Harper to Propose Constitutional Amendment

[jdobbin]

Years of government paralyzed in constitutional talks or worse, an agreement that is unworkable in practical terms.

Perhaps you remember the Mulroney years? Endless rounds of talks, no work on really eliminating the deficit. That's what I fear.

[cybercoma]

You obviously much have enjoyed Mulroney's last foray's into Constitutional change that almost tore this country apart.

Yeah, our country is in such a shambles that the mere mention of opening the constitution sends shivers down my spine. Canada is so fragile that I'm fairly certain Quebec will become its own nation, Alberta and BC with their oil and lumber will be their own nation, Toronto will be shattered into a million pieces (the larger of which will be adopted by china, haiti and probably the communist nation with the most firepower) and the maritimes will fall into the ocean if we even look at our Constitution the wrong way.

God will come down from the heavens and smite us all for even thinking of trying to improve our country. The Constitution is sacred and should never be touched, we're far too delicate to even consider such things. Canada as a nation clearly isn't mature enough to handle diplomacy within its borders, so what the hell are we doing as peacekeepers abroad.

Oh the calamity.

Bring the troops home, the nation is emotionally unstable and friable. We're on the verge of collapse and they're out there playing in a giant sandbox.

[cybercoma]

How does this even compare to Mulroney? Aside from opening the Constitution the similarities end there.

[jdobbin]

How does this even compare to Mulroney? Aside from opening the Constitution the similarities end there.

Because Mulroney only opened the constitution to get Quebec to signed in. Everyone and his dog came to the table after that and it was the First Nations who felt they were being excluded that held up the approval.

Harper might want to get one amendment done but it won't stop there and you can be sure that someone will hold the deal hostage until they get other amendments on the table.

Hence, the endless talks.

It is obvious the right wing can't remember that.

[jdobbin]

God will come down from the heavens and smite us all for even thinking of trying to improve our country. The Constitution is sacred and should never be touched, we're far too delicate to even consider such things. Canada as a nation clearly isn't mature enough to handle diplomacy within its borders, so what the hell are we doing as peacekeepers abroad.

Oh the calamity.

Bring the troops home, the nation is emotionally unstable and friable. We're on the verge of collapse and they're out there playing in a giant sandbox.

Please, continue the arrogance. Two seats was what the Conservatives were reduced to after that last bit of hubris.

[watching&waiting]

The opening of the constitution for a small ammendent to limit the spending procedures of future governments, is no where the same as it was for the past efforst for Meech Lake etc.. To even say that it is is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, by those who want to stall this for their own political purposes. WE as a nation should never fear opening our constitution for ammendments. This was and is to be expected by the people who know that you can never write a bill that will never need to be ammended over time. We should add unwarranted and partisan spending to this as it really goes to serve only the party in power at the time, at the expense of the parties not in power. This should be something that all parties should recognize and they all should be willing supporters of it.

The whole idea of using scare tatctics for this ammendment, is once again what thwe Liberals are doing. When will the people see them for what they really are? Just one more week and we will then be able to see who they have picked to represent the Liberal party, and then we will see an election. I personally believe that the CPC will win a majority, and then you will see the new leader for the Liberals, sit in opposition for quite some time.

[jdobbin]

The opening of the constitution for a small ammendent to limit the spending procedures of future governments, is no where the same as it was for the past efforst for Meech Lake etc.. To even say that it is is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, by those who want to stall this for their own political purposes. WE as a nation should never fear opening our constitution for ammendments. This was and is to be expected by the people who know that you can never write a bill that will never need to be ammended over time. We should add unwarranted and partisan spending to this as it really goes to serve only the party in power at the time, at the expense of the parties not in power. This should be something that all parties should recognize and they all should be willing supporters of it.

The whole idea of using scare tatctics for this ammendment, is once again what thwe Liberals are doing. When will the people see them for what they really are? Just one more week and we will then be able to see who they have picked to represent the Liberal party, and then we will see an election. I personally believe that the CPC will win a majority, and then you will see the new leader for the Liberals, sit in opposition for quite some time.

