July 20, 2013 - No. 28

Deepening Political and Constitutional Crisis

Proof of Nation-Wrecking and Need for Genuine Democratic Renewal Which Empowers Canadians

Harper Government's "Friends and Enemies" List

Proof of Nation-Wrecking and Need for Genuine Democratic Renewal Which Empowers Canadians

The recent revelation that the Prime Minister's Office operates on the basis of a "friends and enemies" list within Canadian official circles sheds light on the nature of the cabinet Harper has appointed to complete his term and manipulate the next election. It adds to the intrigue, corruption and cover-ups surrounding Harper's appointees to the Senate, and all the other unacceptable departures from the expected professional code of conduct when it comes to political culture. It is proof positive that the former institutions of government are wrecked and that nation-wrecking is quite complete.

Not a few have ascribed the existence of a "friends and enemies" list to the fact that Harper is ideological and runs government on an ideological basis. According to them, he should be pragmatic but suffers from a siege mentality. We are to conclude that it is a matter of individual character and policies.

In the opinion of TML Weekly, this explanation is superficial. It ignores the degree to which Canada's institutions have been privatized and wrecked. The Prime Minister's Office has been filled with highly paid private sector staff. It has done away with the services of the civil service which is under attack. Its aim is to advance the interests of the most powerful private monopolies at home and abroad, and crush whatever stands in their way. It puts the full weight of Canada's public purse and state institutions behind this aim. This includes the Supreme Court, the Senate, the armed forces, the Crown corporations, the Parliament and definitely the PMO. This modus operandi is in fact an integral part of neo-liberal nation-wrecking. According to such methods, all the assets of the state are handed over to private interests and ministerial prerogative is used to arrogantly usurp power and override any notions of accountability to the sovereign decision-making body -- the Parliament -- making it totally ineffective. Harper's choice of Cabinet Ministers such as the new Minister of Democratic Reform Pierre Poilievre, who can only be described as a punk, not a politician or statesperson, amply shows the crude Mafia nature of neo-liberal government.

It must not pass! Canadians must organize themselves politically to empower themselves and make sure that in Canada governments uphold public right.

The "Enemies" List Story

On July 15, it was reported that newly-shuffled Cabinet Ministers are being given marching orders from officials in the PMO to implement instructions which divide "stakeholders" into "friends and enemies."

The story became known as a result of a July 4 email from Erica Furtado in the PMO's "issues-management department" obtained by the Toronto Star. Furtado directs government staffers on what to include in the transition booklets that are given to new Ministers. Instead of simply providing information on the new portfolio, its responsibilities, relevant legislation and how to carry out one's duties, the binders are said to contain directives from the PMO including: "Who to appoint," "who to engage or avoid: friend and enemy stakeholders" (TML emphasis) " and "What to avoid: pet bureaucratic projects."

Furtado is the executive assistant of "issues management" in the Prime Minister's Office, a branch that oversees the handling of "sensitive issues." Such "branches" of the PMO and their vague duties give a sense of Mafia-type operations and cover-ups. Differences between people and factions are sorted out through Mafia means. In other words, on the basis of "Might Makes Right" and the use of slander, defamation and arbitrary, personal criteria, not criteria based on the public interest where differences are sorted out through discussions, negotiations and agreements to disagree. In fact, the takeover of the PMO by private interests means there is no professional body whose duty is to uphold the public interest. State power has been usurped by the private interests.

It is common to hear the Harper government say it has consulted stakeholders to give the impression that it has carried out its duty to consult. It engages in this kind of doublespeak to present an anti-social arrangement as having the approval of the people. The memo dividing "stakeholders" into "friends and enemies" now debunks this doubletalk as well.

