NDP and the Senate

[ToadBrother]

Agreed.

My only point was that Mulcair hasn't been dishonest about anything yet, as he is not the PM and hasn't had a chance to implement anything obviously.

Some people on the forum seem to want to claim he's dishonest before he has even been elected!

It is going to take years to sort out the Senate, at best. And he may not even be able to do anything at all...

He's being dishonest in stating he'll abolish the Senate. He has neither the power, nor the ability to compel the Provinces. It's just an empty populist proclamation, much as the Tories' claims they would reform the Senate were little more than attempt to rally the troops.

Quebec, Ontario and the Atlantic Provinces are never going to allow abolition of the Senate, nor are they going to allow their influence in the Red Chamber to be diminished through any significant set of reforms. The Senate will be here long after Mulcair's government (should it ever come into existence to begin with) is dead and buried.

[The_Squid]

He's being dishonest in stating he'll abolish the Senate. He has neither the power, nor the ability to compel the Provinces. It's just an empty populist proclamation, much as the Tories' claims they would reform the Senate were little more than attempt to rally the troops.

Quebec, Ontario and the Atlantic Provinces are never going to allow abolition of the Senate, nor are they going to allow their influence in the Red Chamber to be diminished through any significant set of reforms. The Senate will be here long after Mulcair's government (should it ever come into existence to begin with) is dead and buried.

Possibly... but, he's known as a fighter, not prone to capitulation like Harper was on this topic.

I would prefer to see what he does (or attempts to do) and judge his efforts afterwards, rather than pre-judge and blow smoke out my ass about what he will do.

As I said in the post... he may not be able to do anything at all.

[ToadBrother]

Possibly... but, he's known as a fighter, not prone to capitulation like Harper was on this topic.

I would prefer to see what he does (or attempts to do) and judge his efforts afterwards, rather than pre-judge and blow smoke out my ass about what he will do.

As I said in the post... he may not be able to do anything at all.

This isn't a position in which refusing to capitulate means a darned thing. Mulcair, if he becomes PM, has absolutely no unilateral power to force abolition, and if even one Province refuses to cooperate, his grand mission is sunk completely and utterly.

[cybercoma]

And it's very unlikely that any of the Atlantic provinces would support abolishing the Senate.

[The_Squid]

This isn't a position in which refusing to capitulate means a darned thing. Mulcair, if he becomes PM, has absolutely no unilateral power to force abolition, and if even one Province refuses to cooperate, his grand mission is sunk completely and utterly.

I don't remember seeing anyone claim that the PM would have unilateral powers to do anything with the Senate. Hence my comment about the Provinces.

And it's very unlikely that any of the Atlantic provinces would support abolishing the Senate.

True... he will need a very strong mandate through a referendum, at the very least. And even that may not help him.

[ToadBrother]

I don't remember seeing anyone claim that the PM would have unilateral powers to do anything with the Senate. Hence my comment about the Provinces.

True... he will need a very strong mandate through a referendum, at the very least. And even that may not help him.

And I think it's important to remind everyone that it wouldn't be one referendum, it would be ten referendums, and even if a majority of Canadians were in favor of abolition, if the electorate of one single province were to reject it, the initiative fails. Worse, it could lead to a whole new Charlottetown-style period of constitutional and political instability.

Frankly, I think the Charlottetown referendum is as good an example as any as to why referendums shouldn't be used for major constitutional negotiations. Canada is a confederation, not a unitary state, and Mulroney's gambit proved why it is so dangerous to confuse the two.

[Keepitsimple]

Harper gave the Provinces a chance - and they still have it. They can hold an election or public selection process that puts forward a candidate for the Prime Minister to appoint. That makes it federally non-partisan and in the domain of the provinces and regions that the Senators represent. Alberta's selection of Bert Brown was the only. The PM - whoever they might be - would not dare go against the wishes of the people/province/region.

[ToadBrother]

Harper gave the Provinces a chance - and they still have it. They can hold an election or public selection process that puts forward a candidate for the Prime Minister to appoint. That makes it federally non-partisan and in the domain of the provinces and regions that the Senators represent. Alberta's selection of Bert Brown was the only. The PM - whoever they might be - would not dare go against the wishes of the people/province/region.

First of all because Senate appointments are strictly the Governor General's province, any Provincial Senate election legislation would be unconstitutional. The Provinces can no more constitutionally create legislation to select Senators than they can create legislation to raise an army or issue passports. In other words, Harper's commitment, even if serious, is blatantly unconstitutional, not because the PM isn't free to use any method he wants to select Senators, but that everyone else is sharply limited or outright incapable of invoking that method to give him a list. Alberta's law would almost certainly collapse on a constitutional challenge.

This is once again an example of the kind of "lazy revolutionary" thinking that seems to be so common in Tory and NDP circles. Both parties are filled with people with some great fervor for change, but absolutely no desire to do the necessary legwork to accomplish it.

