What happened to that so desired reform?

[ToadBrother]

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

Maybe we're all speaking past each other. Can you tell us how what exactly you feel the Tories will reform and how they will go about reforming the Senate?

[g_bambino]

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

Could you provide a more clear answer to my question instead of toying lamely with semantics? Just because you didn't write the words "amend the constitution" doesn't mean you weren't talking about amending the constitution; you did write "the Constitution fear mongering is a red herring", which was a clear reference to others' comments about constitutional changes. You could only have meant that the pronounced difficulty of amending the constitution was a red herring (the constitution can be altered by an act of parliament), or, now that I look at it again, that the pronounced need for an amendment to the constitution was a red herring (the change can be made by act of parliament without need for the constitution to be altered). Which is it?

[Bryan]

Maybe we're all speaking past each other. Can you tell us how what exactly you feel the Tories will reform and how they will go about reforming the Senate?

First, it's not how I feel, or even what I think they will or even should do. I'm just talking about what I know for a fact is one of the proposed plans they are working on. A plan that does not involve ammending the constitution

The idea is to pass legislation that says the Prime Minister must consult with the provinces before "recommending" a senator to the Governor General. There are various degrees to which that consultation might be worded so as to say that if an elected senator is available, that's what they should recommend. That's what I mean by the easy part, passing the law (as long as there is a majority).

What I mean by the difficult part, is getting the provinces on board without "forcing" them, and without touching the constitution. The idea is to do it incrementally using more carrot than stick, much like the way the HST is happening. It's not ideal, and not only will it take a long time, you don't know what the provinces will demand to get on board.

So the PM consults the provinces, the province recommends the guy the elected, the PM then recommends that guy as his choice to the GG. The Statute of Westminster 1931 already compels the GG to accept the PM's advice, so whether ANY of that is constitutional or not is rendered irrelevant.

The wrench that could blow the whole thing up of course, is the very real probability that getting Quebec onboard would involve some extreme extortion on their part.

[Bryan]

Just because you didn't write the words "amend the constitution" doesn't mean you weren't talking about amending the constitution;

Yes it most certainly does.

[g_bambino]

Yes it most certainly does.

No, it doesn't.

[Bryan]

No, it doesn't.

Sigh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

[g_bambino]

Sigh.

Glad you agree.

[g_bambino]

The idea is to pass legislation that says the Prime Minister must consult with the provinces before "recommending" a senator to the Governor General. There are various degrees to which that consultation might be worded so as to say that if an elected senator is available, that's what they should recommend. That's what I mean by the easy part, passing the law (as long as there is a majority).

Any such Act of Parliament would have to be like the "fixed election date" amendment to the Canada Elections Act: essentially pointless, given that it would have to contain a clause, similar to S.56.1(1) in the Elections Act, stating that the law has no effect on the current prerogative of the governor general to appoint senators, which would basically mean that the prime minister could still recommend whomever he wants for appointment to the Senate. Otherwise, S.42 of the Constitution Act 1982 would come into play: "(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):... ( the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators [emphasis mine]..." Passing a law that creates new limits on the governor general's choices for appointments to the Senate (by further narrowing the pool of people from which the prime minister can draw recommendations) would be just such a change.

[ToadBrother]

The idea is to pass legislation that says the Prime Minister must consult with the provinces before "recommending" a senator to the Governor General. There are various degrees to which that consultation might be worded so as to say that if an elected senator is available, that's what they should recommend. That's what I mean by the easy part, passing the law (as long as there is a majority).

How does this help at all? At the end of the day the BNA Act is crystal clear on the selection of Senators. Such legislation would still be constitutionally dubious because it effectively tries to limit the the GG and the Queen's right, on the advice of the Prime Minister, to appoint senators. Yes, I know you're trying to making it sound friendly as a sort of a suggestion, but do you think the constitution can be bypassed by being polite about it?

What I mean by the difficult part, is getting the provinces on board without "forcing" them, and without touching the constitution. The idea is to do it incrementally using more carrot than stick, much like the way the HST is happening. It's not ideal, and not only will it take a long time, you don't know what the provinces will demand to get on board.