Canadians expect the PMO to facilitate the connection of the Prime Minister with the Cabinet, the House of Commons, Parliament as a whole, and Canadians who the Prime Minister is supposed to represent at all these levels. Instead, it is showing itself to be a mechanism to disempower the electorate, the House of Commons and Senate, the government, and even the Cabinet. It has concentrated such power and dictate over the daily affairs of government and thus Canadians that it has become a symbol of the utter crisis in which Canada's parliamentary system is mired. Even within the official circles, people have no say over the affairs of the country, while private monopoly interests stage electoral coups to fabricate a majority through fraud and then use the offices of government to block any accountability and redress. They pervert everything they come in contact with. Persons and things are turned away from their proper nature or use, including the electoral process, the parliamentary debates and committee meetings, the course of justice and interactions with Canadians. They misconstrue/misapply words and practices and lead astray and corrupt people and things -- whatever it takes to maintain the position of privilege of the private interests who have usurped the PMO and all the ministries. Finally, by fabricating enemies and criminalizing them, they attack all organizations which keep Canadians organized in one form or another so as to totally undermine any resistance to their nation-wrecking.

Harper's problem is that such self-serving practices will not be tolerated by the people or even most people in official circles. They are now in open conflict with the vast majority of Canadians, even many who consider themselves to be Conservative. For many, to be conservative is to oppose instability, opportunism, hooliganism, arrogance and the use of privilege to promote self-interest. They have utter contempt for what Harper and his Ministers are doing. They too want to have a say in deciding the affairs of the country as do all Canadian citizens and residents who are greatly alarmed by the unfolding events. How to stop Harper has become the most pertinent question on the minds of most people. This problem must be resolved in the people's favour.

Ongoing Scandal in the Senate

Takeover of Parliamentary Institutions and
Cartel Parties by Private Interests

The ongoing revelations about how the cover-up of Senator Mike Duffy's inappropriate spending took place, who paid whom, and who knew what are concerning to many Canadians. On June 26, new revelations came to light in the form of a sworn affidavit by the RCMP's lead investigator on the Senate scandal. The officer is from the National Division of the RCMP responsible for investigating "matters of significant risk to Canada's political, economic and social integrity."

The affidavit reveals that officials of the Harper government tried to prevent an exposure of alleged violations of the law by a Conservative Senator. The affair implicates the Conservative Party itself, more members of the Prime Minister's Office, and certain Conservative Senators. As TML Weekly previously pointed out, scandal is usually about blackmail. The more Harper tries to cover up the scandal, the more blackmail comes to the fore and the more sordid the spectacle becomes. No doubt, more will be revealed as the scandal unravels and more documents are handed over by the Senate to the RCMP for their investigation.

Harper's Nation-Wrecking Ball

Fundamental issues have emerged that are important for Canadians to pay attention to, which are being actively avoided by the bourgeoisie at this time. One of these is the manner in which Harper is operating as a nation-wrecker, destroying the arrangements on which Canada as a nation is based.

As concerns the Senate, Harper refuses to acknowledge its role in Canada's parliamentary system. He is actively working to undermine its functioning, while trying to usurp its powers for himself, as final arbiter of legislation through appointments and raising doubts about the Senate's legitimacy in relation to the House of Commons. This was clearly seen recently when officials of the Harper government insinuated that the Senate had no right to amend the Harper government's anti-union legislation Bill C-377. The amendments to the bill, essentially gutting the legislation, forced it back to the House of Commons for reconsideration, which is perfectly within the traditional right of the Senate. Generating added fury and cries of "enemy" by Harper officials, the Senate amendments passed only because certain Conservative Senators supported them.

The question of Senator Mike Duffy's residence -- primary and secondary -- is not simply a matter of what expenses he is permitted to claim.[1] It concerns the Senate's role within the Canadian federation and its mandate. The Senate is supposed to be a body representative of the various provinces and regions of Canada. The Senate along with the House of Commons and their respective powers were established within the Constitution based on 19th century British arrangements and the nation-building project of that period.[2]

It is not a matter of interpretation or opinion whether the Senate exists with definite powers, a defined mandate and criteria for membership. In appointing Duffy, Harper has essentially attacked the arrangements in the Constitution for naming Senators. He appointed a person to represent PEI who does not really reside in that province. Duffy was then used to champion the Conservative Party and raise money during the 2011 federal election based on his widespread notoriety as a media personality. No doubt Duffy contributed to the electoral coup that the Harper government carried out through its use of micro-targetting and voter suppression to neutralize the opposition of the Canadian people to his nation-wrecking agenda.

