Hello PETER.

18 Jan 06 13:40, you wrote to me:

 MG>> Only in Canada would a PM's promise to scrap the hated
 MG>> "notwithstanding clause" be portrayed as a negative
thing by the
 MG>> media. Doesn't anyone in this country value civil rights anymore?

 PC>   Are you referring to the "Language Police" in Quebec as
something to
 PC> look up to as an example of civil rights?

Quite the opposite. The "language police" in fact derive their
power from the Quebec government's usage of that very same notwithstanding
clause.

What I am referring to is Paul Martin's pledge to pass a bill prohibiting
the federal government from ever using the nothwithstanding clause on a
federal level to override a charter right, and the ensuing derision of that
pledge by the Canadian media.

 PC> YES I valued Civil Rights.  It was in the Charter of Rights
 PC> signed by John Diefenbaker in 1962.   The ownership of property
 PC> then but left out after the so called Constitution crap started.
 PC> After that passed it only made money for the lawyers
 PC>  and erroded what we had with all the Bills
 PC> Passed before.

With all due respect, our "charter of rights" was a part of the
British North America Act in those days and was the domain of the British
government; meaning that we did not have our own constitution at the time.
It was Pierre Trudeau that brought the constitution to Canada in 1982.

What Diefenbaker brought in was merely a "bill of rights", which
served largely as a guideline for courts to interpret federal laws in a way
that didn't infringe on individual freedoms. At that time however, the bill
didn't safeguard people's rights from being trampled by provincial
governments or private companies, agencies or individuals.

Although it is widely agreed that it was an important piece of legislature
that definately made a big difference over not having such a bill, and it
likely paved the way for the re-patriation of our constitution, it simply
didn't carry the legal weight of a true constitutional charter. The final
charter OTOH, expanded the rights and applied them to provincial and civil
laws through a constitutional amendment.

On the question of property rights, like all things enshrined or not
enshrined into the current constitution, there had to be a negotiation
process with all of the provinces, and nothing could be carried into
constitutional law until there was a consensis on it; because that is what
is legally required to amend a national constitution in Canada. It's likely
that property rights were brought up in those negotiations, and it's also
likely that there was not enough agreement upon it amongst the premiers to
form a consensis on it. That is probably the reason why it was left out.

That being said, personally I am in favor of property rights. However, I
also recognize the rule of majority in this country. If enough citizens of
this country felt strongly that those rights should be protected under the
Canadian constitution, then I feel they would push their provincial leaders
to re-open the constitutional debate to amend the constitution to enshrine
those rights.

That such a thing has not happened in more than 20 years of constitutional
law in this country tells me that it simply isn't a big priority in the
minds of most Canadians. I am willing to accept that; some aren't.

 PC> I still want a party to say we'll give on important issues the
 PC> citizens to vote on this or that...as they do in other countrys and
 PC> some US States.

More national referenda would be a good thing, IMO. An occasional foray
into such a form of direct democracy may help to make Canadian citizens
feel more a part of the federal political process. I certainly was glad to
have my own say on the Charlottetown accord in 1992, and I felt that
Canadians on the whole truly had thier say on that question at the time.

 PC> Oh yes...yesterday I ran into a similar babble about rights in a
 PC> chat zone there were two  one in english and one in french.
 PC> Both allowed both languages...but when they didn't like what I
 PC> had to say in the french side I got booted and banned.   In the
 PC> english side the same statement brought forth a great
 PC> chat...That shows to me the mind in Quebec...the language police
 PC> at work.

Unfortunately, the "notwithstanding" clause was a consession to
those very sentiments that still exist today in Quebec. Trudeau didn't want
it in and hated having to put it in, but it was the only way that Quebec
was ever going to sign the thing. If it didn't go in, we still wouldn't
have our own constitution today.

However, if proposals like Paul Martin's were to become law on federal and
on some provincial levels, then at least at some levels of goverment and in
some parts of the country, our rights could not be abused by invocation of
the notwithstanding clause. It would ultimately remain in the constitution,
and so Quebec could still use it, but if the rest of the country's citizens
took a real stand on it, then it wouldn't matter anywhere else except in
Quebec.

 PC> No problem....civil rights all the way..with the consent of the
 PC> majority not some politician in parliament.

However, our form of government which allows provincial autonomy within a
federation, does not legally allow a constitutional amendment by either a
simple national referendum nor by a federal government alone. The /only/
way is through a complete consensis of the federal government and all
provinces.

That is a very difficult thing to achieve; which in fact makes the
re-patriation of our constitution in the first place a very remarkable
achievement. Some people would say that given the importance of the
constitution, it's a very good thing that it's not too easy to amend.

--- GoldED/W32 3.0.1