Canadians Ready to Open Consitution

August1991 · May 28, 2011

I say let's dump all the tea into St. Lawrence River

Trudeau in 1982 achieved the Canadian equivalent. He pushed and discovered that he could do what he wanted. (Unfortunately, all he did was impose a bizarre Charter of Rights, and an impossible amending system.)

Saipan, my conclusion is that English-Canadians drink tea; they don't waste it in harbours.

It's similar to having a fighter plane made in the 1940's in use today, but over the years you've had to add and take away things and install new equipment & upgrades to make the plane able to function to today's standards. It works ok, but it's a damn Frankenstein plane that doesn't quite fit together 100% perfectly and it may just be easier to scrap it and buy a shiny new one.

OTOH, it is better that it works. It should be difficult to change a constitution. I appreciate that car manufacturers are slow to adopt new changes. MG, to use your plane example, would you prefer to fly in the 747 or the 380?

I accept that Microsoft software crashes/slows sometimes. Microsoft operates in a new field, and my life doesn't depend on its success. (I remember a world without Microsoft.)

Edited May 28, 2011 by August1991

Smallc · May 28, 2011

And all he did was impose a bizarre Charter of Rights, and an impossible amending system.

:blink:

Moonlight Graham · May 28, 2011

OTOH, it is better that it works. It should be difficult to change a constitution.

I agree. But it shouldn't be virtually impossible. Sometimes, changes can be good.

Smallc · May 28, 2011

I agree. But it shouldn't be virtually impossible. Sometimes, changes can be good.

It isn't impossible or virtually so. The Constitution has been changed more than once since 1982.

MiddleClassCentrist · May 28, 2011

I think it's the mantra of the typical champagne, limousine liberal.

Those that claim Conservatives are archaic and can't think for themselves, yet also control Big Business, Oil and the military etc, always give me a laugh.....You got ask, if us knuckle draggers are doing this, what are they doing wrong and what does it say of their level of intelligence

Of course you two miss the point to defend your ideological brother without thinking about the statement being commented on.

The numbers would have to be perfect election result split for electoral reform .Everyone who didn't vote for the CPC would have to support it and all CPC voters would have to oppose it. This is not the case. I suppose the sarcasm should have been emoted on the last sentence.

Remiel · May 28, 2011

It isn't impossible or virtually so. The Constitution has been changed more than once since 1982.

While that is technically true, it is spiritually false. All of the changes that have been made since 1982 are of the sort that do not require the full use of the amending formula.

TimG · May 28, 2011

While that is technically true, it is spiritually false. All of the changes that have been made since 1982 are of the sort that do not require the full use of the amending formula.

The trouble is not the amending formula - but the fact that all constitutional changes now go to a referendum which pretty much ensures a majority will find something to dislike in any messy compromise deal. The EU would have never happened if the political leadership had actually held a referendum in every country.

Smallc · May 28, 2011

While that is technically true, it is spiritually false. All of the changes that have been made since 1982 are of the sort that do not require the full use of the amending formula.

They don't require the use of certain parts of the amending formula, you're right, but then, the parts that do are supposed to be virtually impossible to change. You don't go changing your government or court systems on a whim, and you certainly don't start stripping people of constitutionally guaranteed rights just because.

Smallc · May 28, 2011

The trouble is not the amending formula - but the fact that all constitutional changes now go to a referendum

They don't have to though, so I don't see why it would happen again.

TimG · May 28, 2011

They don't have to though, so I don't see why it would happen again.

Do you really think that any politician could push through controversial constitutional changes without a referendum at this point? The precedent has been set and there is no going back.

Smallc · May 28, 2011

Do you really think that any politician could push through controversial constitutional changes without a referendum at this point? The precedent has been set and there is no going back.

It's only been used once, so I don't see how it's really that much of a precedent. I've read that it's a possibility, but it isn't necessarily needed, since the amending formulas are already part of written law.

Remiel · May 29, 2011

It's only been used once, so I don't see how it's really that much of a precedent. I've read that it's a possibility, but it isn't necessarily needed, since the amending formulas are already part of written law.

