Senate Reform - How To Do It Wrong

[Smallc]

The US elects its head of state specifically and historically because you can't....God Save the Queen.

Ah, so they did it because they define themselves as not British...gotcha.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ah, so they did it because they define themselves as not British...gotcha.

Very much so....you asked for one good reason...hell if that ain't a good one.

Edited March 30, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

Very much so....you asked for one good reason...hell if that ain't a good one.

That's not an actual benefit.

[Wilber]

What exactly do you think a head of state is supposed to do?

You want it both ways. You claim her position grants her independant action then say she is bound by the will of the government. No sale.

[Smallc]

You want it both ways. You claim her position grants her independant action then say she is bound by the will of the government. No sale.

I did not once claim that her position grants her independence of action in the vast majority of situations. She does have that ability to act independently in extraordinary circumstances, but often, she exercises her power on the advice of the prime minister(and is theoretically bound to). It's still the power of the Crown that is being used, it isn't power that the Prime Minister possesses. He simply has the power to advise. She usually complies.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

That's not an actual benefit.

Not for you....silly!

[Wilber]

And I blame the Conservatives most of all for not moving it forward. There's no reason for them to have not had a referendum on the subject.

A referendum is not part of the amending formula, it can only be done with the approval of all the provinces as in the Charlottetown Accord.

[Wilber]

I did not once claim that her position grants her independence of action in the vast majority of situations. She does have that ability to act independently in extraordinary circumstances, but often, she exercises her power on the advice of the prime minister(and is theoretically bound to). It's still the power of the Crown that is being used, it isn't power that the Prime Minister possesses. He simply has the power to advise. She usually complies.

When was the last time a GG didn't comply? So much for protection.

[Smallc]

A referendum is not part of the amending formula, it can only be done with the approval of all the provinces as in the Charlottetown Accord.

I know the amending formula inside and out. It's actually thought that now, by convention, one would be required (because it was used before, and much of our Constitution is conventional and not written). That was not my purpose however. My point was this: Polls have shown that a majority in each province favours the reform that the Conservatives want. If that is the case, such a result would probably be borne out in a referendum. If that result was achieved in each province (or at least most), it is doubtful that the governments of those provinces would stand in the way of the reform.

[Smallc]

When was the last time a GG didn't comply? So much for protection.

1926 here. 1975 in Australia. The Lieutenant Governor once refused to sign a bill limiting press freedom. The fact that these cases haven't come up is a good thing.

[Wilber]

I know the amending formula inside and out. It's actually thought that now, by convention, one would be required (because it was used before, and much of our Constitution is conventional and not written). That was not my purpose however. My point was this: Polls have shown that a majority in each province favours the reform that the Conservatives want. If that is the case, such a result would probably be borne out in a referendum. If that result was achieved in each province (or at least most), it is doubtful that the governments of those provinces would stand in the way of the reform.

The fact remains, the government must go to the provinces in order to hold a referendum on the constitution. It just can't hold one.

[Smallc]

A referendum is not part of the amending formula, it can only be done with the approval of all the provinces as in the Charlottetown Accord.

Oh, and you don't need all provinces for all things. For this you probably don't.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh, and you don't need all provinces for all things. For this you probably do.

Ya think?

[Smallc]

Ya think?

I meant to say don't.

[Wilber]

Oh, and you don't need all provinces for all things. For this you probably don't.

Really, what do you base that on?

[Wilber]

1926 here. 1975 in Australia. The Lieutenant Governor once refused to sign a bill limiting press freedom. The fact that these cases haven't come up is a good thing.

Once in Canada in the past 84 years. Wow.

[Smallc]

Really, what do you base that on?

The Amending Formula:

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;

Section 38(1) says:

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 the 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 the provinces.

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html

Edited March 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Once in Canada in the past 84 years. Wow.

So would you rather than the power of the head of state be used often? That would mean that things were going quite badly in most countries around the world including this one.

[punked]

The fact remains, the government must go to the provinces in order to hold a referendum on the constitution. It just can't hold one.

The government can hold a referendum on anything it wants.

[Wilber]

The Amending Formula:

Section 38(1) says:

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html

And referendum appears nowhere. Fact is, there can only be a referendum or an amendment if the provinces say there can. I doubt any serious attempt to make the Senate more reflect the demographics of the country would make it past the Manitoba, Ontario border.

[Wilber]

The government can hold a referendum on anything it wants.

Sure it can but it can't ammend the constitution with one unless the provinces approve. If you want to waste a few hundred million on a pointless referendum, count me out.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Wilber

[Smallc]

And referendum appears nowhere. Fact is, there can only be a referendum or an amendment if the provinces say there can. I doubt any serious attempt to make the Senate more reflect the demographics of the country would make it past the Manitoba, Ontario border.

I'm quite sure you're wrong. There can be a referendum any time, and many things in our constitution aren't written. Because a referendum was used once, it may now be convention.

[Wilber]

I'm quite sure you're wrong. There can be a referendum any time, and many things in our constitution aren't written. Because a referendum was used once, it may now be convention.

It was used with the approval of the provinces. That is the convention.

[Smallc]

Sure it can but it can't ammend the constitution with one unless the provinces approve. If you want to waste a few hundred million on a pointless referendum, count me out.

I'm not sure you're getting this. If the population of the provinces agree with the amendment, as a poll or two showed that they would, why would the provincial governments stand in the way?

[Smallc]

It was used with the approval of the provinces. That is the convention.

The fact that it was used to attempt to amend the Constitution is now possibly conventional.