What happened to that so desired reform?

[Bonam]

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.

Well, it could be made politically very difficult for a PM not to follow the results of an election in a province. Imagine if, for example, Harper decided that he would only appoint senators who were chosen by popular vote in provinces. Then, imagine the next PM after him and the next after that followed this same kind of procedure. That would establish an expectation among the electorate, among the people of each province, that it is their vote that decides who is to be made a senator. If the next PM after that then just decided to completely ignore this type of senator election and instead ask the GG to appoint someone else, well, by precedent, the GG would have to do so. But, voters in the province whose voice was ignored would potentially be quite pissed, and the PM's party could lose a lot of votes there. That consideration would likely force, or at least strongly encourage, PMs to act on the results of the senatorial elections, even though the constitution would not require them to do so.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Bonam

[ToadBrother]

Well, it could be made politically very difficult for a PM not to follow the results of an election in a province. Imagine if, for example, Harper decided that he would only appoint senators who were chosen by popular vote in provinces. Then, imagine the next PM after him and the next after that followed this same kind of procedure. That would establish an expectation among the electorate, among the people of each province, that it is their vote that decides who is to be made a senator. If the next PM after that then just decided to completely ignore this type of senator election and instead ask the GG to appoint someone else, well, by precedent, the GG would have to do so. But, voters in the province whose voice was ignored would potentially be quite pissed, and the PM's party could lose a lot of votes there. That consideration would likely force, or at least strongly encourage, PMs to act on the results of the senatorial elections, even though the constitution would not require them to do so.

Alterations via convention only work where there is in fact no written legislation in place. In this case, we have the BNA Act which dictates how Senators are chosen and the Constitution Act, 1982 dictating how to change that. In other words, the GG could not be bound by precedent where a written Act of Parliament, particularly one with constitutional weight, is involved, any more than the Parliament could declare someone other than the monarch of the other Commonwealth Realms to be the monarch of Canada.

Your route would not create a constitutional convention. It would be an unstable loan of what amounts to a prerogative power. It's a ludicrous idea floated around by those with little or no understanding of how our constitutional system works. For the GG to refuse the advice of a PM over who to appoint to the Senate would create a constitutional crisis that would inevitably force the PM to resign.

Or, to put it bluntly, it's a horrible idea. If we're going to reform the Senate, then it needs to be done properly. Tories need to get over this bloody idea that the Constitution is but a mere inconvenience to the exercise of Executive power.

The House of Commons has no power to alter the nature of the Senate unilaterally. It is explicitly required that the Senate, the Governor General and the provinces all agree. Trying to get around this with trickery is nothing more than a recipe for disaster, an unsuitable, unstable pseudo-convention that most certainly encroaches quite directly on the rights of the Provinces.

Edited April 14, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Bryan]

Toadbrother, you're still hung up on the misconception that the GG's power is anything more than just ceremonial. It's preventing you from thinking outside the box. If Mulroney had you as his advisor, he'd never have been able to get his 8 more senators just for a simple sales tax bill.

[g_bambino]

Toadbrother, you're still hung up on the misconception that the GG's power is anything more than just ceremonial.

If anyone's operating under misconceptions here, it's you. First you think amending the constitution means passing a bill in the federal parliament and then a meeting with the premiers (to what? Tell them what's been done?), and now you think the governor general is just a decorative knick knack. Your misapprehensions might not all be that bad (many people aren't aware of Canada's constitutional workings) if you didn't take yourself so seriously while spouting them off as fact.

[g_bambino]

Well, it could be made politically very difficult for a PM not to follow the results of an election in a province.

Considering political risk before making an appointment is not the same as being forced by convention to make an appointment. There is, as of yet, nothing that requires a prime minister to advise the governor general that the latter appoint to the Senate someone who was elected by the majority of voters in a province. And it does not simply become convention because one prime minister once advised such an appointment. As kimmy pointed out, it's happened twice already; both Prime Ministers - let alone those that followed - subsequently didn't make another appointment in that fashion again. There was neither massive political nor legal fallout.

[c/e]

Edited April 14, 2011 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

It's preventing you from thinking outside the box. If Mulroney had you as his advisor, he'd never have been able to get his 8 more senators just for a simple sales tax bill.

You do realize that the ability to appoint 4 or 8 extra senators is written into the Constitution, right? You do also realize that the Queen refused a PM the exact same request before.

[ToadBrother]

Toadbrother, you're still hung up on the misconception that the GG's power is anything more than just ceremonial. It's preventing you from thinking outside the box. If Mulroney had you as his advisor, he'd never have been able to get his 8 more senators just for a simple sales tax bill.

