Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[vonGarvin]

Under no circumstance should Canada be lead by an unelected person.

I don't remember anyone voting for this guy...

 

[Sythen]

I don't remember anyone voting for this guy...

Though the Queen is technically in charge of Canada, you'd be hard pressed to argue that she is anything more than a figurehead. No decisions on the direction of the country or its policies come from London.

 

[vonGarvin]

Though the Queen is technically in charge of Canada, you'd be hard pressed to argue that she is anything more than a figurehead. No decisions on the direction of the country or its policies come from London.

She isn't London.  She's the Queen of Canada. 

 

[Sythen]

She isn't London.  She's the Queen of Canada.

Who makes absolutely no decisions that affect Canada's policy, either foreign or domestic.

 

[vonGarvin]

Who makes absolutely no decisions that affect Canada's policy, either foreign or domestic.

Whatever.  It's not London (as you alluded to).  She is our Head of State, for whatever that's worth.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Robert Fife of CTV News is reporting that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has set up a non-partisan committee to recommend on vice-regal appointments. It will be headed by Kevin McLeod, the Usher of the Black Rod and the Queen's Canadian Secretary.

 

[a_majoor]

Wow. I never knew that this sort of riding even existed in Canada (much like the Gerrymandered ridings in the US also divided up along ethnic lines). The fact the NS government is moving to abolish them is a good thing in my opinion; creating or enforcing divides and special privilages simply perpetuates problems, not solves them in most cases:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/09/nova-scotia-decision-to-eliminate-minority-ridings-headed-for-legal-challenge/

Nova Scotia decision to eliminate ‘minority’ ridings headed for legal challenge

Kathryn Blaze Carlson | Dec 9, 2012 9:10 PM ET
More from Kathryn Blaze Carlson | @KBlazeCarlson

The Nova Scotia government is headed for a legal challenge over last week’s decision to stamp out minority ridings that aim to ensure Acadian and black representation in favour of population-based ridings, provoking discussion around whether ethnically based districting has any place in today’s political landscape — there or anywhere.

The ridings are believed to be the only such seats in Canada, but by abolishing them the provincial government would be only partway down the path toward shedding its special treatment of minorities in elections: According to a government spokesperson, the new boundaries will have no effect on the handful of school board seats reserved for Nova Scotia’s black, Acadian and First Nations populations.

But with the legislative map slated for a revamp, the Acadian Federation of Nova Scotia has promised to a launch a court battle over concerns the changes will disperse French-speaking voters into larger ridings and dilute the collective clout they have enjoyed for two decades.

Unwavered by the group’s threat, Premier Darrell Dexter has staunchly defended his NDP government’s majority vote last Thursday to change the map, arguing that the boundaries should be rejigged so that every Nova Scotian’s vote is equal in weight — not discounted or cast at a premium depending on whether a voter is in a large district or one of the four smaller ones effectively dedicated to Acadians or black Nova Scotians.

“I’m surprised those kinds of districts still exist,” said Christopher Wilson, a senior research fellow with the University of Ottawa’s Centre on Governance. “Our governance process has evolved over time … In this day and age, we just wouldn’t do that.”

The provincial electoral boundaries commission’s report, released in September and entitled Toward Fair and Effective Representation, said the ridings emerged in the first place to make sure that no matter how “territorially fragmented” the Acadian and black populations — both with a history of discrimination in the province — they will succeed in electing one of their community members to the provincial legislature.

Ironically, though, the majority-black riding of Preston has for more than a decade chosen a white candidate, while the province’s only black MLA, Percy White, was elected by the predominantly white community of Waverley-Fall River-Beaver Bank.

In the riding of Argyle, for example, there are 6,200 voters — roughly 8,000 less than the average of about 14,000. About 60% of voters there are Acadian, but under redistribution that number plummets to about 22%, according to Chris d’Entremont, the Progressive Conservative member of the riding.

With Conservatives criticizing their traditionally minority friendly NDP counterparts for moving away from minority representation, the situation playing out in Nova Scotia is quite obviously punctuated by quirks and anomalies. Chief among them is the survival, at least so far, of the minority-based school board positions.

The province reserves a certain number of board positions for black and First Nations people, and it has a designated Acadian school district with Acadian representatives, too. (Those posts fell into controversy in October after it appeared that non-blacks may have voted in the election for the seat reserved for black Nova Scotians.)

A spokesperson for the province’s education ministry said minority representation on the school board is protected by the Education Act — immune to any House Assembly Act changes recommended by the boundaries commission and passed by the government. Dan Harrison said he is not aware of any current plans to move away from the practice.

