Do You Agree With The Constitution Essay

I believe that the constitution does help with the negotiation process, by making discussions more civil and allowing each group to fully outline their terms and proposals. This in turn, allows the negotiation process to be more efficient. For example, our class had many groups with opposing concerns or priorities. One such example of these opposing concerns was between the provincial government and the Cedar First Nations, as one party wished to have 100% governance of their land once acquired, which the government could not allow. However, due to the “listen first, then proceed” system, negotiations to settle this conflict were discussed with ease, as a group would be able to fully explain why they could allow / disagree with certain terms …show more content…
However, while efficient, I also support the notion that the constitution can make negotiations very difficult, and that a vote should occur when selecting a final agreement. For example, in the current constitution, as long as one group consistently disagrees with the proposals made by other parties, the negotiation is essentially ongoing. While continuous disagreement would eventually lead to contradictory beliefs, it takes far too long to make a decision when ⅔ groups have to agree. An example of this was in the “Kitchen Accord”, where the constant rebuttal of the Quebec Premier resulted in the other premiers unfairly forming a compromise due to the length of the negotiation. Additionally, this was exemplified in our treaty negotiation activity, where the Cedar First Nations weren’t entirely satisfied even at the end of the debate. This leads me to believe that had there been more negotiation rounds, the First Nations wouldn’t have succumbed to whatever was being offered, as it didn’t fulfill all their primary concerns (100% governance of land). In conclusion, I believe that the current constitution allows for negotiation to allow effectively, but in turn slows the process as a