There was nothing "outside the box" about Mulroney's asking the Queen to appoint extra Senators. It just hadn't been done before. It is in no way an example of what you seem to be trying to claim.

26. If at any Time on the Recommendation of the Governor General the Queen thinks fit to direct that Four or Eight Members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by Summons to Four or Eight qualified Persons (as the Case may be), representing equally the Four Divisions of Canada, add to the Senate accordingly

Edited April 14, 2011 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

.

Edited April 14, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Bryan]

you think amending the constitution means passing a bill in the federal parliament

I never said anything of the kind.

[Wild Bill]

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.

"Ultimate effect"? Sounds ominous!

Still, if it were to be so bad, why is it that Britain, (the mother of our system), Australia, America and virtually every other two House democracy has evolved a more democratic and effective Senate without Armegeddon happening?

In fact, we seem to be the ONLY one with an unelected, unequal and ineffective Senate!

If your dire implication is correct, we must be the envy of the free world!

[eyeball]

In this case, we have the BNA Act which dictates how Senators are chosen and the Constitution Act, 1982 dictating how to change that.

So it's not us that are under the thumb of a dictatorship it's our poor abused government that is.

[Bryan]

You do realize that the ability to appoint 4 or 8 extra senators is written into the Constitution, right? You do also realize that the Queen refused a PM the exact same request before.

Yes, I'm very much aware of sec 26. I'm also aware that people like you and toad and bambino were trying to claim at the time that the PM still needed consent of the provinces, and that the Queen would never grant such a request for something so minor anyway. The Mackenzie situation was often quoted by such people as proof that the PM is beholden to the crown, and that the senate expansion was a non-starter.

The monarchy is literally ceremonial. The PM does not need to open the constitution to compel the GG to do anything, All he has to do is giver her the "advice".

[ToadBrother]

Yes, I'm very much aware of sec 26. I'm also aware that people like you and toad and bambino were trying to claim at the time that the PM still needed consent of the provinces, and that the Queen would never grant such a request for something so minor anyway.

I have no idea how this supports your claim. The Constitution affords the PM the right to ask the GG and Queen to add four or eight seats to the Senate. It isn't a convention, and using it doesn't create one. I think you don't even know what is meant by a constitutional convention. You can't make a convention where there is an Act that says otherwise.

The Mackenzie situation was often quoted by such people as proof that the PM is beholden to the crown, and that the senate expansion was a non-starter.

The King-Byng Affair demonstrated that the GG has certain reserve powers that can be used. In the King-Byng case, King tried to go back on a deal he had struck with Lord Byng, and Lord Byng rightfully told him to bugger off. It's not an example at all of the PM being beholden to the GG or Queen, but rather an example of a PM having to keep his word to the GG or Queen.

The monarchy is literally ceremonial. The PM does not need to open the constitution to compel the GG to do anything, All he has to do is giver her the "advice".

Exactly, so if some PM tried to establish some extra-constitutional elected Senate and appointed some Senators based on some provincial vote (this in and of itself is a dubious tactic, considering the provinces have no right to hold elections for senate seats, but ignoring that for the moment), nothing prevents a future PM from ignoring the previous PM's actions. All our proverbial PM would be doing is basing his advice to the GG on who to put in the Senate based on what some voters in our proverbial province said.

That isn't Senate reform, it's just a constitutionally dubious procedure that still ends up with the GG acting on the advice of the PM, and not of any particular group of voters.

[ToadBrother]

"Ultimate effect"? Sounds ominous!

Still, if it were to be so bad, why is it that Britain, (the mother of our system), Australia, America and virtually every other two House democracy has evolved a more democratic and effective Senate without Armegeddon happening?

In fact, we seem to be the ONLY one with an unelected, unequal and ineffective Senate!

If your dire implication is correct, we must be the envy of the free world!

You are aware, I hope, that the House of Lords in large part has become a replication of the Canadian Senate. There are damned few hereditary peers even allowed to sit in the House of Lords any more (92 according to Wikipedia), and it's all appointments by the Queen on the advice of the... guess what... the PM!

Australia through in an elected senate as part of its constitution from the beginning. However, that has its risks too, as the 1975 Constitutional Crisis demonstrated. It's a rare enough occurrence, but still, Australia's "Washminster" system isn't optimal either.