Ryerson University political scientist Myer Siemiatycki defended ethnically based districting as a bold electoral experiment that helps ensure minorities get a seat at the table, deeming the Dexter government’s latest move a “retrograde step.”

“Representation by population is an important principle, but so too is representation of diverse identities within a political jurisdiction,” he said. “At this point, I think it’s more important to ensure minority representation.”

He does not agree with Mr. Wilson’s contention that the practice divides Canadians along bloodlines rather than unites them around common social, political or economic interests. In fact, he said strictly population-based ridings will be detrimental to unity or equality because the legislature will likely become more homogeneous than it is today.

“I don’t accept the argument that says, ‘Gee we’re magnifying differences that don’t really exist, and we’re dividing people so let’s just have one person, one vote,’” he said. “That’s just going to guarantee us a false togetherness.”

Evidently, the commission went to great lengths to find a way to uphold minority representation and at the same time move toward 51 ridings with an average of 14,000 people, give or take the allowable variance of 25%, or 3,500 voters. They considered, for example, letting Acadian and black voters choose between voting in their geographic district or in one of four “at-large” seats — three dedicated to Acadians, and one to black people. But that is rife with potential problems, not the least of which being that those voters would find themselves doubly represented — on the one hand by their “at-large” MLA and on the other hand by their constituency MLA, no matter where they chose to cast their ballot.

“This all reminds me of an old expression of [former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister] Joe Clark’s, when he described Canada as a community of communities,” Mr. Wilson said. “There are communities of all kinds of sizes, ethnicities, and languages all across the country. But Canada is a community of all of these. The challenge for government is how it will represent all those voices and not just pander to a particular subset.”

National Post, with files from The Canadian Press
kcarlson@nationalpost.com

 

[Edward Campbell]

Given the imminent arrival of Prince Charles and Camilla, several members of the Canadian commentariat have weighed in on the issue of the monarchy most, like the Globe and Mail’s Jeffrey Simpson and the Ottawa Citizen’s Janice Kennedy  - who are pretty ‘normal’ examples of the mainstream opinion - demonstrating a high degree of contempt for the Constitution.

Simpson says:

”Canada has the luxury, assuming the Queen remains in good health – long may she reign! – to prepare for the transition to making the Office of the Governor-General the office of the head of state, period. No constitutional debates about whether the Queen or G-G is head of state, de jure or de facto, distinctions that leave all but the most discerning foreigner, to say nothing of ordinary Canadians, baffled.

There is no golden formula for executing this move, although options abound. The head of state could be selected by Parliament, the people, or the 150 Companions of the Order of Canada, a representative sample of the best citizens the country has produced.

We need only to make the decision that we should make a decision, and then figure out the modality to executing it. Polls, for what they are worth, suggest that Canadians in the majority would be prepared for a change, sensing that, yes, the time is right.”

Kennedy says:

”It is time to say goodbye to our indisputably British monarch. And it's time to replace that monarch with an indisputably Canadian head of state -- legally, culturally, constitutionally and no longer merely the "de facto" noted recently by Rideau Hall.

Predictably, conservative alarmists warn of dire consequences for such rashness, as if we'd be severing the limb of our own past and then bleeding to death. Some, like Calgary Herald columnist Naomi Lakritz, actually predict that a monarchy-free Canada would "only be able to identify itself as U.S. Lite." Except that it's not a limb we're severing. We won't bleed to death.

The power of the monarch -- yes (sigh), our official head of state -- is primarily and effectively symbolic, like the power associated with heads of state in numerous modern democracies around the world. So worrying about the modalities of choosing a head of state is pointless.

In Canada, if we ever got off our duffs and decided to add symbolic independence to actual independence, we could even maintain the process we have now for finding governors general, with governments appointing well-regarded Canadians to the post for fixed terms.

Those figures' authority would derive from and reside permanently in the people and nation of Canada, not in an anachronistic echo of our history.”


That’s all true enough and it’s all well and good, as far as it goes but along comes uncommonly sensible Norman Spector to remind them and us, in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, that we DO have a Constitution and that matters:


But, Spector is wrong to say that we are “stuck, for the ages.”

There IS a provision to change the Constitution. While I agree with Spector that there is NO political will to do that, it means that the possibility of changing the form of the head-of-state is Constitutionally possible. Although getting rid of the monarch (but not the monarchy, per se) is a bigger ‘deal’ than getting rid of British honours (lordships and knighthoods, etc) we did that in 1919 without ever passing a law – the Nickle Resolution asked the sovereign to stop awarding titles to Canadians and the sovereign is obliged – by the really, really important and wholly unwritten parts of the Constitution - to obey the will of her Canadian parliament; and the British parliament in Westminster is, equally, obliged to respect Canada’s sovereignty in all matters related to the Throne of Canada.