This is not really any different than the 1980 referral to the Supreme Court, however, where they basically said that Trudeau could unilaterally change the Constitution but would be an idiot to do so.

Smallc · May 29, 2011

This is not really any different than the 1980 referral to the Supreme Court, however, where they basically said that Trudeau could unilaterally change the Constitution but would be an idiot to do so.

Not really, since any major change will involve both houses of Parliament and 7/10 or all of the provinces depending on the circumstance. A referendum is generally a bad idea if you want to get something done.

g_bambino · May 29, 2011

Not really, since any major change will involve both houses of Parliament and 7/10 or all of the provinces depending on the circumstance. A referendum is generally a bad idea if you want to get something done.

I suppose whether or not there is a referendum would depend entirely on how the deal making works out in the constitutional conferences.

Saipan · May 29, 2011

Saipan, my conclusion is that English-Canadians drink tea; they don't waste it in harbours.

I see most drink coffee. But perhaps you're right, it would be rather wasteful, never mind the fish getting really snooty.

Smallc · May 29, 2011

I suppose whether or not there is a referendum would depend entirely on how the deal making works out in the constitutional conferences.

Probably. I'm just not a fan of direct democracy initiatives in general, since they're usually a destabilizing influence.

g_bambino · May 29, 2011

I'm just not a fan of direct democracy initiatives in general, since they're usually a destabilizing influence.

I'm inclined to agree. Unless it's a really major change, like abolishing the Senate or the Crown or the Supreme Court.

Remiel · May 29, 2011

I suppose whether or not there is a referendum would depend entirely on how the deal making works out in the constitutional conferences.

Probably. I'm just not a fan of direct democracy initiatives in general, since they're usually a destabilizing influence.

I'm inclined to agree. Unless it's a really major change, like abolishing the Senate or the Crown or the Supreme Court.

While you are entitled to your opinion, and may even be right about some of their more harmful effects, I really do think the ship has sailed on the issue of direct democracy and Constitutional change. There is really no good reason to suppose that a state can simultaneously ignore its citizens and be legitimate. If the people themselves cannot exert their say on issue of the Constitution directly, then the country is truly a sham of a democracy. This is not necessarily to say, however, that the sort of widespread consultations that were had in the last round have to be exactly duplicated. There is still some room for discretion in who decides what question should be voted on.

Smallc · May 29, 2011

There is really no good reason to suppose that a state can simultaneously ignore its citizens and be legitimate.

No one would be ignoring the citizenry. The governments that are formed from the people's elected representatives would be making the change. There would be nothing undemocratic about it. Any constitutional change that is forthcoming will likely not involve a referendum, given the disaster that occurred last time and given that direct democracy has not generally been part of our system of government,

Edited May 29, 2011 by Smallc

Saipan · May 29, 2011

No one would be ignoring the citizenry. The governments that are formed from the people's elected representatives would be making the change. There would be nothing undemocratic about it.

Sort of.

Any constitutional change that is forthcoming will likely not involve a referendum, given the disaster that occurred last time ,

What disaster????????

and given that direct democracy has not generally been part of our system of government

It usually isn't, until it is. No country stays in the past forever.

g_bambino · May 29, 2011

No one would be ignoring the citizenry. The governments that are formed from the people's elected representatives would be making the change. There would be nothing undemocratic about it.

That's pretty much what I was going to say.

Battletoads · May 29, 2011

Our "elect a dictator" system puts governments in power and gives them 4-5 years to drive the bus with minimal interruptions. If they do well they are re-elected. If they don't they are tossed out and the other guys are given chance to drive. The system ensures governments can get unpopular stuff done if they need to and to reverse whatever dumb policies the previous guys put in. Policies that were not so dumb but unpopular tend to survive (e.g. GST, Free Trade, Healthcare etc.).

All this means is we are generally run by centrist governments that get stuff done. This system is much superior to what most countries have to put up with.

In the same vein of thought the government has 4-5 years to fuck the country over in irreversible ways.