Harper's appointment of Duffy, although within his prerogative powers as Prime Minister, violated the purposes of the Senate and the criteria for appointments. The appointment has deepened the crisis of Canada's parliamentary system. It is partially why the Harperites consider it so important to try to put a lid on the investigation into Duffy's expenses based on his residence.

Harper claims ad nauseam that the Senate should be elected or completely dismantled, while at the same time he violates the notion that Senators are supposed to represent definite jurisdictions, in this case PEI, appointing someone who would help him retain state power. This reveals the self-serving nature of Harper's opposition to the Senate and his straightforward wrecking of its ability to function according to its mandate.

Takeover of Parliamentary Institutions and
Cartel Parties by Private Interests

La Presse cartoon of the Humpty Duffy affair. Harper says: "Humpty Duffy sat on a wall... and then Senator Duffy fell down and was cracked ... and that is the  end of the story."

Another issue revealed within this scandal is the manner in which private monopoly interests concentrated in the PMO have used the Harper majority and its executive to take even greater absolute control of the government. Using the power of the executive, private interests have extended their control over the institutions of the Canadian state within and outside Parliament, as well as over the cartel party system, in particular the Conservative Party. From this position, these private monopoly interests push their narrow self-serving agendas in the name of public interest or national security and destroy those public institutions, regulations and traditions that operate as a block or restrict their power.

According to lawyers for Nigel Wright, as revealed in the same affidavit of the lead RCMP investigator, one of Wright's roles within the Prime Minister's Office was to "manage the Conservative Party, part of which was to deal with matters that could cause embarrassment." This makes clear that his role in dealing with Duffy's "embarrassing" expense claims was not a one-off incident but part of his assigned duties within the PMO, likely so that Harper himself can claim bogus "plausible deniability."

To deal with the "embarrassing situation," and this shows how scandal usually goes hand in hand with blackmail, the Conservative Party intended to cover Duffy's expenses from a Conservative fund overseen by Senator Irving Gerstein. This plan was hatched when it was thought the expenses were in the range of $32,000. However, when it became apparent the amount was $90,124.27, the affidavit states that party officials felt the figure was "too much" for the fund to cover. It may well have been "too much" as it would have raised too many questions. Instead, Wright paid Duffy himself on the condition that he repay the money immediately and not speak to the media about it further.

Nigel Wright is a known quantity. He has definite connections with private monopoly interests. He was the managing director of Onex Corporation, a large private equity investment firm and holding company owned by billionaire Gerry Schwartz. He also has other direct links to monopoly interests in the mining sector such as Barrick Gold. Wikipedia calls him "a prominent Bay Street dealmaker," "a Bay Street heavy hitter."

In all of this, the fact that Wright, an official of the PMO and a public servant, is the manager of the Conservative Party on behalf of the PMO indicates the extent to which he, as a representative of definite private interests is in a position to determine or at the very least strongly influence Conservative Party affairs. At the same time, he oversaw the Office of the Prime Minister, a position that has usurped the decision-making functions of the government, the House of Commons, and the Parliament as a whole.[3]

The Necessity for the Working Class to Put Itself
at the Head of Nation-Building

The actions of the Harper government reveal that it is prepared to wreck anything that stands in the way of monopoly right, including Canada itself. Harper's main attack is on the thinking of the Canadian working class and others to make them feel as if they are powerless in the face of his wrecking ball.

The Harper way is presumably the only way to get things done, and in the face of his executive power and prerogative, he wants everyone to believe and accept that there is no alternative.

But that is not the case. The Canadian and Quebec working class and the First Nations have a future because they stand for nation-building and not nation-wrecking. The Harperites have no future because their self-serving agenda is in contradiction with the public interest and the progressive trend of history.

The current scandal is a result of the Harperites self-serving agenda to enshrine monopoly right as dictator with absolute power over public right. Such an agenda has no place in the modern world and will continue to unravel especially when faced with an increasingly outraged, conscious and organized polity.

By putting forward its independent politics in various new ways, the working class is gaining invaluable experience in the practical politics of how to establish new mechanisms to unite all those who can be united behind a pro-social program of nation-building. In the course of the fight to present its own pro-social program and stop the Harper anti-social offensive, the working class must take up the central question of the democratic renewal of Canada's institutions so that Canadians, Québécois and the First Nations can unleash the human factor of the collectives of the people from coast to coast.