A simple resolution saying, for example, that Canada does not recognize the UK’s various Acts of Succession and Settlement (which discriminate against Roman Catholics and, therefore, offend our Charter values) will be sufficient to prevent Charles from claiming or ascending to the Throne of Canada on the sad day when his mother, our most gracious sovereign lady Elizabeth, dies – as she will. There will still be a Throne of Canada, not one word of the Constitution Act (1867 or 1982) will have been changed, and we will, explicitly, remain a constitutional monarchy, the ’property’ of the lawful heirs and successors of Queen Victoria. But, since we will, on a fine Constitutional point,  disagree with the UK and Australia and several other countries about just who those lawful heirs and successors might be, the new King of Australia and, separately, of new King the United Kingdom will not be the new King of Canada because he and his mother, respecting the will of Canada’s parliament as, Constitutionally, they must, will have surrendered his claim to  our crown.

The situation that will obtain is that we will not have a named sovereign. Our sovereign will be absent. Our sovereign will exist, somewhere, we will suppose, but we will be unsure about who (s)he may be. Constitutionally we will all assume that, eventually, we will get around to naming a sovereign but, in the interim – a long, long, long interim, we will select (somehow) a Regent1 of Canada. The regent – we can call him or her whatever we want, governor general, president, whatever, just not king or queen, and we can select him or her in pretty much any way we want – will be both the de facto and de jure head-of-state.


----------
1. The Wikipedia article is useful because it links (by FN 1) to the OED’s definition - which specifies that a regent may 'protect' the throne during the absence of the monarch - and it shows the long list of regents in current and former monarchies, demonstrating that regencies are not abnormal.

Time to revisit my favourite  :deadhorse:  and to do so I will use this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from The Guardian to argue, yet again, that we should be prepared for the death of our gracious sovereign lady, Queen Elizabeth, by having in place - known to the royals - a plan to put a Governor General Regent on the throne of Canada rather than any of HM's "lawful heirs and successors:"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/07/prince-charles-worried-succession-laws?INTCMP=SRCH

Prince Charles 'worried about changing laws of royal succession'
Prince of Wales reportedly met Whitehall officials to share his concerns about fast-tracked changes to the UK's constitution

Caroline Davies and Juliette Jowit
The Guardian,

Monday 7 January 2013

The Prince of Wales is said to have raised his fears of "unintended consequences" of the government rushing to change the laws of succession to the throne.

In a private meeting with Richard Heaton, permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office, Charles reportedly voiced concerns over what would happen if his grandchild, due next year, were to marry a Roman Catholic.

The succession to the crown bill, which will change the ancient laws governing the royal line of succession to ensure the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's first child would succeed to the throne regardless of gender, has been published and is expected to be fast-tracked through parliament at the earliest opportunity.

The planned reforms, presented by the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, would also allow the couple's first-born to marry a Catholic – though not to be one, without having to renounce the right to succeed.

Sources told the Daily Mail Charles outlined to Heaton concerns that the move, which he is said to support in principle, could damage the relationship between church and state.

Echoing concerns raised previously by constitutional experts and theologians, Charles reportedly raised the issue of what would happen if his grandchild's future spouse were Catholic and insisted any children be raised as Catholics. This would either bar their child from the throne or compromise the monarch's role as supreme governor of the Church of England.

Canon law does not stipulate that children from a marriage between a non-Catholic and Catholic must be raised in the Catholic faith. But the Catholic must make a declaration "that I will sincerely undertake that I will do all that I can within the unity of our partnership to have all the children of our marriage baptised and brought up in the Catholic church".

The Mail reports that Charles was told during the meeting that any issue could be resolved by negotiations with the Vatican as and when the matter arose. It says Charles found this answer unsatisfactory and unconvincing.

He is also reportedly concerned about the lack of detailed consultation over the bill, which was announced on the day the Duchess of Cambridge made news of her pregnancy public. The paper said it was thought the Queen had not been informed of the decision to legislate until very soon before the bill was published, and her son and grandson appeared not to have been consulted at all, "which rankled with the Prince of Wales".

Charles is also said to have raised concerns over the effects of the proposed abolition of primogeniture, where a male sibling takes precedence over an older female, on other dukedoms and on the hereditary peerage in the UK.

Neither the Cabinet Office nor Charles's official office would comment on details of any meeting. A Clarence House spokesman said it was a matter for government.

The Brits are, of course, free and able to do as they please, but in my opinion, given his well documented propensity to meddle in UK political/bureaucratic affairs based upon his "birthright," Charles is unfit to be king of any of the dominions, especially, given these views, of Canada which has a very large Catholic population.

