CanPol: Race to the Finish

[notyoueither]

For instance, take the recent SCoC ruling on healthcare in Quebec. They put their own ruling into abeyance for 1 year. Say they did so to avoid chaos in an important area of public policy (I think that was their reason).

Say they decided to say the same thing for all Canadians due to the CoRF, and not just Quebecers for the QHRC. Say they didn't grant any abeyance, or one year would not be sufficient for adjustments to be considered, let alone implemented.

Parliament might need to pass a motion that said something to the effect that the CHA continues in force for 5 years NWS the recent SCoC ruling.

You see, we have a court that hasn't yet found it's own limits. They are overturing their own precedents and guidelines in some cases, not just statutes.

We got along just fine with no law but that which Parliament gave us for over a hundred years. I see no problem with Parliament being able to override the SCoC for defined periods of time. Jurists have no monopoly on wisdom.

Incidently, what a Martin government can amend out, a future Parliament could amend back in. This is all smoke and mirrors.

[Flinx]

Seat Prediction

I'm on vacation and out of the country so this is a little late but here are my seat predictions based (solely) on polling data collected by The Strategic Counsel between Jan 3 and Jan 8 (n=2500)

Canada ......95 124 24 65  0
BC ...........9  18  9  0  0
AB............0  28  0  0  0
SK MB.........4  19  5  0  0
ON...........54  45  7  0  0
QC............8   2  0 65  0
NB NS PE NL..17  12  3  0  0

Remember the margin of error on some of the regional polls is close to +/-5% and there were close to 60 (iirc) ridings in 2004 that were won by less that amount.

Feel free to all you like.

[KrazyHorse]

Incidently, what a Martin government can amend out, a future Parliament could amend back in. This is all smoke and mirrors.

No. Constitutional amendments are deliberately difficult to pass. This might be one of the few which would have a chance.

[notyoueither]

Amendments that affect only the powers of Parliament and the executive require only an act of Parliament.

Or are you supposing that since Liberals have dominated, they can pass this and then the Senate that they appointed can be counted on to block a reverse amendment?

[notyoueither]

Section 44.

Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.

That is why Martin thinks this is easy to pass. By the same token, it is easy to reverse.

[notyoueither]

As a matter of fact, I'm not sure a reversal would even require seperate legislation.

No Parliament can bind a future Parliament.

[KrazyHorse]

That would anull the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution at all insofar as it concerns the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.

[notyoueither]

Yes. Yes it does. Welcome to Westminster.

There are still some things that they can't touch without provincial consent (the killer of Constitutional amending). Number of MPs being less than senators, number of senators, etc. And that therefore would not be easy to change back if ever changed.

However, no Parliament deserving the name can bind a future Parliament based solely on acts thereof. That is a principle of our governments going back before there was an Upper or Lower Canada.

[notyoueither]

A keystone of the Supremecy of Parliament is that the currently sitting one is Supreme, and is not bound by prior Parliaments.

[notyoueither]

OTOH, they do need to have the political guts to make a change. That's the counter-balance. The citizens as electors. Under Westminster, no higher power is needed.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yes. Yes it does. Welcome to Westminster.

I call bull****. The Constitution wouldn't have that clause in it if no amendments on that subject were allowed.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
A keystone of the Supremecy of Parliament is that the currently sitting one is Supreme, and is not bound by prior Parliaments.

But it is bound by the Constitution.

And the Constitution may be amended by Parliament.

[KrazyHorse]

I think the way that would be interpreted is that no Parliament may pass a simple act or law which would restrict a future Parliament, but that if they pass a Constitutional amendment they may restrict future Parliaments.

[notyoueither]

What are you talking about?

Parliament may amend the Constitution as it applies to itself, as Parliament sees fit. And future Parliaments may change everything back, or make it different again.

What is so hard to understand?

It might help to understand that Constitutional change under Westminster normally comes about by an act of a parliament.

When Trudeau brought home our Constitution, he introduced an American concept. That Parliament would be junior to a document that any current Parliament has no final control over, but only so far as it affects the CoRF and the provinces. Other than that, Parliaments can do whatever they want.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


But it is bound by the Constitution.

And the Constitution may be amended by Parliament.

And under section 44, amended back again.