If there was a way to open up the Constitution for one amendment at a time maybe it would be possible to have talks that didn't degrade into paralysis.

You are assuming that all parties are going to be interested in being so reasonable. In Manitoba, it took just one MLA to bring the table of cards down.

It isn't scare tactics. It's reality. Even if Harper gets all his ducks in a row, a province may go to an election over the amendment and lose and it could be all over or have to start again from scratch.

As far as Conservatives winning a majority, it certainly is possible. However, I'll repeat it again and again, Afghanistan could be an issue if Canada is still out on the frontlines come this spring. It might not be so much Liberals winning as Conservatives losing if the anti-war feeling contributes to a negative outlook.

[Charles Anthony]

Years of government paralyzed in constitutional talks or worse, an agreement that is unworkable in practical terms.

What could be more productive for our federal government than to promote its own decentralization?? and more power to the smaller jurisdictions?

Perhaps you remember the Mulroney years? Endless rounds of talks, no work on really eliminating the deficit. That's what I fear.

The amendment deals with limiting federal government spending.

I believe you fear losing power and control over the taxes of your fellow citizens. I can not see any other reason to oppose this amendment.

Please, continue the arrogance. Two seats was what the Conservatives were reduced to after that last bit of hubris.

So what???

I look on the bright side: we saw the development of two regional parties.

Please, continue the big-government-knows-best arrogance.

It isn't scare tactics. It's reality. Even if Harper gets all his ducks in a row, a province may go to an election over the amendment and lose and it could be all over or have to start again from scratch.

Yes, it is scare tactics because your explanation would justify never making any change for the better.

[FTA Lawyer]

What are the real issues Saturn?

The real issues are that Canada is sliding further down the list of good places to live year after year. Our health-care is getting worse, education is getting worse, the gap between rich and poor is getting wider, 1 in 6 Canadian kids live below the poverty line, our infrastructure is deteriorating, our cities are are becoming less safe, more polluted, and quality of life is going down. Our environment is deteriorating, our population is aging and we are not prepared for massive numbers of seniors. Our governments are becoming less and less democratic, less and less responsive to the needs and the wishes of the people and more and more corrupt and unaccountable. Fewer and fewer voters exercise their right to vote and our voting system is 100 years behind the times. Those are the real issues.

And so, we should come out full-bore in favour of the status-quo and against a proposed change in the way we conduct our current state of Federalism?

By your own statement, the status quo means a continuous slide towards disaster...painful as it may be, we need some Constitutional reforms in this country...why do you think the issues keep coming back, over and over and over...because they are real systemic problems that need to be addressed.

FTA

[jdobbin]

What could be more productive for our federal government than to promote its own decentralization?? and more power to the smaller jurisdictions?

The amendment deals with limiting federal government spending.

I believe you fear losing power and control over the taxes of your fellow citizens. I can not see any other reason to oppose this amendment.

So what???

I look on the bright side: we saw the development of two regional parties.

Please, continue the big-government-knows-best arrogance.

Yes, it is scare tactics because your explanation would justify never making any change for the better.

For a separatist, this is paradise: Albertans and Quebecers alike. It is a way to show Canada doesn't work.

You don't need a constitutional amendment to limit federal spending. You need the courage of your convictions in the here and now. Harper is perfectly capable of cutting today and not years from now as this is how long a constitutional amendment takes. There is no such things as a speedy amendment and for good reason. It requires thought and debate.

It isn't the one amendment I oppose. It is the arrogance of assuming that this is the only amendment that will be proposed. Already some provinces are indicating no desire for talks on this subject. Alberta and Quebec might be chomping at the bit but that doesn't mean Ontario is anxious for it.

Please explain why Harper can't act now and requires an amendment to do what should come natural to him?

[jdobbin]

And so, we should come out full-bore in favour of the status-quo and against a proposed change in the way we conduct our current state of Federalism?

By your own statement, the status quo means a continuous slide towards disaster...painful as it may be, we need some Constitutional reforms in this country...why do you think the issues keep coming back, over and over and over...because they are real systemic problems that need to be addressed.