The Parliament of Canada should pass a resolution (which is a non-binding but still uniquely and Constitutionally powerful sort of thing, as I have explained a few times in this thread) saying that Canada does not believe that the Act of Succession of 1707 is compatible with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, therefore, Canada cannot be bound by it. That will, politely but officially, tell HM and Charles that on the sad day when HM dies Charles cannot assume that we will proclaim him as our sovereign.

On that sad day, hopefully many years in the future, when we must mourn HM's passing, we will then be free to assign the powers of the monarch to a regent who will, already be conveniently in place: the GG.

We need never bother to revisit the constitutionality of the Act of Succession ~ and that means we ought not to pass a Canadian Act of Succession in 2013 that allows Prince William and Kate's first child, rather than first son, to succeed to the throne ~ but we might, in my opinion should, revisit how we select the GG.

 

[Infanteer]

Welcome to the 21st century, where Canada watches as a British aristocrat and a member of the UK's Cabinet are discussing the propriety of the potential of a Catholic as the Head of State of Canada (amongst other places).

 

[a_majoor]

The hopeful note is that at least they are discussing the issue, rather than settling it with gunfire and rocket launchers (as we are seeing in some parts of the Middle East).

That said, Canada evolving into a "Regency" would be both unique and interesting; the sort of thing that would make people take further notice of Canada as a nation with unique attributes and institutions.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is reproduced, without further comment, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Stephen+Harper+fills+five+Senate+vacancies/7873249/story.html

Stephen Harper fills five Senate vacancies

By Mark Kennedy, Postmedia News

January 25, 2013

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has appointed five new senators to the upper chamber — including the  Saskatchewan widow of a former Tory MP who committed suicide after suffering from depression.

Also on the list of new senators, announced Friday, is a top Alberta Progressive Conservative fundraiser with connections to the energy industry who drew controversy recently over his expense claims as chairman of the University of Calgary.

Harper’s latest appointments to the unelected chamber means the Conservatives now hold 65 of the 105 Senate seats.

In a news release, Harper’s office said all the new senators have pledged to support the government’s Senate-reform plans, including legislation to limit the term of senators to nine years and create a framework for provinces to voluntarily hold elections to select Senate nominees.

The government’s Senate reform bill is currently at a standstill in the House of Commons but could eventually be passed and sent to the upper chamber, where it will then be up to the senators themselves to vote on reforming their own institution. The bill will face opposition from Liberal senators, and even some Conservative senators are opposed, but the government’s Senate leader has expressed confidence it will pass.

“I am pleased to announce the addition of five more notable Canadians to the Senate of Canada,” said Harper in the release. “All appointees are remarkable Canadians who have distinguished themselves in their respective pursuits.”

The five new senators are:

* Denise Batters, who fills a vacancy in Saskatchewan. The prime minister’s office describes her an “experienced lawyer and mental health advocate.” In recent years, she was chief of staff to Saskatchewan’s justice minister. Her husband, Dave Batters, was a former Conservative MP for the Saskatchewan riding of Pallister who left politics in 2008 after disclosing he suffered from anxiety and depression. The next year, he took his own life.

The prime minister’s office said Friday that Batters is a “strong supporter and champion of mental health and suicide prevention” who has raised funds in honour of her late husband. On Friday, Batters told Postmedia News she will continue to pursue a greater public understanding of mental health issues and is thankful to the prime minister for the Senate appointment so she can represent Canadians on a variety of issues.

“Being in the Senate is something that I have always aspired to,” she said.

“Dave would be beaming with pride today. He was never happier than when I had an amazing accomplishment.”

Batters said she supports the Senate-reform proposals, including the term limit which she said would ensure a “steady renewal” in the upper chamber.

* Doug Black, a senior lawyer in Calgary with the law firm, Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP. He was elected to the position of senator-in-waiting in a provincial election last spring. Black is chair and founding president of the Energy Policy Institute of Canada, which is comprised of energy organizations from throughout the country. Last year, he was at the centre of controversy after it was revealed that as chair of the University of Calgary’s board of governors, he had claimed $28,000 in expenses for executive-class travel, hotels, meals and drinks.

* Lynn Beyak, a small-business owner in northern Ontario who has also been vice-chair of a board of education in the region. Her work has included involvement in efforts to prevent violence in schools.

* Victor Oh, a resident of Mississauga, Ont. and president of Wyford Holdings, a property development and management business. He is the founding chairman of the Canada-China Business Communication Council.

