your party for disobeying a three-line whip to vote a certain way, usually for something like a money bill or manifesto pledge, anything else is either a matter of individual conscience, or weiging up your chances of getting a nice job on the front bench.....

No, the current PM, Paul Martin, is trying to introduce it, but so far there is no evidence of it anywhere since he's in a minority government.

[Lancaster]

I think that we should cancel the position, ever since king-byng, they've had no power.... also, this is a high school student talking, Please generalize less, I don't know where you got your facts, but everyone I know knows all about clarckson (and now Jean)

[Rannath]

I agree with snow patrol, just cut the budget. Then again I know next to nothing about politics and tend to take the path of least resistance... then again that might make me a really good mp, no?

[Canada_Rocks]

Rannath wrote: I agree with snow patrol, just cut the budget. Then again I know next to nothing about politics and tend to take the path of least resistance... then again that might make me a really good mp, no?

A glorious MP :wink: