The French are expected to elect a new president on May6. He is Francois Hollande, the Socialist winner of the  1st round. He faces Pres.Nicolas Sarkozy who was able to fend off the challenge of the far right Marine Le Pen, by moving more and more to the right on issues such as immigration, hallal meat and French identity and culture. Hollande would be the first Socialist president in 15 years (Mitterand).
     In contrast to the on-going, never-ending , media-soaked money- driven American presidential election, where years of campaigning and hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on a diverse set of "candidates" with a wide-ranging set of "ideas", permeated with religion, regions and race, the French election is strictly controlled from the standpoint of money spending and media coverage. 
      In the 1st round there are a large number of candidates, with a wide range of issues, ( foreign policy, immigration quotas and limits, threats to culture and identity, Euro and Euro Zone, Muslims, refugees, hijab/niqab, hallal meat etc), from the extreme left to the extreme right parties, as well as independents, anyone who meets the qualification rules. There are two ballots to select president; if no one wins on the 1st ballot, then the two leading candidates face off two weeks later on the second ballot, and a winner emerges. There is a srtict limit on election spending, in order to ensure that money does not give an unfair advantage to wealthy candidates and their sponsors, as in the USA, where Mitt Romney was able to oulast and outspend his opponents for the Republican nomination. In France candidates can spend only $22 million and have equal media time guaranteed by law to ensure that no one gets an advantage by outspending the other ( Romney was able to swamp his opponents with media ads blitz). On the second ballot, they can spend up to $30 million, no polls are published and there is no media time that candidates can buy and the media have to ensure that their coverage is even-handed. Official monitoring takes place to ensure this. In this way the two candidates and their teams have to spend a lot of time "harvesting" votes directly. They have to take their message directly to the voters. They have to be front and center and not hide behind "attack ads".
     This is participatory democracy/ Popular Sovereignty, where  "Vox Populi, Vox Dei", really do mean something. Vive la France.
     Sole head-to head debate is on May 2. This will be Sarkozy's last chance to save himself. Expect sleaze against Hollande 

     On April 17, 1982, the Canadian constitution was patriated (brought home to Canada from Britain where it had resided since July 1, 1867, under British control. It was an Act of the British Parliament and could only be changed/amended with British consent. So much for Canada being a sovereign, independent nation/ country). Previous attempts to patriate it, like in 1965 had been unsuccessful, because of the inability of the federal government and the provinces to agree on an "made -in Canada", amending formula. They came close in 1965, but at the last moment, Premier Jean Lesage under heavy pressure from the opposition in Quebec caved in and said no.   On being re-elected to power in 1980, with a large majority ( the minority Conservative Clarke government on Dec.13, 1979 was defeated on a vote of non-confidence), Prime Minister Trudeau initiated discussions with the provinces to bring the constitution home, but they could not come to an agreement. Trudeau, then threatened to go it alone and patriate the constitution unilaterally with a Charter of Rights and an amending formula. This formula was called the Victoria formula, amendment would require the consent of the four regions of Canada. Eight provinces, led by Stirling Lyon of Manitoba and Brian Peckford of Newfoundland (Ontario and New Brunswick agreed with "Victoria"), formed a common front and came up with the Vancouver formula, which called for amendments to be made with the consent of two-thirds of the provinces, and with the right to opt out of a constitutional change and be financially compensated so that they can set up their own programme.
      Trudeau was prevailed upon to "refer" the matter to the Supreme Court (reference cases are rare and only occur when as in this case, there is some doubt as to the constitutionality of the matter) . The Court ruled that nothing in the written constitution prevent unilateral action, though it would be against the unwritten/ constitutional conventions to do so. A meeting of provincial premiers was held in November 1981 to try and reconcile differences and here is  where it gets  interesting and two versions will emerge as to what took place and who did what.
    The Quebec version was that Rene Levesque was isolated and that the agreement of Nov.5, 1981 was as a result of the nine province and the federal government ganging up against Quebec and from henceforth will be referred to as "the night of the long knives". The other version which is closer to the truth (and the notes that I have kept and which I have used for years ( at least 25 yrs.up to my retirement), teaching Canadian Politics, bear this out. Levesque made it very clear that he was attending the meeting only to protect Quebec's interest and that he was not interseted in the 'renewal' of Canada. He however had found some  of the premiers were adamantly opposed to Trudeau's plan and he decided to work with them, the Gang of Eight ( Conservative Premiers Peckford and Lyon were opposed to the Charter of Rights, because of its emphasis on individual rights, NDP Premier Blakeney of Sasketchewan wanted stronger rights for women, Premier Lougheed of Alberta wanted protection for provincial resources etc), and agreed to the Vancouver formula as Quebec will be able to opt out of future constitutional amendments and be compensated financially. When Trudeau heard about this deal, he offered Levesque another deal. This one call for a referendum to settle constitutional issues, if after three years of discussions no deal was reached. Levesque accepted. The now " Vancouver Seven" felt betrayed and were keen for another deal. In any case Levesque left the conference and went to his hotel in Hull ( he liked the image of himself not hob-nobbing with the "Anglos" in Ontario), to play poker.
     While he left the conference, thinking he had a deal which he could successfully sell to Quebec, a meeting was held over coffee, convened by Jean Chretien, Trudeau's Justice Minister. With Chretien was Roy Romanov, the Atty. General of Saketchewan and the Atty. General of Ontario Roy McMurtry and they came up with another deal, which would address the concerns of the Gang of Seven. This deal will allow for the patriation of the Constitution, with an amending formula and with an entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with a "notwithstanding clause" and would change the way in which Canadians would henceforth be governed.
     Levesque was missing and thus the "deal' was made with him being absent. He gambled that he had achieved his objective of protecting Quebec but he was out-bluffed in the end and he left the conference a bitter man and blamed it all on the "night of the long knives"and was able to sell that version to his followers and that myth has grown as the years have gone by, especially amongst those who wanted to protect his reputation. He gambled on the future of Quebec, thought he had gotten the best of the others. Even Trudeau had to cave in to him, with his offer of a referendum and then it all went wrong. What if he had remained in Ottawa? What if he had been less conceited? No, his victory was too sweet and then it became a bile. He was furious. He had lost the 1980 referendum and now this. 
            
                                      Part 11...The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
     This Charter allowed, first of all, for the marriage of parliamentary supremacy with judicial review. Parliament would still be the supreme lawmaking body, but the Supreme Court can declare acts of Parliament to be unconstitutional (ultra vires). The constitution is not as rigid as the American's or as flexible as the British. It can be called a mixed constitution. It allows for the clarity, coherence and consistency of written laws, while at the  same time makes it possible for it to grow and remain relevant through amendments.  
     Section 33 is the 'non obstante" (the notwithstanding) clause, by which parliament is allowed to make laws affecting Sections 2, Fundamental Freedoms; Section 7-14, Legal Rights and Section 15, Equality Rights of the Charter. Many have argued that these are some of the most important Rights and Freedoms in a democracy and make a democracy, democratic and that these Rights and Freedoms should not be subjected to the whims of elected politicians and they are right but the past thirty years has seen little use of this clause (about 5 times, mostly in Quebec). When people are aware of their Rights and Freedoms, it is very difficult to take away or limit them, especially when there is a Supreme Court to protect them. The years have  seen thousands of  uses of the Chater by individuals, especially the above-mentioned three. In Canada, at least so far, our courts have not been driven or appointed through ideplogy as is the case in the United States, which have led to cases being judgred on legal merits and not ideology.
      The Charter is also tempered by Section 1, which allows parliament to make laws " subject to such reasonable limits .......that are deomnstarbly justified in a free and democratic society"; by Section 6, which protects Canadian citizens by allowing them "to enter, remain or leave Canada", also allow for the free movement within Canada without discrimination, but allows provinces with a higher unemployment rate than the national average to give preference to its residents; by Section7's "life , liberty and the security of person"( abortion laws stuck down for example and rights to fair and speedy trial, to be presumed innocent, to counsel, to jury trial , against self-incrimination, double jeopardy etc have expanded rights; Section 15, Equality Rights, embodying the "rule of law" expressly prohibiting discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability ( in the USA for example, the 14th amendment states simply that everyone is entitled to "equal protection" and 'due process of law", not as precise, which courts prefer; the protection of Minority Language Educational Rights in Sec.23; equality of sexes in Sec.28 (women have same rights as men re-emphasised; defeat of ERA denied this to American women); protection of Aboriginal Rights in sec.25 and 35 AND THERE ARE MORE.