Notes

1. Some of the allegations of inappropriate expenses concern Duffy claiming a Senate living allowance for a secondary residence in Ottawa. Within this, he claims his primary residence is in PEI, which he represents. According to a sworn affidavit by an RCMP investigator, Duffy himself was concerned that if it became clear through a Senate investigation that PEI is not his primary residence his Senate seat might be in question.
     According to the same affidavit, Duffy's concerns were allayed by the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Nigel Wright. The Senate requires that Senators reside in the province for which they were appointed, but it does not necessarily have to be their primary residence. In other words, Duffy's seat is safe although his claim that PEI is his primary residence more and more is being shown to be completely bogus, to the extent that it was revealed in the affidavit that Duffy has lived in Ottawa since 1971, some 42 years ago.
2. Section 21 and 22 of the Canadian Constitution relating to the constitution of the Senate and criteria of membership therein:

Representation of Provinces in Senate

22. In relation to the Constitution of the Senate Canada shall be deemed to consist of Four Divisions:

1. Ontario;
2. Quebec;
3. The Maritime Provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island;
4. The Western Provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta;

which Four Divisions shall (subject to the Provisions of this Act) be equally represented in the Senate as follows: Ontario by twenty-four senators; Quebec by twenty-four senators; the Maritime Provinces and Prince Edward Island by twenty-four senators, ten thereof representing Nova Scotia, ten thereof representing New Brunswick, and four thereof representing Prince Edward Island; the Western Provinces by twenty-four senators, six thereof representing Manitoba, six thereof representing British Columbia, six thereof representing Saskatchewan, and six thereof representing Alberta; Newfoundland shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by six members; the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by one member each.

In the Case of Quebec each of the Twenty-four Senators representing that Province shall be appointed for One of the Twenty-four Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada specified in Schedule A. to Chapter One of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada. (12)

Marginal note: Qualifications of Senator

23. The Qualifications of a Senator shall be as follows:

(1) He shall be of the full age of Thirty Years;

(2) He shall be either a natural-born Subject of the Queen, or a Subject of the Queen naturalized by an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of One of the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, before the Union, or of the Parliament of Canada after the Union;

(3) He shall be legally or equitably seised as of Freehold for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Free and Common Socage, or seised or possessed for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Franc-alleu or in Roture, within the Province for which he is appointed, of the Value of Four thousand Dollars, over and above all Rents, Dues, Debts, Charges, Mortgages, and Incumbrances due or payable out of or charged on or affecting the same;

(4) His Real and Personal Property shall be together worth Four thousand Dollars over and above his Debts and Liabilities;

(5) He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed;

(6) In the Case of Quebec he shall have his Real Property Qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that Division.

3. Harper once described in an interview the way his government functions. The "team" in his office, which is reportedly made up of roughly 1,000 private consultants, comes up with proposals that are presented to the Cabinet for feedback. Once decided, the proposals are given to Conservative MPs to take to the public.

Harper Government Asks Supreme Court
How It Can Change Constitution

Prior to the most recent scandal which has implicated the PMO, the Conservative Party and certain of its members in the Senate, the Harper government sought to prepare conditions to change the way the Senate functions in the name of "reform" or eliminate it through changing the Constitution without any role for the Canadian people.

To carry out changes to the appointment of Senators, the Harper government announced on February 1 that it would be asking the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada about how its majority in the House of Commons and in the Senate would be able to change the Constitution Act of 1867 and 1982.

The Supreme Court is asked to consider this reference question in the context of the Harper government's steady appointment of new judges to the Supreme Court and opposition from the executive of certain provinces to the unilateral imposition of new arrangements in the funding of social programs such as health and education, that are under their jurisdiction according to the Constitution. Also, First Nations have expressed growing demands for the implementation of their treaty rights, which they have put on the agenda since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was included in the Constitution by the government of Pierre Trudeau.

