All Provinces Interveners in Senate Reference

[Paradox]

It would seem that The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister, is going to have more of an uphill battle than he might have thought in convincing the Supreme Court of Canada that he can make changes to The Honourable the Senate without substantive provincial consultations. All ten provinces have served notice to the Supreme Court that they intend to intervene in the Supreme Court's deliberations on the Senate reform reference questions referred to it by the Governor General-in-Council.

The Government of Nunavut has also served notice that it intends to intervene, and there is anticipation that the other territories can be expected to follow suit shortly. While Ontario favours the abolition of the Senate, there are several provinces—such as those in Atlantic Canada—which would lose considerable power on the national stage with the termination of the Upper House (these provinces collectively control over one-quarter of the Senate, while they represent only 7% of seats in the House of Commons).

The Governor General-in-Council has referred six questions in a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking a range of questions related to what options might be within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada in respect of Senate reform. These include questions such as whether the property requirements for honourable senators can be abolished by Parliament acting alone; whether the abolition of the Senate requires a 7/50 amendment (the consent of at least seven provinces, representing at least 50% of the population), or unanimous consent; and whether Parliament acting alone can create "consultation" processes to inform the selection of senators.

(Source)

[shortlived]

It is 50% of the population of canada and 7 of the 10 provinces. The system is pretty straight forward.

Why are we questioning how the constitution is ammended, this was set in the 80's.

Edited March 8, 2013 by shortlived

[Paradox]

Because it is not quite as straightforward as you've suggested.

The method of selecting our honourable senators is subject to the 7/50 amending formula; however, any change to the principle of regional representation in the Senate requires the unanimous consent of the provinces, as does any change to the powers of the Governor General (including the authority to summon senators). Moreover, there is no mention in the amending formula as to how one would change the fundamental legislative process, including the fact that the House of Commons cannot pass a bill without the consent of the Senate.

[shortlived]

where are you getting that from?

s. 42 clearly indicates section 38.1

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 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 all the provinces.

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):

• (b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;

An absence of powers and the ability to select them precludes where they are coming from.

Edited March 9, 2013 by shortlived

[cyber]

To eliminate the Senate would likely require a costly and lengthy constitutional amendment process. There is a cost savings option which would not require changes to the Constitution and is worthy of serious consideration by our elected federal and provincial leaders.

The remuneration approach of the Senate of Canada could be changed to a much less expensive per-diem based approach (as used in the UK upper chamber) for each day of session attendance. Under this scheme, the Senators would rely on common office services and would not be provided with pensions or secondary residence support.

The average annual salary, benefits and allowances for each member in the House of Lords is about $30,500.

For each Canadian Senator it is more than ten times greater at about $397,000.

It is difficult to justify why in Canada, the remuneration costs for a single member of an upper house of Parliament must be so much greater than in the UK.

A short comparative analysis paper is provided at link below.

http://db.tt/weMbQ9iq

[PIK]

Quebec will never agree.

[g_bambino]

Quebec will never agree.

For all its faults, what he proposed doesn't require Quebec's agreement.