     The Constitution Act, 1982, in which the Charter is entrenched, is based on three principles; the equality of all Canadians; the equality of all cultures and cultural origins ( recognition of Canada as multi-cultural); and the equality of all provinces but it is the Charter which has had the greatest impact. It has become the model for other countries like South Africa and it has created a greater sense of pride and identity (together with our medicare system) amongst Canadians. We are all better for this, from the weakest to the strongest; from the poorest to the richest; from native born to recent immigrants.
     The Battle of Vimy Ridge gave Canada a sense of nation; the Charter has given us a sense of national pride and a greater belief in our ability to be better. Nice, eh?   

     The two pillars of Parliamentary democracy are the supremacy of parliament and the fusion of legislative and executive powers. The first is based on the principle that parliament can make or repeal any laws and that no other authority is above parliament ( in theory the Governor-General, the Queen's representative has veto power, but that has fallen into disuse ,1942) . In Canada however, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this supremacy is limited and  allow the government (federal as well as provincial) to pass laws "not withstanding" this supremacy of parliament in the areas of Fundamental Freedoms(2), Legal Rights (7-14) and Equality Rights (15). The courts are also allowed to, though the process of judicial review, to declare laws unconstitutional (ultra vires), if they are deemed to be in conflict with the constitution. This "power" has been used sparingly (mostly in Quebec).
     The second principle of fusion of legislative and executive powers is key to the working of the parliamentary system. Govenments are not directly elected by the people, individual members of parliament are, and from these members of parliament, the government is chosen, that is the Prime Minister and his Cabinet ministers. This is done through the process of an election of competing political parties. Shpuld any party emerge with the majority of seats, the leader of that party is called upon by the Governor General to form a government. He does this by appointing members to his Cabinet and together they govern at the will/consent of parliament. If parliament withdraws its support, non-confidence is declared and the government must resign. This is not a law but a convention, based upon custom and usage and strictly respected.
     The Prime Minister and the Cabinet also function on the basis of convention (the office of Prime Minister was never created by law but developed over the centuries of British practices. The Cabinet is also based on those practices and operate as the active part of the Privy Council, and is beholden to the PM who appoint and can thus dismiss them. They serve "at his pleasure".
     The Prime Minister and the Cabinet are bound by the principles of collective and ministerial responsibility. This means that they are  responsible, and held accountable for their actions. Collectively the Cabinet and individually each minister has to answer to parliament and if they are found wanting, parliament can take various actions against them. They can be reprimanded or they can be forced to apologise or they can be  suspended or they can be expelled and even imprisoned. Ministers usually accept responsibility and thus spare the government any embarassment and a possible vote of non-confidence, though this is almost impossible when the Government is a majority. In this case the Opposition can raise questions and use the public forum to harass and expose them in parliament and the media or through a Commission of Enquiry , as was the case of the last Liberal government, who suffered an ignominious defeat in the last election over the revealations of the Gomery Commission.
     Government accountability is crucial to the survival and success of the parliamentary system. Without it, govenment can run rampant, become arbitrary and lose legitimacy. They cannot lie to or mislead parliament. They must be answerable to parliament and respect the rules and accept the responsibility when things go wrong.
     The Harper government and the Defence Minister Peter MacKay are being accusedof lying to and misleading parliament over the cost of the F-35 fighter jets. So far they have been desperately fighting against these accusations, but as more and more details are revealed, the pressure will build for someone to take responsibility. If it were anyone else other than Mackay, he would have been(like Guerges) served up as scarifice. Mackay is a different "can of beans". He was the one who led the Conservative Party (as leader) into a union with the Reform Party and so has clout (previous questionable actions, like using military helicopter to go fishing, has seen Harper defending him).The heat that the Opposition can generate and the extent of public outcry will determine his fate. One thing is certain and that is Harper will not take responsibility even though as Prime Minister it is his responsibility. Collective responsibility or individual responsibility? Both but Mackay can do the "honorable" thing and "fall on his sword". Don't bet on either but on the Government toughing it out to the detriment of "parliamentary democracy"