What happened to that so desired reform?

Benz · April 14, 2011

I was looking for an english canadian forum to seek answers that I can't find down here in Québec. I hope you don't mind. If I'm at the wrong place, let me know and I'll keep searching elsewhere.

If there is one thing I remember very well from the creation of the Reform Party is the desire to reform the senate. Abolish that non-sense senate where the prime minister chooses himself the senators for the clear benefit of the party interests and replace it with a real senate where the senators are Elected, Equals (by province) and Efficient.

It was one of the main reason in the Reform's existence. They brought it in the CAC and then CPC as well. Until... Harper got elected prime minister of Canada.

Not only the proposed reform got burried out of sight, now Harper plays the exact same game the liberals did back then and he is placing his folks into the senate. In total contradiction of what the Reform was meant to be.

So my question is, what happened with that project?

Is Harper a traitor to that proposal and to his supporters (the very base of the conservatives)?

Or it is just that the westeners changed their mind at 180 degrees regarding the senate now that Harper can do the same thing the liberals were doing?

I don't know, enlight me please.

ToadBrother · April 14, 2011

Or it is just that the westeners changed their mind at 180 degrees regarding the senate now that Harper can do the same thing the liberals were doing?

I don't know, enlight me please.

The Federal Government and the House of Commons have no unilateral power to alter the nature of the Senate. The Constitution is very clear, changes to the Senate require the agreement of all the provinces. Even Harper's Senate term limit legislation is meaningless, unconstitutional fluff unless the Provinces sign off on it via the appropriate amending formula laid out in the Constitution Act, 1982.

In other words, Reform tried to sell that which it did not own.

g_bambino · April 14, 2011

Abolish that non-sense senate where the prime minister chooses himself the senators for the clear benefit of the party interests and replace it with a real senate where the senators are Elected, Equals (by province) and Efficient.

A "real senate"? Elected senators won't work for the benefit of party interests?

So my question is, what happened with that project?

The amending formula of the constitution, most likely.

William Ashley · April 14, 2011

Je vous comprende pas, parle en francais pour favor

Benz · April 14, 2011

The Federal Government and the House of Commons have no unilateral power to alter the nature of the Senate. The Constitution is very clear, changes to the Senate require the agreement of all the provinces. Even Harper's Senate term limit legislation is meaningless, unconstitutional fluff unless the Provinces sign off on it via the appropriate amending formula laid out in the Constitution Act, 1982.

In other words, Reform tried to sell that which it did not own.

Yeah so? What prevents Harper from doing the run and submit it to all the provinces?

Je vous comprende pas, parle en francais pour favor

wirklich?

William Ashley · April 14, 2011

The Federal Government and the House of Commons have no unilateral power to alter the nature of the Senate. The Constitution is very clear, changes to the Senate require the agreement of all the provinces. Even Harper's Senate term limit legislation is meaningless, unconstitutional fluff unless the Provinces sign off on it via the appropriate amending formula laid out in the Constitution Act, 1982.

In other words, Reform tried to sell that which it did not own.

Actually the senate manages itself it just can't alter the constituent structure .. example who are members or eligible for seating... and the means of seating - as it would be unconstititutional... otherthan this it is a very fuzzy situation on standing orders... they pretty much manage themselves... it is sort of complex. But both the commons and senate can say how they operate by standing orders and house rules.

Reform is pretty much dead, most of it has retired, now it is mostly provincial Progressive Conservatives gone up to the federal level, and few others.

So my question is, what happened with that project?

Well now that the cons control the senate it will be interesting to see what happens after the election

Is Harper a traitor

What harper said in the past is not relevant about today -- just ask how many of those WE WILL NOT TAKE PENSIONS people are taking the pensions.They are oppourtunists and crooks not people who actually intend to do what got your vote. They lie, they steal , they cheat, you know the deal.

Why change something you control?

Harper's mentality (and the large part of the CPC aristocracy) is destroy what you don't control, divide and conquer.

Edited April 14, 2011 by William Ashley

ToadBrother · April 14, 2011

Yeah so? What prevents Harper from doing the run and submit it to all the provinces?

Repeating the catastrophes of Meech Lake and Charlottetown and potentially triggering another Quebec referendum. The risks of opening up the constitution to a major change like the Triple-E Senate just isn't worth it.

Saipan · April 14, 2011

Is Harper a traitor to that proposal and to his supporters (the very base of the conservatives)?

Or it is just that the westeners changed their mind at 180 degrees regarding the senate now that Harper can do the same thing the liberals were doing?

I don't know, enlight me please.

Since you're from Quebec you may not know how it works in Canada.

One need majority to do anything but chug along as "usual". The Opposition won't let him change anything of substance. Not the same as Liberal majority when they could do anything, even beat our dollar down to 62 cent "peso". Or send money to Quebec in big brown envelopes.

William Ashley · April 14, 2011

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1306

and you, what do you think should be done?

Edited April 14, 2011 by William Ashley

g_bambino · April 14, 2011

The risks of opening up the constitution to a major change like the Triple-E Senate just isn't worth it.

Especially when there's no irrefutable argument in favour of the change. In fact, proponents of a "triple-e" senate are always suspiciously quiet on not only the necessary constitutional processes involved, but also on what the ultimate effect on parliament would be when two of its three components are rendered equal in terms of popular mandate. I'm still under the impression that the fight for a "triple-e" senate is one driven by ideology, rather than rationality.