Why does Harper need this amendment when he can limit spending now? Is he saying that the present Constitution now limits him? Where in the law does it say that he can't limit spending?

[Wilber]

But hey if it makes me more Canadian to not want to be more American, I'm all for it. Thanks for the compliment.

What I am saying is not doing something that may be better just because it is more American would make you stupid.

It may be better? Who says, you? Sorry if If I laugh at that thought. But you don't really know anyways do you? This is just your oppinion of what would be better. Maybe what we have is already better. Then you would be stupid to follow the American lead wouldn't you?

If you love american values and lifestyle so much, I hear they let people move there. Staying somewhere a person isn't happy, when they could go where things are done the way they like them, sounds pretty stupid to me.

Yes, it may be better or it may not, I'm just not stupid enough to let anti Americanism stop me from doing what is best.

I've lived in the US and I liked it there. Some things they do better than us and some they don't, but this is my home and I am quite happy here thank you so don't give me any of this Canada, love it or leave it BS, it doesn't sound any better north of the border than it does down there.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Look at it this way; in 1867 we bought a political vehicle. 100 years later the damned thing was out of date needed major upgrades and we screwed around for a dozen years without actually doing anything about it. Then we decided to act on the notion that the ancient critter was getting harder to start in the morning. A couple of years later, after taking it apart in theory, the political mechanics put it back together changing practically nothing while it in fact restricted its movements even more. Some guys didn't like the finished product and would buy it in 1982.

Now twenty odd years later we want to look at doing the same thing, just tweak it a little is what some folks want. I say if you want to open the can of worms be prepared for what crawls out. Every individual citizen, each of our mutiple layers of government want to see changes, but we all want different things. Its going to be a free for all, a knock down drag out donnybrook that will clear the benches. In the end, the only way its going to end is when all every skeleton has been hauled out of all of the closets and every lump under the rug has been found. There will be no stone left unturned and no two rocks will stand together ever again. That is because we are ALL distinct societies with specific concerns and wants. There are the rich who do not want to give and the poor who don't want to work, there is literally no end to our diversity. For that reason we will ultimately fail as a nation.

You see its all about policy, and that is the ultimate political tool of division. It works as long as you are using it with a majority, but in the case of minorities it simply does work. If you want to revise the constitution the only functional means of doing so would be to clearly define the parameters of specific levels of government, what each level is responsible for and accountable for and then let the chips fall where they may. You cannot open the debate with only the feds can make the rules because who in their right mind would want to play? In simple terms decentralization of power is the only viable option that the feds can use to open that can of worms. Without that carrot it will be mayhem in negotiations.

The feds need only be in control of national defense and foreign policy, thats it. In terms of the social contract the feds should be in control of defining standards and enforcing them. Any province should have the ability to custom design social programs that met the needs of their citizens, provided that they can fund it of course. Having said that, there is still more that needs to be considered within the framework of constitutional reforms such as democratic reforms. Fixed election dates, recall legislation, an elected senate are all items of consideration whose time has come.

I don't think Harper has the stomach for it, or the balls. In fact I think that the political parties are deluding themselves if they think they can get away with just tweaking that little piece of parchment. That simply won't do as far as most citizens are concerned.

[g_bambino]

The US constitution states that all government powers not clearly stated as going to the federal government, belong to the states. And any powers not clearly stated as government belong to the people.

Our Constitution does the reverse and gives the federal government power the right to tax or spend in any domain it feels appropriate.

Harper's amendment is good and would limit the federal government's power to intervene in jurisdictions that are not in its competency. The Liberals and NDP will likely oppose this proposal.

Perhaps I'm misreading something, but doesn't the Constitution spell out quite clearly what lies within provinical jurisdiction and what is within the federal, albeit with some overlap and the condition that, within those areas, if a provincial law works against a federal law, the federal law trumps? Our provinces may not have as many exclusive rights as US states do, but the federal government cannot legislate for all provincial affairs.

Taxation and spending is just one of many responsibilities laid out for both the federal and provincial governments, and a limit on federal spending would simply eliminate some of the present overlap, which, of course, would be a good thing from the provincial point of view.