The larger issue is that the Triple-E senate seems pretty much a washout because the Eastern provinces, who stand to lose by it, won't let it pass muster. Until they're on board, it's pointless to talk about, and there are risks to opening up the constitution again.

Edited April 14, 2011 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

Still, if it were to be so bad, why is it that Britain, (the mother of our system), Australia, America and virtually every other two House democracy has evolved a more democratic and effective Senate without Armegeddon happening?

In fact, we seem to be the ONLY one with an unelected... Senate!

The US and Australian senates have not changed since their creations; neither has evolved at all. The UK doesn't have an elected senate; it has the House of Lords, which currently consists party of appointed life peers and partly of hereditary peers. Canada is therefore not the only country to not have an elected upper chamber. In fact, there are more than a few countries in which the higher house of parliament is partly elected and partly appointed.

Regardless, I never said an elected senate would be the catalyst for the implosion of Canada, or anything like that. It will, though, have an effect on our parliament and how it works. I'm most wary about having two chambers each claiming to reflect the political will of the majority. If one is dominated by a party that opposes the party that dominates the other, the chances of logjams will increase greatly (yes, the Senate, as it is now, sometimes rejects what was passed by the Commons, but it's a rare event); it's a regular occurrence in the US and Australia is the only place where a cabinet was dismissed by the governor general because of a crisis caused, in part, by the elected senate refusing to pass a money bill. So, I'm not convinced by all the "triple-e" hype.

[g_bambino]

I never said anything of the kind.

Oh?

[ToadBrother]

The US and Australian senates have not changed since their creations; neither has evolved at all...

Well, that's not strictly true in the US's case. The 17th amendment made Senators directly elected by the voters in the states they represent. Prior to that the state legislatures elected senators. I'm actually of a mind that that would be a reform we could think about, allowing the Lieutenant Governor-in-council to name the senators as vacancies came up, and then allowing the Provinces to amend their own constitution acts to ultimately decide the model for the selection of senators.

[TimG]

the Provinces to amend their own constitution acts to ultimately decide the model for the selection of senators.

The last thing we need are 24 BQ senators. We do not want provincial governments to have control over the appointment of senators.

[Benz]

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.

You can repeat it over and over and I will never get tired of reading it.

---

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.

What if it is the other way around? Quebec is not satisfied with the status quo. Not changing the constitution will eventually bring up the referendum question on the front line. It's a matter of time.

---

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

I may know better than you would expect. Perhaps I know the answer and I just want to debate about it.

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.

You gonna have to live with the reality. The minority might last for a couple of decades again. The libs were lucky that the right was divided in CAC/(former Progressive-Conservative). NDP and the Bloc are not going to desapear anytime soon. I doubt very much we will see a majority in a nearby future. It's a reality that several countries in the world have to deal with.

Plus, the Bloc have also an interesting view of what the senate should be. If Quebec is included into the constitution and has its constitution veto on any constititonnal modification, Quebec wouldn't matter at all to see a new senate inspired from the american or the european senate.

Nooooo, for the conservatives, it's their way or no way... so it's no way until the whole country collapse just like the former USSR. Theory of evolution, to survive, you have to adapt.

[Saipan]

What if it is the other way around? Quebec is not satisfied with the status quo. Not changing the constitution will eventually bring up the referendum question on the front line. It's a matter of time.

Not bad, Canada minus Quebec = big saving.

The minority might last for a couple of decades again.

What do you mean again?

The trend shows otherwise. Present governing party had MORE seats in EVERY elections, since the early days of Preston Manning. No exception. Which party even accomplished that?

[g_bambino]

Well, that's not strictly true in the US's case. The 17th amendment made Senators directly elected by the voters in the states they represent. Prior to that the state legislatures elected senators.

I kind of had a feeling my statement wasn't entirely sound when I wrote it. Thanks for the correction.

[Bryan]

Oh?

"Oh?" what? Nothing in that post says what you claim it does.

[Bryan]

The last thing we need are 24 BQ senators. We do not want provincial governments to have control over the appointment of senators.

See now that is a good point. It's the very first rational argument against an elected senate I've ever heard.

[g_bambino]

"Oh?" what? Nothing in that post says what you claim it does.

What you said:

The Constitution fear mongering is a red herring. Once the federal bill is passed, the next step is just meeting with the premiers.

What I said:

[Y]ou think amending the constitution means passing a bill in the federal parliament and then a meeting with the premiers...

Can you point out precisely where I misinterpreted your words?

[Bryan]

Can you point out precisely where I misinterpreted your words?

Where in my statement that you quoted do I say "amend the constitution"?