* David Wells, who has served as the deputy CEO of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. A resident of St. John’s, NL., he has held senior jobs in the business sector and government for more than 30 years.

All five appointments are effective immediately.

mkennedy@postmedia.com

Postmedia.com/Mark_Kennedy_

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

 

[Edward Campbell]

Some political scientists 1 think the Government's "Royal Baby" bill - which will give Canada's consent to a UK change to the Act of Succession will open the door to further, more drastic changes to the succession - including my proposal for a Regency when HM dies.


_____
1. I have exchanged E-mails with with both Philippe Lagassé - Ottawa and Emmett Macfarlane - Waterloo about this over the past few weeks.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And Éric Grenier of ThreeHundredEight.com (whose poll aggregations I often use when we discuss elections) talks about one of my favourite subjects, Senate Reform, which may not quite be a dead a  :deadhorse: as I thought, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/wildrose-or-pq-senators-welcome-to-an-elected-red-chamber/article8127059/

Wildrose or PQ Senators? Welcome to an elected red chamber

ÉRIC GRENIER
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Sunday, Feb. 03 2013

Part of Reinventing Parliament, a series examining how to make Parliament relevant again.

Bill C-7 establishes a framework for an elected Senate, limiting the number of years a senator can serve to nine. But by having senators chosen from a list of nominees elected at the provincial level and representing more than a dozen parties with opposing regional interests, the workings of the Senate could be substantially transformed – and chaotic.

Explainer: what the Senate is

The Senate is made up of 105 senators who serve until the age of 75, all of them appointed by the Prime Minister of the day. The Senate’s primary role is to consider legislation passed by the House of Commons before it becomes law, and has the capacity to return bills to the House for amendment. Ostensibly unshackled by the partisanship of the House of Commons, where re-election is never far from an MP’s mind, the Senate is meant to be a “chamber of independent, sober second thought.”

The 105 Senate seats are not distributed across the country proportionately. According to the Senate’s website, it was “created by the fathers of Confederation to counterbalance representation by population” in the House. The 105 seats are divided into four regional blocks of 24 seats each: Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes, and the four western provinces. Newfoundland and Labrador has six seats, while each of the territories has one.

Senate reform

Bill C-7 does not change any of that. Instead, the bill stipulates that the Prime Minister “must consider” a list of nominees selected in provincial and territorial elections. These senators would then serve for nine years, at which point they would be replaced from a new list of nominees.

Most attention has been paid to the idea of term limits, but the stipulation that the nominees be elected at the provincial level has the potential to make the Senate a very different place.

Only Alberta has held senatorial elections. Doug Black, appointed on Jan. 25, is the most recent winner of a senatorial election to be appointed to the Senate. He won 16 per cent of the vote in the province’s 2012 election, or 39 per cent of senatorial ballots cast. He was the top Progressive Conservative senatorial candidate, and will caucus with the Conservatives in the Senate.

The goal of Bill C-7 is for all provinces and territories to follow suit, holding senatorial elections at the same time as their general provincial elections. These senatorial elections are to be administered by the electoral officials in each province and the campaigns are to be governed by provincial electoral law. One of the clauses reads that “to be a candidate for election as a Senate nominee...a person must be nominated by a registered provincial or territorial political party.” They can also run as independents.

Provincial parties in a federal chamber

That means that if all provinces and territories begin holding senatorial elections, the next nominees would hail from provincial political parties, not federal ones. That could mean senators elected under the banners of the B.C. Liberals (a party more closely aligned with the federal Conservatives than the federal Liberals), the Saskatchewan Party, the Coalition Avenir Québec, or the Parti Québécois. When the current crop of appointed senators all retire or resign, and the Senate is filled with senators elected at the provincial level, will the Red Chamber function any differently?

To get an idea of what such a Senate might look like, I allocated the Senate’s 105 seats proportionately according to the results of the last election in each province, always rounding-up. That has the effect of giving more popular parties more Senate seats than they would otherwise receive. As Bill C-7 stipulates that voters select from a list of names, voting for as many candidates as the number of nominees that need to be selected, this would seem to be a plausible assumption.

The result is a rather unusual and potentially unworkable assortment of parties. The largest contingent would be from the country’s Progressive Conservative parties: nine from Ontario, five from New Brunswick, four from Newfoundland and Labrador, three each from Alberta and Manitoba, two from Nova Scotia, and one from Prince Edward Island. Conceivably, these 27 PC senators would form a block closely aligned with the federal Conservatives, and they would likely be joined by four Saskatchewan Party senators and one from the Yukon Party.