Bryan · April 14, 2011

Senate reform is still very much a priority for the CPC. I know the MP who has been working on it, and it's still a front burner issue.

The provinces, so far, have not been responsive, and with a minority, the Conservatives have not been able to get a lot what they've proposed through.

The Constitution fear mongering is a red herring. Once the federal bill is passed, the next step is just meeting with the premiers. It's obviously not a simple matter, it's going to take a lot of time and a lot of work, but there's no reason it should become anything of a crisis.

g_bambino · April 14, 2011

One need majority to do anything but chug along as "usual".

A Conservative majority in the House of Commons - even in both houses - will change nothing in this regard.

BTW, shame on the opposition for... well, opposing. What are they thinking?

g_bambino · April 14, 2011

Once the federal bill is passed, the next step is just meeting with the premiers.

Nope. An amendment has to be made to the Constitution Act 1867, which, per S.42(1) of the Constitution Act 1982, requires not only the approval of the majority of both houses of the federal parliament, but also the "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 all the provinces" before the change can be carried out.

kimmy · April 14, 2011

A major downside to a reformed senate is that the senate might assume reform amounted to a mandate to actually do something. Nobody wants that.

The only reason people tolerate the senate is that the senators don't rock the boat.

-k

RNG · April 14, 2011

The entire problem is that Harper has never had a majority so couldn't get it through. If, hopefully he gets it this time, an elected senate is on the table.

Bryan · April 14, 2011

An amendment has to be made to the Constitution Act 1867,

No it doesn't.

Smallc · April 14, 2011

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. The Constitution Act, 1982, says so.

Bryan · April 14, 2011

Yes it does. The Constitution Act, 1982, says so.

No it doesn't.

Smallc · April 14, 2011

No it doesn't.

The Constitution Act, 1867, says that senators will be appointed by the Governor General. Generally, they only act on the advice of their chief minster, the Prime Minister. In order for the method of selection to be changed, the constitutional amending formula found in 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, must be followed.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Smallc

Bryan · April 14, 2011

The Constitution Act, 1867, says that senators will be appointed by the Governor General. Generally, they only act on the advice of their chief minster, the Prime Minister. In order for the method of selection to be changed, the constitutional amending formula found in 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, must be followed.

You don't know what you're talking about. No amendment to the constitution is required to have the provinces elect their senator selections.

Smallc · April 14, 2011

You don't know what you're talking about. No amendment to the constitution is required to have the provinces elect their senator selections.

I do know what I'm talking about. Convention is that senators are selected by the PM. You can't simply change that. Even if you can, for the sake of argument, there's nothing to keep a future PM (or even this one) from ignoring the results of the provincial election, since it would be non binding. The Constitution Act, 1982, is quite clear on what needs to be done in order to change the method of selection for senators.

kimmy · April 14, 2011

Bert Brown was elected by Albertans in 1998 and 2004. Stephen Harper honored the selection by appointing Brown to the senate after taking office, but he was under no obligation to do so. Liberal Prime Ministers had ignored the selection for 8 years, and were within their rights to do so (but it would have been a nice goodwill gesture...)

Stan Waters was also selected as a senator by Albertans in 1989. Bryan Mulroney appointed Waters to the Senate in 1990.

-k

Edited April 14, 2011 by kimmy

ToadBrother · April 14, 2011

Senate reform is still very much a priority for the CPC. I know the MP who has been working on it, and it's still a front burner issue.

The provinces, so far, have not been responsive, and with a minority, the Conservatives have not been able to get a lot what they've proposed through.

The Constitution fear mongering is a red herring. Once the federal bill is passed, the next step is just meeting with the premiers. It's obviously not a simple matter, it's going to take a lot of time and a lot of work, but there's no reason it should become anything of a crisis.

There was no particular reason that Mulroney's proposed reforms should have ended in crisis, and yet they did.

Bryan · April 14, 2011

I do know what I'm talking about. Convention is that senators are selected by the PM. You can't simply change that. Even if you can, for the sake of argument, there's nothing to keep a future PM (or even this one) from ignoring the results of the provincial election, since it would be non binding. The Constitution Act, 1982, is quite clear on what needs to be done in order to change the method of selection for senators.

I cannot emphasize enough that you're completely misinformed on this discussion. Plans that involve the constitution are far down the list. A constitutional amendment is simply not necessary to elect a senator. It's possible they might go that route, but it's not necessary. There are other ways to go around it.

ToadBrother · April 14, 2011

You don't know what you're talking about. No amendment to the constitution is required to have the provinces elect their senator selections.

The Queen/Governor General-in-council (that means the PM) could agree to appoint those Senators, but there's nothing to bind a PM to doing so. Relying upon the government of the day appointing the guy a province said should be in the Senate doesn't sound like a reform to me, since at best the Government is simply agreeing to lend its power to advise the Queen or Her Viceroy to appoint Senators.

Senate reform requires all the Provinces to agree. That's the size of it. It's right there in the Constitution Act, 1982:

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;

If someone has informed you otherwise, you've been lied to. Beyond that, the bill that the Tories wrote does not at all tend in the direction of "lending" the Queen-in-council's powers.

Edited April 14, 2011 by ToadBrother