[Keepitsimple]

First of all because Senate appointments are strictly the Governor General's province, any Provincial Senate election legislation would be unconstitutional. The Provinces can no more constitutionally create legislation to select Senators than they can create legislation to raise an army or issue passports. In other words, Harper's commitment, even if serious, is blatantly unconstitutional, not because the PM isn't free to use any method he wants to select Senators, but that everyone else is sharply limited or outright incapable of invoking that method to give him a list. Alberta's law would almost certainly collapse on a constitutional challenge.

This is once again an example of the kind of "lazy revolutionary" thinking that seems to be so common in Tory and NDP circles. Both parties are filled with people with some great fervor for change, but absolutely no desire to do the necessary legwork to accomplish it.

Right....no one wants to re-open the Constitution again because of so many failed attempts. Funny thing about that ol' Constituion. Everyone criticizes Harper - and to a lesser extent, other PMs for their partisan choices - but the Constitution prevents then from giving away even a portion of the authority to do so.

[ToadBrother]

Right....no one wants to re-open the Constitution again because of so many failed attempts. Funny thing about that ol' Constituion. Everyone criticizes Harper - and to a lesser extent, other PMs for their partisan choices - but the Constitution prevents then from giving away even a portion of the authority to do so.

Of course no one wants to open up the Constitution, unless it's on the election trail when they make promises like "Senate term limits", "elected Senators", or, of late "Senate abolition."

On the campaign trail, sadly, populist declarations win votes, even if it turns out later that the party's position was utter nonsense. In the area of Senate reform, at least, the Liberals have the firmest grip on reality. The Tories and NDP are off in populist la la land.

That being said, there are ways to alter the way Senators are chosen.

My favorite method is for the PM to devolve Senate choices to the Privy Council, which, still on paper, is the body that still technically advises the Governor General. The Privy Council has every current and past living Cabinet Minister, leaders of the Opposition, former Governors General and former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. Such an august body ought to be able to come up with a decent nominations and then pass them on directly to the Governor General, bypassing the PM entirely.

Another way to do it is to simply do what Prime Ministers do when the office of the Lieutenant-Governor becomes vacant in a province, which is to pick up the phone, call the Premier in question and ask "Who do you recommend for the job?" Admittedly, it isn't a formalized process, but because LGs, like Senators, are, in strict terms, chosen by the Governor General, there's no way to make provincial input on replacements a formal process. However, I would think that if this method were used enough times under enough PMs, it could potentially become part of the unwritten part of our constitution, where constitutional customs and conventions lie. In other words, if you had four or five Prime Ministers over the space of two or three decades making it a practice to consult the Provinces on who to nominate, it would inevitably become a constitutional convention that later PMs would have a very hard time breaking.

A third way is to emulate how many Life Peers are chosen in the UK; an independent body that advises the PM on who gets nominated to the Lords. Again, as with consulting the Premiers, this one can't be formalized in legislation, but I think if it were done enough times it would gain some wait as a convention.

[-1=e^ipi]

He's being dishonest in stating he'll abolish the Senate. He has neither the power, nor the ability to compel the Provinces. It's just an empty populist proclamation, much as the Tories' claims they would reform the Senate were little more than attempt to rally the troops.

Quebec, Ontario and the Atlantic Provinces are never going to allow abolition of the Senate, nor are they going to allow their influence in the Red Chamber to be diminished through any significant set of reforms.

You just need to get creative. Threaten to punish non-compliant provinces with policies specifically design to harm them. Another option is to convince western Canada to separate and form a republic of Canada with a completely new legal foundation; the other provinces can join the republic if they want.

[Evening Star]

Of course no one wants to ----SNIP---- but I think if it were done enough times it would gain some wait as a convention.

The first idea is interesting to me, and might work, but I have misgivings about the second. I'm not sure I see why provincial Premiers should have such a major role in the composition of a federal House. Edited September 10, 2015 by Charles Anthony
----SNIP----

[Argus]

You just need to get creative. Threaten to punish non-compliant provinces with policies specifically design to harm them. Another option is to convince western Canada to separate and form a republic of Canada with a completely new legal foundation; the other provinces can join the republic if they want.

You don't think that's a little extreme (as in insane) just to get rid of the Senate, which costs a few million a year and has no real impact on anything?

[-1=e^ipi]

You don't think that's a little extreme (as in insane) just to get rid of the Senate, which costs a few million a year and has no real impact on anything?

No. People should be equal under the law. And as far as I am concerned, there should be zero compromise to that principle.

But I doubt such extreme measures are necessary. History is full of examples of groups of people voting in favour of giving themselves proportionally less say in elections if it is for egalitarian purposes (otherwise, women, black people, natives and other groups wouldn't be able to vote).