Within this context, the Harper government is asking the Supreme Court how it can change the Constitution, including asking if it can unilaterally abolish the Senate, in a manner that would set a precedent for broadening the powers of the Parliament to change the Constitution and eliminate the role of the Canadian people in establishing a new and modern constitution. The Harper executive desperately wants the ability to change the Constitution without permitting the Canadian people, Québécois and First Nations to stake their claim.

The government appears to be using the unrepresentative nature of the Senate and current scandals which it has sought to cover up as an excuse to usurp the power to change the Constitution without having to open the Constitution and face the claims for its renewal by the peoples of Canada, Quebec and the First Nations.

The Harper government states that should a favourable opinion be received from the Supreme Court in terms of its request for how it could change the Constitution, it intends to pursue the passage of the Senate Reform Act, which the government tabled in the last session. The Act has faced opposition from certain provinces, as well as, it is reported, from within the ranks of the Conservative Senators.

According to a government backgrounder on the questions put to the Supreme Court, under section 53 of the Supreme Court Act, the Governor in Council may refer to the Supreme Court for its opinion, important questions of law or fact concerning the interpretation of the Constitution and the constitutionality or interpretation of any federal or provincial legislation. The Court will then provide an opportunity for interested parties to make written and oral arguments. After considering the questions and the arguments of interested parties, the Court will render an opinion and, to the extent possible, will provide an answer to the questions posed by the Governor in Council.

The backgrounder presents the government's questions and reform by claiming Canadians asked for them by electing the Harper government: "Canadians gave the Harper Government a strong mandate to reform the Senate. The Senate plays an important role in Canada's parliamentary system as senators make and review laws that directly affect Canadian taxpayers. The Government believes that the Senate, in its current state, must change in order to reach its full potential as a democratic institution serving Canadians. The aim in seeking a reference to the Supreme Court is to accelerate the pace of Senate reform and to lay the foundation for further reform to the Senate."

Explaining why the government includes questions in the reference that go beyond the provisions of the Senate Reform Act, the backgrounder states:

"The questions reflect the Government's position that meaningful change to the Senate can be achieved within Parliament's authority. The additional questions will elicit the opinion of the Court on the appropriate amending procedures for a broader set of issues that have been prevalent in discussions on Senate reform over the past several years, and could pave the way for further reform."

The Supreme Court of Canada will determine the schedule for the conduct of the reference. That said, an opinion of the Supreme Court could come within 10 to 24 months of filing the notice of reference. This estimate is based on past references before the Court.

Provinces Pushing Changes to Senate

If the Supreme Court rules that changes to the Senate would require the "7/50" amending formula -- seven provinces with at least 50 per cent of Canada's population would have to pass motions in their Legislatures to that effect. A National Post story on the positions of various governments on the eve of a meeting of the Council of the Federation says that the Brad Wall government of Saskatchewan is considering introducing a constitutional amendment into the Saskatchewan Legislature this October calling for the abolition of the Senate. The article says Wall will likely "try to sell the idea when the provinces meet in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont., for the Council of the Federation [July 24-26]. Mr. Wall has long argued that the premiers are better placed to represent the provinces than party loyalists sitting in the Senate."

An official in the Saskatchewan government "said the expectation is that the government of British Columbia will follow Saskatchewan's move, and there are hopes that NDP governments in Manitoba and Nova Scotia would also initiate their own legislation. He said even the Parti Québécois government of Pauline Marois has no love for the Senate. However, the new Ontario Premier, Kathleen Wynne, has recently reversed the long-standing position of her predecessor, Dalton McGuinty, who favoured abolition, saying she believes reform is possible.

Ben Chin, director of communications for BC Premier Christy Clark, said BC is "sympathetic to Premier Wall's idea of abolition but is also open to the idea the Senate can be fixed." Any constitutional changes in BC however would have to be submitted to a referendum.

The same article explains that "an abolition amendment would also have to be passed by the House of Commons and the Senate itself." It reports that a recent Nanos Research poll suggested 49 per cent of Canadians want the Senate to be reformed, 41 per cent believe it should be abolished and only 6 per cent are in favour of the status quo.

According to the article, sources suggest the Prime Minister is "coming around to the idea" that his government should push abolition if the court says any changes require provincial approval.

