Senate question for constitutional experts

[fellowtraveller]

Assuming that Harper loses his mind and makes Senate reform a big priority.....

Can the Senate be abolished by a majority vote in the Commons, or majority votes in both the Commons and Senate, or none of the above?

Jack Layton would be obliged to vote with the Tories on this subject, so the Commons majority would be likely.........

In a couple of years,if Harper is still around, there may well be a Tory majority in the Senate too..........

[ToadBrother]

Assuming that Harper loses his mind and makes Senate reform a big priority.....

Can the Senate be abolished by a majority vote in the Commons, or majority votes in both the Commons and Senate, or none of the above?

Jack Layton would be obliged to vote with the Tories on this subject, so the Commons majority would be likely.........

In a couple of years,if Harper is still around, there may well be a Tory majority in the Senate too..........

I think you're referring to section 41:

[strong]

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 assemblies of each province:

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

( 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;

© 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.

[/strong]

Pretty clearly, that formula could not be used to abolish the Senate.

[Rue]

Assuming that Harper loses his mind and makes Senate reform a big priority.....

Can the Senate be abolished by a majority vote in the Commons, or majority votes in both the Commons and Senate, or none of the above?

Jack Layton would be obliged to vote with the Tories on this subject, so the Commons majority would be likely.........

In a couple of years,if Harper is still around, there may well be a Tory majority in the Senate too..........

The Senate can be abolished by a majority vote in the Commons but would also need unanimous agreement from all 12 provincial assemblies as well.

[madmax]

The Senate can be abolished by a majority vote in the Commons but would also need unanimous agreement from all 12 provincial assemblies as well.

Whatever it takes Lets get on with it.

[ToadBrother]

Whatever it takes Lets get on with it.

The point is that you wouldn't. Such an attempt would most certainly fail, and after Meech Lake and Charlottetown, I think the serious desire by anyone to try to fix things has waned. This kind of thing may fly at Conservative party conventions, but nowhere else.

[punked]

I still say the only way to do it is a referendum. Even then it is sketchy but I think it would hold up in court.

[Mr.Canada]

I still say the only way to do it is a referendum. Even then it is sketchy but I think it would hold up in court.

The Senate should pray on it before deciding. Whenever faced with a tough decision it helps to ask God for guidance and counsel.

[jdobbin]

Can the Senate be abolished by a majority vote in the Commons, or majority votes in both the Commons and Senate, or none of the above?

The answer is no.

The amending formula makes it quite clear. Changes of the kind you suggest were never meant to be easy. They required approval from federal and provincial governments across the board.

[jdobbin]

Whatever it takes Lets get on with it.

Once the Constitution is open, all bets are off. Everyone would be running madly off in all directions.

[jdobbin]

Whenever faced with a tough decision it helps to ask God for guidance and counsel.

Does God talk to you?

[ToadBrother]

The answer is no.

The amending formula makes it quite clear. Changes of the kind you suggest were never meant to be easy. They required approval from federal and provincial governments across the board.

Generally no amendment should be easy, since amendments to a constitution can have wide-scale effects, and even some unforeseen ones. A referendum would be hard for Parliament and the Provinces to ignore, but I'm not sure that a referendum would succeed.

Quite frankly, I think we have much bigger fish to fry right now. Senate reform is a good idea, but is of so little importance compared to what we're going to be facing over the next few years that I don't know why anyone is talking about. Yes, Harper broke with long-standing Reform/Alliance Rump positions on the Senate, but does it really matter? The seats are vacant, they need to be filled, and it's not like Harper really gives a damn what the old grumps in his party think, seeing as it is these guys who pretty much rendered Reform/Alliance incapable of forming a government.

[dlkenny]

Well, senate reform or abolishment certainly does require the consent of the senate. It also requires the consent of the house of commons and ratification by each province. Technically the Crown (The Queen, as represented by the Governor General) still holds veto power on this issue too and the Crown is the only entity which actually holds the power to change the way the parliamentary system functions.

It's useful to point out too that in 1991 when Brian Mulroney was looking to pass the GST, he used a loophole in the system which allows the Crown to appoint 8 additional "temporary" senators to ensure the bill passed. At this point, Stephen Harper would be playing political suicide to do such a thing but he is completely within his power to appoint Senators. If he had a majority he could use this loophole to create a conservative majority in the senate to get senate reform measures passed. Today though, because an elected senate remains as nothing more than an idea, it would be unwise for him to not appoint senators as not doing so guarantees a Liberal majority in the upper house. The fact remains that in the current system without consensus in both houses it is incredibly difficult to pass any legislation as it just gets held up in the senate. Any bellyaching by the opposition about Harper appointing senators is simply politicking. Until such a time comes when he can make senate reform a reality he has no choice but to work within the current system and appoint senators.