Globe and Mail inforgraphic attached to the article

It is difficult to determine, however, how cohesive this block would be. Regional interests would be paramount. If this sort of scenario had occurred during Danny Williams’s time as Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, would he have commanded his PC senators to leave the Conservative caucus? Would the Tory senators from Alberta and Saskatchewan split from those in Ontario and Atlantic Canada when it comes to, for example, resource development?

The makeup of a new Senate: no majority

Putting aside these questions, the Conservative block would likely find allies in the seven senators from the Coalition Avenir Québec and the three each from the B.C. Liberal and Wildrose parties. The degree to which this block of allies would side with the Tories in the senate could vary from issue to issue, but already the complications of this sort of arrangement are plain to see.

The Liberals would probably have less trouble keeping their senators together. The Liberal caucus would number some 20 senators in this scenario, 10 from Ontario, four from New Brunswick, and three each from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. But with allegiances to their provincial parties, they might not always side with their federal cousins. The eight Quebec Liberal senators would likely ally with the Liberal senators from the rest of the country, but surely not on every issue. In fact, on some questions the Quebec Liberal senators might find themselves closer to the Conservative block, or even the NDP’s.

Their block would likely be the most cohesive, as the federal and provincial New Democratic parties are directly affiliated (that is not the case with every provincial Liberal party). The NDP senatorial caucus would number 21, five each from Ontario and Nova Scotia, three each from British Columbia and Manitoba, two each from Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan, and one from New Brunswick.

Eleven other senators would find no direct allies in the Senate: eight from the Parti Québécois, one from Québec Solidaire, and two independents from Nunavut and the Northwest Territories (neither of which have political parties). The idea of senators from the Parti Québécois is hard enough to imagine, the idea of them considering federal legislation is even stranger.

This fractious Senate would have little resemblance to the make-up of the House of Commons. For instance, the federal Conservatives won the most votes in Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, and Ontario in the 2011 federal election, while the Liberals were elected in Ontario and PEI and the NDP in Manitoba in the provincial elections of that same year.

Senators would be more likely to divide on an issue-by-issue basis rather than by party line, especially if the influence of their provincial party leaders is strong. Senators theoretically on the same side as the government might oppose its own legislation. No block would be likely to command a reliable majority of seats in the Senate at any time, and party discipline would be virtually non-existent.

It might be the recipe for an unworkable body clogging up the parliamentary system. Or, by de-coupling the Senate from the governing party in the House of Commons, perhaps it would become a true chamber of sober second thought.

Éric Grenier writes about politics and polls at ThreeHundredEight.com.

Bill C-7 does not go nearly as far as I would wish but it is a step in the right direction. I am not worried about the potential chaos ~ professional politicians have ways of working through and around chaos.

 

[Kirkhill]

Bill C-7 does not go nearly as far as I would wish but it is a step in the right direction. I am not worried about the potential chaos ~ professional politicians have ways of working through and around chaos.

As I believe I have suggested before on this thread - I am not dismayed by the prospect of a little chaos in the Senate.  A period of lively debate unconstrained by the need to guarantee a particular outcome would be good for any bill.  As long as the Senate isn't allowed to counter or delay the wishes of the Commons then I can only see advantages in having a chaotic free-for-all where all parties spend as much time trying to embarrass each other as they do the Government and the Government-in-Waiting.

The value of such a Senate would be institutionalizing the role arrogated by the Press: the free, unfettered exchange of ideas.

The only weapon that the Senate would have in its arsenal would be the power to embarrass the government - but that is a nuclear bomb as far as politicians are concerned.

But there would be another dynamic at work there as well: Provincial politics.

Perhaps it would be no bad thing if Senators were provincial party hacks beholden to their separate provincial party institutions.  After their 7 to 9 years service in the Senate they have to go back home a make a living in their provinces.  That would mean that, for example, Wildrose and the PCs of Alberta, and the PQs and CAQ would bring their provincial fights into the Senate which in turn would mean that they would be spending as much time trying to score points against each other for the benefit of their provincial parties as they would trying to score points against the Government.

I think/believe that would result in more information, from a greater variety of sources being provided to the public so that the public can judge whether, after 4 years, they agree with the decisions their elected representatives were responsible for (or, for which they were responsible).

 

[dapaterson]

My preferred model would be to have provincial parties produces candidate lists for the senate; following provincial elections, the provincial popular vote would be used to allocate seats to each party.  Have half the seats up for grabs at each election to provide for longer terms in the Senate, and prohibit re-appointment.

Saves on the cost of a distinct election, and ensures that turnover in government provincially means turnover in the Senate.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Back to regencies, or prospects, thereof. You should consider Philippe Lagassé's article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from MacLean's:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/03/the-queen-of-canada-is-dead-long-live-the-british-queen/

The Queen of Canada is dead; long live the British Queen
Why the Conservatives need to rethink their approach to succession

by Philippe Lagassé on Sunday, February 3, 2013

Canada’s most monarchist government in decades has just dealt a serious blow to the Canadian Crown. In an effort to quickly enact changes regarding royal succession, the government has introduced a bill that undermines the concept of a truly independent Canadian Crown, the foundation of Canadian sovereignty. Equally troubling, the government claims that altering succession to the throne does not require a constitutional amendment. In making this argument, the government has overlooked the very nature of the Crown in law and the Canadian constitution. However commonsensical the proposed changes to the law governing succession may be, such a cavalier approach to the Crown, to the foundation of sovereign authority of and in Canada, merits scrutiny.

Heritage Minister James Moore laid out the government’s thinking at a press conference this past Wednesday. According to the minister, succession to the throne is not a matter of Canadian law. Instead, succession is a question of British law alone. Only the British Parliament can set the rules for who ascends to the throne, while the Canadian Parliament’s only authority lies in assenting to the changes. Put differently, the authority to legislate the rules of succession belongs with the British Parliament because the Canadian constitution does not address matters of succession. The legal pretext for this interpretation is the preamble to the 1931 Statute of Westminster, which states that the United Kingdom will obtain the assent of the Dominions when altering succession to, and royal titles and styles of, their shared Crown.

For Mr. Moore, the absence of an explicit reference to succession in the codified parts of the Canadian constitution also explains why no constitutional amendment is needed to alter succession in Canada. Although the Constitution Act, 1982 states that changes to the “office of the Queen” require a constitutional amendment that is approved by Parliament and the provincial legislatures, the government interprets “office” to mean only those powers and privileges of the Crown that are identified in the codified constitution. Hence, succession doesn’t pertain to the office because succession isn’t mentioned in the codified constitution.

Unfortunately for the government, these interpretations of the Statute of Westminster and office of the Queen are problematic.

The conventions outlined in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster depended on the power of the United Kingdom to legislate for the Dominions and on the idea that all the realms were under a single Crown. Neither of these conditions holds anymore, as Australian legal scholar Anne Twomey has shown. When Canada and the other Dominions altered their royal styles and titles in 1953, the realms did not assent to British legislation; they legislated for themselves. And Canada’s act made no mention of the Statute of Westminster. In the 1970s Australia and New Zealand enacted new royal styles and titles without consulting the other Dominions, sapping the prescriptive authority of the Statute‘s preamble. Claims that the preamble still applies to succession were further undermined in the 1980s. The authority of the preamble depended on section 4 of the Statute, which allowed the British Parliament to legislate for the Dominions. The Canada Act, 1982 ended the British Parliament’s authority to legislate for Canada and abolished s. 4 of the Statute. Australia followed suited with the Australia Act, 1986, as did New Zealand with its Constitution Act, 1986. The United Kingdom is no longer able to legislate for Canada, Australia or New Zealand, even in matters of succession and even if they assent.

As important, the United Kingdom cannot legislate the succession to the Canadian throne because the British and Canadian Crown are no longer one and the same. The British and Canadian Crowns are legally distinct and independent entities.

The emergence of the distinct and independent Canadian Crown happened gradually and it took time to be properly recognized. Somewhat ironically, the process began with Statute of Westminster, which granted the Dominions legislative independence. As Canadian cabinets monopolized the authority to advise exercises of the Crown’s powers in right of Canada in the decades that followed, the idea of a Canadian Crown took shape. In the early 1950s, the title of Queen of Canada was created. During her coronation, Queen Elizabeth II was proclaimed the Queen of Canada. As the government’s own publication, A Crown of Maples notes, “The proclamation reaffirmed the newly crowned monarch’s position as Queen of Canada, a role totally independent from that as Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms.”

The final step toward a distinct Canadian Crown was achieved in 1982, when the Canadian constitution was patriated and Canada became a fully sovereign and independent state. While the 1982 patriation ended Canada’s legal ties to Great Britain, the expanded Canadian constitution retained the Crown as the concept of the Canadian state and as ultimate source of sovereign authority in Canada. This fully independent Canadian state could not have the British Crown as the source of its sovereign authority. Nor could it be a shared Crown. The only way Canada could be completely sovereign and independent was to decouple the Canadian Crown from its British counterpart.