(National Post, The Hill Times)

For Your Information

Questions the Supreme Court Is Asked to Consider
on Senate Reform

1. In relation to each of the following proposed limits to the tenure of Senators, is it within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, acting pursuant to section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to make amendments to section 29 of the Constitution Act, 1867 providing for

(a) a fixed term of nine years for Senators, as set out in clause 5 of Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act;

(b) a fixed term of ten years or more for Senators;

(c) a fixed term of eight years or less for Senators;

(d) a fixed term of the life of two or three Parliaments for Senators;

(e) a renewable term for Senators, as set out in clause 2 of Bill S-4, Constitution Act, 2006 (Senate tenure);

(f) limits to the terms for Senators appointed after October 14, 2008 as set out in subclause 4(1) of Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act; and

(g) retrospective limits to the terms for Senators appointed before October 14, 2008?

2. Is it within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, acting pursuant to section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to enact legislation that provides a means of consulting the population of each province and territory as to its preferences for potential nominees for appointment to the Senate pursuant to a national process as was set out in Bill C-20, the Senate Appointment Consultations Act?

3. Is it within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, acting pursuant to section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to establish a framework setting out a basis for provincial and territorial legislatures to enact legislation to consult their population as to their preferences for potential nominees for appointment to the Senate as set out in the schedule to Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act?

4. Is it within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, acting pursuant to section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to repeal subsections 23(3) and (4) of the Constitution Act, 1867 regarding property qualifications for Senators?

5. Can an amendment to the Constitution of Canada to abolish the Senate be accomplished by the general amending procedure set out in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982, by one of the following methods:

(a) by inserting a separate provision stating that the Senate is to be abolished as of a certain date, as an amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867 or as a separate provision that is outside of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 but that is still part of the Constitution of Canada;

(b) by amending or repealing some or all of the references to the Senate in the Constitution of Canada; or

(c) by abolishing the powers of the Senate and eliminating the representation of provinces pursuant to paragraphs 42(1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution Act, 1982?

6. If the general amending procedure set out in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is not sufficient to abolish the Senate, does the unanimous consent procedure set out in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply?

(Government Backgrounder)

Relevant Sections of the
Constitution Act of 1867 and 1982

Section 44 -- Constitution Act of 1982 -- Part V Powers for
Amending Constitution of Canada

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 House of Commons; and

(b) 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 all the provinces.

Marginal note: Majority of members

(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).

Marginal note: Expression of dissent

(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.

Marginal note: Revocation of dissent

(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.

Restriction on proclamation

39. (1) A proclamation shall not be issued under subsection 38(1) before the expiration of one year from the adoption of the resolution initiating the amendment procedure thereunder, unless the legislative assembly of each province has previously adopted a resolution of assent or dissent.

Marginal note: Idem

(2) A proclamation shall not be issued under subsection 38(1) after the expiration of three years from the adoption of the resolution initiating the amendment procedure thereunder.

Compensation

40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers provincial legislative powers relating to education or other cultural matters from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.

Amendment by unanimous consent

41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

(b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;

(c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;

(d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and

(e) an amendment to this Part.

Amendment by general procedure

42. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):

(a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;

(b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;

(c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;

(d) subject to paragraph 41(d), the Supreme Court of Canada;

(e) the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and

(f) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces.

Marginal note: Exception

(2) Subsections 38(2) to (4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to matters referred to in subsection (1).

Amendment of provisions relating to some but not all provinces

43. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including

(a) any alteration to boundaries between provinces, and

(b) any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province, may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.

Amendments by Parliament

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.

Amendments by provincial legislatures

45. Subject to section 41, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.

Initiation of amendment procedures

46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41, 42 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province.

Marginal note: Revocation of authorization

(2) A resolution of assent made for the purposes of this Part may be revoked at any time before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it.

Amendments without Senate resolution

47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41, 42 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution.

Computation of period

(2) Any period when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved shall not be counted in computing the one hundred and eighty day period referred to in subsection (1).

Advice to issue proclamation

48. The Queen's Privy Council for Canada shall advise the Governor General to issue a proclamation under this Part forthwith on the adoption of the resolutions required for an amendment made by proclamation under this Part.

Constitutional conference

49. A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada within fifteen years after this Part comes into force to review the provisions of this Part.

