|
|
||||
| |
||||
| |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||
The C-Word After
Brian Mulroney had to leave politics after the failure of the
Charlottetown Accord and the Tories were reduced to two seats no major
party has dare touched the subject of constitutional change. The two
main reasons on opening up the constitution are to get Quebec’s
signature on a constitutional amendment and to have an elected Senate.
But over the past decade, none of these has been seen as necessary, and
the public has not had the appetite for any sweeping political reforms.The main problem with reforming the constitution is the public sees any attempt to change the constitution are motivated by the leader’s lust for a political legacy. Ultimately, the public has to decide through a national referendum if they want the amendment or not because a backroom deal done by the PM and Premiers would be seen as elitist. Over the past decade, there has not been a desire or a need to change Canada’s constitution until the Supreme Court’s ruling on universal healthcare. The ruling was a complete shock to all political observers. Many on the right have complained for years about activist judges but no court decision created a bigger uproar across the country. There are two types of rights, social and economic. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects civil liberties but very few governments enshrine economic rights in their constitution because no government ever has stable revenue. Canada’s constitution deliberately doesn’t have economic rights in the constitution because it would force the government to allocate a certain amount of spending on programs and any area that is deemed to be under-funded could force the government to meet specified spending targets. But the Supreme Court decided the reference to the right to life was enough of a reference to justify their decision that if the government fails to adequately fund the healthcare system, the courts get to decide how to fix the problem. Many pro-healthcare advocates caution that the ruling to allow for the purchase of private health insurance will not lead to the destruction of healthcare since it only affects one province and with additional judges being named to the Supreme Court it might be overruled. But those who worry about this new threat to our healthcare system are already suggesting the use of the notwithstanding clause or forcing judges to declare their loyalty to universal healthcare before they are sworn in. But this new problem might be a tremendous opportunity to open up the constitution and modernize Canada’s democracy. Canadians consistently rate universal healthcare as one of Canada’s greatest achievements and if we want it to be permanent, it should written right into the constitution. Governments are weary of adding economic rights into the constitution but the new clause does not have to force governments to allocate a specific amount of funding for healthcare, but rather it could just simply state all Canadians are entitled to equal access to healthcare and cue-jumping is prohibited.  The second reason
why it might
be advantageous for the government to open up the constitution is the
resurgence of Quebec separatism. When
separatist support spikes federalists, rely on the promise of
constitution change to preserve our country. The major issue is usually
centered on the “distinct society” clause. The main problem with
writing such a powerful word as distinct right into the constitution is
the fear the Quebec might be able to secure special powers not
available to other provinces. A compromise clause could be a paragraph
explaining Quebec’s unique culture, and the paragraph could be
nicknamed the distinct clause.The third major issue that would most certainly arise would be aboriginal rights. Native Canadians are the most impoverished segment of Canada’s population and since they were the first inhabitants of this country, they should be allowed to have some special privileges. Self-government is the obvious one that would give many native leaders’ equivalent power of a city with some of the powers usually exercised by the provinces or the federal government. In addition, I would not have a problem with native Canadians being given the right to elect a senator representing their constituency. Lastly, a constitutional amendment would most certainly create a democratically elected Senate. Right now, there is over a 100 senators and I believe the Senators could easily be reduced to 50. Each province would receive four Senators, the territories would share four Senators, and there would be six Senators elected a large. The four senators elected in each province would be done using proportional representation. If one political party received 75% of the vote they would receive all 4 senate seats in the province, 50% of the vote would receive 3, and 25% would receive 2. The six senators would be voted in by six different groups; aboriginals, youth, seniors, doctors, military officers, and ex-politicians. Youth would receive a Senator to show that they have power, and they would get a Senator for their own specific interests. Seniors would be given a Senator for the same reason. Canadians respects our medical professionals and our peacekeepers the most and both of them should receive a say in how our country is run. Doctors would be given a specific Senator to raise their own issues and recognize their contribution to Canada. The military would receive a Senator to fight for their interests that include properly funding our soldiers and veteran benefits. Ex-politicians would have their own Senator in which they could decide which one of their peers in most deserving to be in the Senate. No other profession is slandered more and giving them the right to vote for one senator would a small thank you for serving the public. In conclusion, if a constitutional amendment is introduced it must be shorter than the 100+ pages of the Charlottetown Accord and also have a promise in it of another referendum in 10 years. Forcing whatever government is in power 10 years in the future to table another referendum would guarantee groups whose interests weren’t addressed in this round to have another chance to be included in the next constitution talks. Related Rants: United Right Fails to sink Martin; Left makes big strides Paul Martin's New Democratic Deficit Election 2004 ... and the future canadianwild.ca Feedback Comments: That's a long rant Dave Posted by joethenarc at Jan-10-2006 09:12:15 canadianwild.ca Interactive: Your Chance To Rant |
|
|