The HST does not touch on constitutional matters, as both the Federal and Provincial governments can pass the tax, so merging the two taxes together under a single administration, while innovative, hardly intrudes on the powers of either level of government.

So the PM consults the provinces, the province recommends the guy the elected, the PM then recommends that guy as his choice to the GG. The Statute of Westminster 1931 already compels the GG to accept the PM's advice, so whether ANY of that is constitutional or not is rendered irrelevant.

First of all, your mixing things up horribly. The Sovereign has been obliged to act on the advice of HIs or Her Ministers long before the Statute of Westminster, and, in fact, the number of incidents in which the Sovereign or the Sovereign's Viceroy have refused the advice of their ministers in the last two hundred years can probably be counted on one hand.

Second of all, because this "suggestion" bill intrudes on a constitutional area where there are explicit Acts of a constitutional nature, without the use of the appropriate amending formula, it does not have the force of law. It is little more than a non-binding notion.

The wrench that could blow the whole thing up of course, is the very real probability that getting Quebec onboard would involve some extreme extortion on their part.

It doesn't need to have that kind of a wrench at all. A future PM can simply say "This legislation is unconstitutional". The Supreme Court is almost inevitably going to agree because it modified the appointment of Senators without going through the proscribed methods found in the Constitution Act, section 38(1), and that is, as they say, is that.

Why is it precisely that you can possibly imagine that what is explicitly set out in the BNA Act and the Constitution Act, 1982 can sort of be "sidled" out of existence? There's no getting past it, the selection of Senators is explicitly laid out. It isn't a convention, and even it was, you can't just simply kill conventions either. The written and unwritten parts of our constitution are of equal weight, and modifying either, depending on the nature of change, requires the appropriate amending formula.

Edited April 15, 2011 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Any such Act of Parliament would have to be like the "fixed election date" amendment to the Canada Elections Act: essentially pointless, given that it would have to contain a clause, similar to S.56.1(1) in the Elections Act, stating that the law has no effect on the current prerogative of the governor general to appoint senators, which would basically mean that the prime minister could still recommend whomever he wants for appointment to the Senate. Otherwise, S.42 of the Constitution Act 1982 would come into play: "(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):... ( the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators [emphasis mine]..." Passing a law that creates new limits on the governor general's choices for appointments to the Senate (by further narrowing the pool of people from which the prime minister can draw recommendations) would be just such a change.

Exactly. There's no getting around it. A Prime Minister is certainly free even now to advise the GG to appoint a Senator based on a provincial election of some kind, if he so chooses. So on the face of it, the proposed act is completely pointless. More to the point, this proposed act seems to miss the entire point that the PM does not in fact appoint a Senator, but rather advises the GG or the Queen to appoint a Senator, and thus this proposed act would directly interfere with that prerogative.

[Benz]

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?

At that rate, he will lead the whole world in 10 years, then lead the galaxy in 20 years. How long until he controls the universe?

-------------

The last thing we need are 24 BQ senators.

We are sending the BQ to the House of Common for the last 18 years and you still don't understand the message. It only means you need more.

We do not want provincial governments to have control over the appointment of senators.

Yes we do. A senate is pointless otherwise.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Benz

[Benz]

If the actual constitution can impeach any modifications to the actual non-sense senate, then the constitution must die and we will do a new one.

A prime minister that chooses hiw fellows to seat in the senate, that goes against the whole principle of having a senate. It makes the senate meaningless and illegitimate.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Benz

[Smallc]

If the actual constitution can impeach any modifications to the actual non-sense senate, then the constitution must die and we will do a new one.

Yes, lets throw out the Constitution because you don't like the Senate. That's....brilliant. That's also sarcasm, btw.

[ToadBrother]

If the actual constitution can impeach any modifications to the actual non-sense senate, then the constitution must die and we will do a new one.

A prime minister that chooses hiw fellows to seat in the senate, that goes against the whole principle of having a senate. It makes the senate meaningless and illegitimate.

The Canadian Senate was modelled on the British House of Lords. As Canada never had a large aristocracy or any great number of members of the nobility, it was decided that it should at least be constituted as the Peerages had been for some time in the UK, by the Queen on the advice of Her Government. As well, it was seen as a concession to the moneyed class at the time to have a house to balance off the powers of the popularly elected House of Commons. A third purpose was to give Senators long terms so that they would be somewhat insulated from the ever-changing popular will, in effect to create a house of sober second thought (it should be noted that that is the reason the US gave their Senators six year terms).

I don't have a problem talking about Senate reform, though I think we'd better be prepared if we have an elected Senate for the kinds of stand offs we see in the US, and was often seen prior to the reform bills of the 19th and early 20th centuries in the UK between the Commons and the Lords. Even now the Senate, if it was disposed, could cause enormous trouble for the Commons, but long convention has meant Senators rarely out-and-out defy the will of the people's assembly; the House of Commons.

[eyeball]

I don't have a problem talking about Senate reform, though I think we'd better be prepared if we have an elected Senate for the kinds of stand offs we see in the US, and was often seen prior to the reform bills of the 19th and early 20th centuries in the UK between the Commons and the Lords.

Remember, if nothing moves nothing gets hurt. You've cited our hung Parliament as being a key reason why Canada has sailed through this economic crisis.

Even now the Senate, if it was disposed, could cause enormous trouble for the Commons, but long convention has meant Senators rarely out-and-out defy the will of the people's assembly; the House of Commons.

The HOC is more an assembly of political parties - these are no more real people than corporations are.

Edited April 15, 2011 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

Remember, if nothing moves nothing gets hurt. You've cited our hung Parliament as being a key reason why Canada has sailed through this economic crisis.

I'm rather curious as to why you seem so derisive of current and historical examples of how two legislative bodies with overlapping powers can cause stalemates. If we're talking about reforms, should we not consider examples of how systems similar to the one we're contemplating?

[eyeball]

I'm rather curious as to why you seem so derisive of current and historical examples of how two legislative bodies with overlapping powers can cause stalemates. If we're talking about reforms, should we not consider examples of how systems similar to the one we're contemplating?

In addition to exploring entirely new directions, sure.

I'm not being derisive, I'm just noting that you've held up the benefits of a hung parliament on one hand while putting down their perils with the other. Weighing and comparing the differences is a good sign.

[ToadBrother]

In addition to exploring entirely new directions, sure.

I'm not being derisive, I'm just noting that you've held up the benefits of a hung parliament on one hand while putting down their perils with the other. Weighing and comparing the differences is a good sign.

There is a quantitative difference between a house with a minority government and two separate houses in a bicameral legislature with near-equal or at least overlapping powers moving to stalemate. Politicians can certainly learn to work with it, as we see in the US from time to time, but it can also lead to a much more dangerous kind of stalemate.

[g_bambino]

Politicians can certainly learn to work with it, as we see in the US from time to time, but it can also lead to a much more dangerous kind of stalemate.

Like Australia in 1975.

But, there's me citing precedent again.

[Benz]

Yes, lets throw out the Constitution because you don't like the Senate. That's....brilliant. That's also sarcasm, btw.

Why not. Why the canadians can't do a normal constitution? What is it the canadians don't have and the other nations in this world do?

There are no good reasons to tolerate this non-sense system. If you can't adapt the system, it will fail and collapse.

It's not like if we have to invent the wheel. There are many other systems in the world we can inspire from.

[ToadBrother]

Why not. Why the canadians can't do a normal constitution? What is it the canadians don't have and the other nations in this world do?

What exactly is abnormal about our constitution? Structurally, it's fairly similar to other Commonwealth countries.

There are no good reasons to tolerate this non-sense system. If you can't adapt the system, it will fail and collapse.

It's stood well since 1867, even longer if you include the major reforms of the Glorious Revolution.

It's not like if we have to invent the wheel. There are many other systems in the world we can inspire from.

Yeah, like the Westminster one that has been one of the most successful and duplicated out there... oh wait, that's ours!

[g_bambino]

Why not. Why the canadians can't do a normal constitution? What is it the canadians don't have and the other nations in this world do?

There are no good reasons to tolerate this non-sense system. If you can't adapt the system, it will fail and collapse.

It's not like if we have to invent the wheel. There are many other systems in the world we can inspire from.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

[Benz]

What exactly is abnormal about our constitution? Structurally, it's fairly similar to other Commonwealth countries.

Like if the commonwealth was the best comparison.

It is abnormal that the prime minister chooses the senators. It makes the senate totally futile.

There are many other non-sense things. One popular down here is the religion. Way too strong in the constitution. One individual can force the rest of the country to adapt to its belief. Like this Sikh that is allowed by the Supreme Court to go at school with a religious knife. It might sounds ok for you, it is outrageous for us.

It's stood well since 1867, even longer if you include the major reforms of the Glorious Revolution.

Appart from the natives, there are just 2 main nations in this country and one of them is excluded from the constitution. Very bad rate. The Europeans are more than a dozen different cultures and languages and yet, they manage to get all along. No one is excluded. Even the little Ireland has a say.

Yeah, like the Westminster one that has been one of the most successful and duplicated out there... oh wait, that's ours!

Keep your eyes wide shut. You will have only yourself to blame when it will be too late. Edited April 16, 2011 by Benz

[g_bambino]

Like if the commonwealth was the best comparison.

The Westminster parliamentary system is used widely outside the Commonwealth.

It is abnormal that the prime minister chooses the senators. It makes the senate totally futile.

How so?

One popular down here is the religion. Way too strong in the constitution. One individual can force the rest of the country to adapt to its belief. Like this Sikh that is allowed by the Supreme Court to go at school with a religious knife.

What?

Appart from the natives, there are just 2 main nations in this country and one of them is excluded from the constitution. Very bad rate. The Europeans are more than a dozen different cultures and languages and yet, they manage to get all along. No one is excluded. Even the little Ireland has a say.

What?

Keep your eyes wide shut. You will have only yourself to blame when it will be too late.

What?

[August1991]

Bage ert 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

Until the 1920s, US federal Senators were appointed by their respective state legislatures. It then became practice for the state legislatures to name people chosen by popular vote.

[Edited to add: The practice of electing senators started in the mid-19th century and was finally formalized in a US constitutional amendment in 1913.]

So in theory, it could become practice in Canada to elect senators without resort to a constitutional amendment. (This, in fact, is how common law and the British constitution function. The Civil Code - and the US Constitution - require formal amendment procedures.)

----

Harper's main Canadian Senate change is tor introduce a term limit of eight years. He can do this. Originally, Senators were appointed for life and Trudeau Pearson (Editor's correction) changed this to age 75 when they are now forced to retire. Such a change is a simple act of parliament.

OTTAWA—A bid to fast-track Stephen Harper’s Senate reform agenda has been rejected by opposition parties as a cynical ploy by an anti-democratic government.

The Harper government asked for unanimous consent Thursday to accelerate passage of a bill that would limit unelected senators to a single, eight-year term.

...

John Baird, the government’s House leader, acknowledged that term limits wouldn’t in themselves make senators more accountable. But he said the bill is “a good start” and urged opposition parties to support another bill aimed at encouraging provinces to hold elections for Senate nominees.

Both bills have been introduced four different times by Harper’s government but have never gotten off the ground.

Toronto Star

Now that Harper has appointed enough Conservative senators to have a majority there (and all new appointees have accepted the 8 year term as a condition of their appointment) and if Harper gets a majority, then I would imagine that the GG will soon be signing legislation to limit the terms of all senators. As with Trudeau's change, it will be grandfathered so that current senators will be able to sit beyond 8 years.

A prime minister that chooses hiw fellows to seat in the senate, that goes against the whole principle of having a senate. It makes the senate meaningless and illegitimate.

That's a good point. Now, imagine if all senators only have a term of 8 years. A PM with two mandates will quickly control the entire senate. But then again, that would make the Senate redundant - which is maybe the point.

----

[Thread drift ahead]

Benz, there's a sad point in all this. If a minority of Quebecers were not obsessed with sovereignty/independence, we would long ago have reformed or abolished the federal Senate. Because of this obsessed minority within Quebec, constitutional reform has become impossible.

This may be a good thing when it comes to a constitution. No society should be able to change a constitution easily. But no reform at all is a recipe for disaster.

I think my point is more grave within Quebec itself. The Quebec State desperately requires reform but any significant change is impossible because of the sovereignist obsession among about 35% of Quebecers. Jean Charest and Gerald Tremblay are the sad result of this obsession.

Edited April 16, 2011 by August1991