Section 91 -- Powers of Parliament Constitution Act of 1867

Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada

91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

1. Repealed. (44)

1A. The Public Debt and Property. (45)

2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.

2A. Unemployment insurance. (46)

3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.

4. The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit.

5. Postal Service.

6. The Census and Statistics.

7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.

8. The fixing of and providing for the Salaries and Allowances of Civil and other Officers of the Government of Canada.

9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island.

10. Navigation and Shipping.

11. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals.

12. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.

13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces.

14. Currency and Coinage.

15. Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money.

16. Savings Banks.

17. Weights and Measures.

18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.

19. Interest.

20. Legal Tender.

21. Bankruptcy and Insolvency.

22. Patents of Invention and Discovery.

23. Copyrights.

24. Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.

25. Naturalization and Aliens.

26. Marriage and Divorce.

27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.

28. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries.

29. Such Classes of Subjects as are expressly excepted in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

And any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

Harper's New Minister of State for Democratic Reform

Harper's new Minister of State for Democratic Reform, who is likely to be charged with the push to "reform" or eliminate the Senate, is Pierre Poilievre, MP for Nepean-Carleton, Ontario. The media speak of him as the Conservative's "attack dog" who uses cheap politics, described as misrepresentation of facts and even lies. His actions give a sense of what Canadians can expect in terms of how the Harperites plan to approach discussion about reform of Canada's political institutions.

An article in The Hill Times says, "The new minister has a reputation as an all-purpose political point-man and attack dog, sticking up for the government -- and sticking to talking points -- during Question Period and on the political talk shows [...]

"He's been the Conservative government's man on ugly ethics issues like the in-and-out scandal, robocalls, and Elections Canada's investigation into the elections spending of Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, Ont.) and former minister Peter Penashue, and the Senate.

"In May, he praised Mr. Wright's decision to write Sen. Duffy a cheque, saying Mr. Wright's actions were 'exceptionally honourable.'

"In response to a question from NDP MP and democratic reform critic Craig Scott (Toronto-Danforth, Ont.) on the existence of whether the Conservatives used a fund to reimburse Sen. Duffy, Mr. Poilievre gave a sarcastic answer June 10 that attracted unflattering media attention.

"'Mr. Speaker, can I tell you a secret? Do you promise you will not tell anybody? Do not tell the NDP. Do not tell the CBC. The Prime Minister of Canada is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, and when there are Conservative Party of Canada expenses, including from its leader, they are paid by the Conservative Party. I have been meaning to get that off my chest for a while. Please do not tell the CBC. Please do not tell the NDP,' Mr. Poilievre said.

"He is also known for a number of politically incorrect statements that he's made over the years, including saying aboriginal peoples need to work harder and rely less on the government the same day the Prime Minister made the residential schools apology.

"He mocked Mr. Trudeau for stating that the root causes of terrorism should be examined in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing.

"'The root cause of terrorism is terrorists,' Mr. Poilievre said on CBC."

Poilievre is 34 and was born in Calgary. He joined the Reform Party as a teenager. He went to the University of Calgary, and after finishing school he co-owned a firm conducting "voter research" -- also known as microtargetting -- called 3D Contact Inc. Poilievre is said to have left the company in 2005; however the firm provided services to Conservative candidates in the 2009 and 2011 general elections despite claims that the company was shut down after 2009.

Before running for election, he did policy work for former Canadian Alliance Leader and Minister Stockwell Day and Minister Jason Kenney. Poilievre ran for election in Nepean-Carleton in 2004, defeating then-Liberal defence minister David Pratt. Since then he's been re-elected three times.

He has served in a number of Parliamentary Secretary positions, including Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. Most recently he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, a post he has occupied since the 2011 election.

Aside from his duties as Minister of State, Mr. Poilievre now sits on Cabinet's Committee on Operations, which is the main committee of the Harper cabinet to which all others report, handling the day-to-day co-ordination of the government's agenda, including issues management, legislation, house planning and communications.

He also sits on the Cabinet's Committee on Social Affairs, which examines health, justice, safety, aboriginal issues, training and skills development and immigration issues.

(The Hill Times)

PREVIOUS ISSUES | HOME

Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca