Here's the post I made February 17th/2007:
Title: The issue of Electoral Reform, whether it's in NL's best interest and the current political atmosphere for Electoral Reform in the Federal Parliament:
'So ya, i'm not sure if many of you are aware, on the NL First Party's webpage, it states that,
"The Newfoundland and Labrador First Party is committed to presenting a united front to the Federal Government and the people of Canada on issues of extreme importance to our future. Beyond the Fair Deal our provincial government has made with the Atlantic Accord, there are still issues to address:
.... • Federal political reforms to increase equity among the provinces and territories"
So ya, what, may you be asking, does this have to do with Electoral Reform? Well, I found out that on the NDP's website (http://www.ndp.ca/page/4051) titled "Electoral reform: make every vote count", they quote some statistics showing some flaws within our current Federal Electoral System and provide some background on them, as well as stating the following, "Leading the way to a fair system
On February 19, NDP MP Catherine Bell will table a motion to get the ball rolling on electoral reform. This motion mandates Parliament to consult with Canadians and choose a fairer voting system like proportional representation.
The last Parliament actually adopted NDP MP Ed Broadbent’s reform process, but the Liberal government broke its promise to move forward.
Make sure votes aren’t wasted any longer - urge your member of Parliament to support the NDP’s campaign for a fair voting system."
Also, this should open the door for debate on the issue of Electoral Reform. So, what do you guys stand on the issue of Electoral Reform?: would you rather see the Federal Electoral System changed to another form of Representative Democracy and/or Proportional Representation, or would you rather things to remain the way they are for now?
So ya, if you want, you can sign the online petition that they have on their website and/or write your Federal MP as to ask them to support and/or amend this motion accordingly if you feel so inclined!
Also, this should open the door for debate on the issue of Electoral Reform. So, what do you guys stand on the issue of Electoral Reform?: let the debate begin!
. . . . . .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Proportional representation won't change how the provinces have no equality in this federation.
What is needed is triple E senate and one bilingual supreme court judge from every province and territory.
Toe the nationalist party line which is drawn by the majority from ON/QU.
IE Efford and now Hearne.
Ottawa has to do whats in the best interest of the majority of canadians by default ON/QU.
Ottawa shouldn't own control or have any say in the provinces resources because Ottawa has to do whats in the best interest of the majority of canadians.
The SCC and Ottawa circumvented one of the founding principles of this federation when they ruled Ottawa owned the continental shelves and the resources under them.
It states right in the constitution that resources belong to the provinces.
Hi nl-expatriate, this is me, the writer of this NLF Party blog typing. Indeed, it does say in the 1867 Constitution Act that resources belong to the province.
However, the SCC ruled that onshore resources belong to the provinces, yet offshore resources don't (that's why we needed the 1985 and 2005 Atlantic Accords to enjoy the benefits of our offshore oil resources).
As for the resource of the fisheries (fish), that is within Federal jurisdiction within the constitution. Keeping this in mind, if you go to http://www.nlfirst.ca, you'll see that the NLF Party is in favor of joint management of the fisheries (and from what I can see, if this New Fisheries Act 2007 passes, it would be legally possible for the Federal Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, to negotiate such a deal with the provincial government, although I could stand to be corrected on that one!)
nl-expatriate, I felt it necessary to respond to your comment again: i've heard the argument you've used before. It's essentially this: when you reform one house, it will impact how the other functions. Also, that each House should balance each other out.
But I see what you mean: although an MMP would more greatly represent minorities (such as the Greens,etc...), it wouldn't better represent regions: seeing as that's a function of the Senate. So ya, I guess this means our party will have to pursue both Electoral/Parliamentary Reform AND Senate Reform.
So ya, I recently completed a Law and Society 2000 assignment on the issue of Senate Reform and Constitutional Conventions, based on Pierre Elliott Trudeau's failed attempt to patriate the Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an amendment formula without the consent of the provinces: it was after the ruling on this case that the consent of the provinces 'crystallized' into constitutional law when amending it.
Also, earlier on, in the late 1960's/early 70's, P.E.T. (former PM Pierre) tried to abolish the Senate and replace it with a 'House of the Federation'. However, the courts ruled at the time that Parliament cannot unilateraly abolish one of the two chambers of Parliament. This is also where the ruling that 'Parliament cannot alter fundamental characteristics, or principles', of the Senate of Canada' comes from.
That reference is known as 'The Senate Reference' (1976/78). Anyhow, seeing as tomorrow i'll be at the executive meeting discussing what committees we need to set up, perhaps the Party will need one on Electoral Reform (including both Reform of the Senate and the Parliament of Canada!)
Post a Comment