Smallc Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 The problem is that the First Nations have an agreement with the monarch, which has been written into our Constitution. Stephen Harper doesn't get to overrule that and Parliament certainly can't change it on a whim, if at all. Everything in the Constitution can be changed by Canada's Parliament(s), and section 1 of the CCRF allows an escape from pretty much anything in the right circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 Parliament cannot unilaterally change the Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) Parliament cannot unilaterally change the Constitution. Parliament(s). Parliament can in fact unilaterally changed most parts of the Constitution. The part dealing with first nations would, for the most part, require the consent of all parliaments in the country. Edited December 4, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 Parliament(s). Parliament can in fact unilaterally changed most parts of the Constitution. Wrong again, as usual 38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by (a) resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons; and ( resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of the provinces. (2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1). (3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment. (4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 I will repeat. The Parliament of Canada can in fact change most parts of the constitution on its own. When it can't, the entirety of Canada's sovereign legislatures (its parliaments) can definitely change anything they like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 I will repeat. The Parliament of Canada can in fact change most parts of the constitution on its own. When it can't, the entirety of Canada's sovereign legislatures (its parliaments) can definitely change anything they like. The Parliament cannot change any part of the constitution without consent of the Senate and the majority of provinces having 50% of the population. Nothing. And you are wrong, as always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) As usual, you know nothing. First, the Senate is part of Parliament, and second, no. Edited December 4, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 As usual, you know nothing. First, the Senate is part of Parliament, and second, no. Try again sophomore. Consent also requires a majority of the provinces on ALL amendments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) You see, the amending formula generally only deals with the written part of the Constitution...anything else is in the control of Parliament alone. In order to change the treaties, the government would have to first change the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That would require the Parliament of Canada and all of the provincial legislatures. That means that Canada's parliaments are supreme over the Constitution, and that laws regarding First Nations people are not in fact above the control. Edited December 4, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) You see, the amending formula generally only deals with the written part of the Constitution...anything else is in the control of Parliament alone. In order to change the treaties, the government would have to change the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That would require the Parliament of Canada and all of the provincial legislatures. That means that Canada's parliaments are supreme over the Constitution, and that laws regarding First Nations people are not in fact above the control. Wrong. I spoon fed you the Amending requirements of the Constitution. ANY amendment to any part of the Constitution requires the consent of the provinces. The Government and Parliament are SUBJECT TO the Constitution, not supreme over it. Edited December 4, 2011 by charter.rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 Those only deal with the parts of the Constitution that are set out in words. The other parts are conventions that Parliament can change at any time...and Parliament is supreme over everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 I think we're getting hung up here on the one issue. Changing the constitutional conventions I suppose doesn't really count as an amendment. I'll give you that much. Still, much of the Constitution is under Parliament's control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 I think we're getting hung up here on the one issue. Changing the constitutional conventions I suppose doesn't really count as an amendment. I'll give you that much. Still, much of the Constitution is under Parliament's control. None of it is under parliament's control. You said Parliament can in fact unilaterally changed most parts of the Constitution. So you now admit this was a lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) No, it wasn't a lie. I'm not getting into this conversation...again. Edited December 4, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
be real Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 I don't mind paying off the fn's for land access, the oil companies pay everyone else, but they have to be realistic and take some money or no money. I posted an example of a successful fn in Saskatchewan in another thread hat works with private partners and enjoys an unemployment rate of 4% And then we have the op who thinks that the oil sands pipeline shouldn't be developed in the first place, I mean really? Really there are others who do have differnt opinions. I understand the need of the parties involved in the tarsands to get there product to market, but the issue that many have is wether it should be happening at all. Like it or not tarsands have a horrible reputation and are more destructive than traditional oil drills. The point for many is that rapid change is needed for climate change to slow, many feel it is to late. Others the shear environmental destructive scope of the project is to devastating to back. A pipeline to China is helping there authoratarian regime energy security. Last time I checked not the nicest group of politicos. Then there is the Americans They might not even pay us for the oil. All communities will have a say but not all will be heard. The reality of a coastal oil spill grows and the coastal communities wait for another exxon valdiz. Many problems ahead, I'm surfing again tomorrow so that's my two cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 No, it wasn't a lie. I'm not getting into this conversation...again. Sure it is. Just like your attempt to back peddle and say "unwritten" conventions can be changed. There are no "unwritten" conventions and Parliament is bound by the Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 There are no unwritten conventions to the Constitution? Do you even have any clue how Westminster Government works? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 There are no unwritten conventions to the Constitution? Do you even have any clue how Westminster Government works? Yup. Nothing is "unwritten" when it comes to the Honour of the Crown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 Oh boy. The Constitution of Canada is largely unwritten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 Oh boy. The Constitution of Canada is largely unwritten. Don't be stupid, again. Everything is written down in Constitutional language. While interpretations are made by courts from time to time, the laws are still part of the the written Constitution. There are no ethereal clauses....except of course in your "sugar plums" thinking. But of course there are the unsubstantiated statements you make which are in fact lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 All laws, rules, and practices that structure the way the Canadian political system runs add up to the "constitution" of Canada. The Constitution includes a great many statutes, orders-in-council, and judicial decisions that interpret these documents. In addition, there are informal rules, called constitutional conventions, that regulate how our political actors behave. Finally, there are some traditions and customs that may not be obligatory but are followed. http://polisci.nelson.com/constitution.html These can be changed with new Parliamentary laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 http://polisci.nelson.com/constitution.html These can be changed with new Parliamentary laws. Try again. There are no "unwritten" conventions. Informal rules are still written down and cannot be changed on a whim. Mostly they are the "Honour of the Crown" procedures that require adherence to protocols and customs that are part of the document parliamentary procedure. But they are ALL written down and cannot be changed on a whim. As I said earlier. You don't know squat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 They are not all written down. You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not getting dragged into this again. Goodbye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 They are not all written down. You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not getting dragged into this again. Goodbye. You already are. If you didn't want to get called on it then you shouldn't have lied in the first place. You might want to ask for a refund for any education you are receiving. It isn't working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted December 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 The rights of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada have been violated for centuries. Now, and under international pressure, our laws and courts finally begin to uphold their right to benefit from activities on their traditional lands, and to have some influence in preventing destruction of the ecosystems that they depend on. And all you can say, smallc, is 'the laws can be changed'. Do you really expect that to happen? Do you really think that's the only solution? Why not just accept that there's a new reality, a new way of doing business? Why insist on an unrealistic and oppressive course of action that would cause strife and possibly conflict? What would you hope to achieve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.