The fact that only the Canadian Parliament and provincial legislatures can amend the constitutionally entrenched office of the Queen is a testament to this development. The Canada Act, 1982 and Constitution Act, 1982 gave the Canadian Parliament and provincial legislatures absolute control over the office of the Canadian Sovereign and the wholly independent Canadian Crown. Any claim that Canada and Britain share a Crown in the legal or constitutional sense is therefore incompatible with the complete sovereignty that Canada achieved in 1982.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson implicitly admitted as much when the succession bill was introduced in the House of Commons on Wedenesday. The minister noted the Governor General had given the bill his consent, a requirement for any bill that touches on the powers and privileges of the Crown. Since the British Crown had already given its consent to the British succession bill and the Canadian government claims that the Crown is shared, it is unclear why the consent of the Governor General, the representative of the Queen of Canada, was required. The only plausible answer is that the succession bill affects the separate and distinct powers and privileges of the Canadian Crown.

If the United Kingdom cannot legislate the rules of succession for the Canadian Crown, it follows that Canada must have the power to determine the rules of succession for its Sovereign and head of state. At present, the Canadian rules of succession are those that were inherited from the United Kingdom. And an argument might be made that they must mirror those of Great Britain absent a constitutional amendment, owing to the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867. But mirroring the British rules does not mean Canada can simply assent to British bills to bring its succession into line with the United Kingdom’s. If Canada is a sovereign state and has an independent Crown, the Canadian legislatures—Parliament and the provincial legislatures—must pass substantive legislation to ensure that Canada’s rules of succession reflect those of Great Britain, not merely assent to a British law. Here again, the Governor General’s granting of Crown consent to the Canadian bill indicates the government is at least partially aware the British and Canadian Crowns cannot be affected by the same British law.

If we accept that Canada is fully sovereign and that the Canadian Crown is fully independent, then there must be some part of the codified constitution that addresses succession, whether explicitly or implicitly. A strong case can be made that the “office of the Queen” mentioned in s.41(a) must be that provision that addresses the succession to the Canadian throne. Accordingly, any change to the succession to the throne must trigger the amending process identified by s.41(a).

Succession must pertain to the office of the Queen because of the Crown is a “corporation sole.” Corporations sole fuse an office and an office holder. The office and office holder are treated as synonymous in law. This means that, legally speaking, all references to the Queen, Her Majesty and the Crown in Canadian statutes and the constitution refer to the same thing. When the constitution speaks of the office of the Queen, then, it is referring to both the Sovereign and the Crown in the broadest sense.

Most importantly for our purposes, this further means that the office of the Queen extends not only to the current office holder, but to those who will succeed to the office. This is necessarily true precisely because the Crown is a corporation sole.

The purpose of having the Crown as a corporation sole is to ensure that successors to the office of the Sovereign retain all the powers, duties, constraints of the Crown when they ascend to the throne. Hence, when one monarch dies and is replaced by their successor, there is no need to reiterate the established powers, duties and constraints of the Crown. Nor is there any need to rewrite any statutes. Having the Crown as a corporation sole allows for a seamless and automatic transition between the current Sovereign and her successor. So, when the Prince of Wales becomes King Charles III, all references in Canadian statues and the constitution to the Queen and Her Majesty will automatically apply to him because the Crown is a corporation sole.

It is the idea of corporation sole that underlies the cry of “the king is dead; long live the king!” The Crown is never vacant and the Sovereign never dead because, as a corporation sole, the office of Queen (or King) is immediately filled by successors when a monarch passes. Hence, as the canonical jurist of English law William Blackstone noted when discussing the concept: “Corporations sole consist of one person only and his successors, in some particular fashion, who are incorporated in law, in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. In this sense, the king is a sole corporation.” The office of the Queen necessarily refers to both the current Sovereign and her successors.

To reiterate, then, altering the rules of succession requires a constitutional amendment under s. 41(a) because the Crown is a corporation sole, a legal status that was purposefully designed to ensure that the office of the Queen includes matters of  succession.

Recognizing that the Crown is a corporation sole also helps us answer the question that hovers over this entire discussion, namely: how can the Canadian and British Crown be distinct if they’re both personified by Elizabeth II?

The Canadian and British Crowns are distinct corporations sole. As a result, the Queen of Canada and Queen of the United Kingdom are legally distinct office holders, just as the Canadian Crown and British Crown are distinct offices. However, the natural person who occupies these offices, Elizabeth Windsor, is the same. One woman personifies distinct and separate offices. This means that the Canadian and British Crown are under a personal union, but not a legal or constitutional one. Elizabeth Windsor holds the legally independent offices of the Queen/Crown of Canada and the Queen/Crown of the United Kingdom. But when she acts as the Queen of Canada, she is not acting as the Queen of the United Kingdom. The fact that Elizabeth Windsor is both the Queen of Canada and the United Kingdom does not mean that the two states shared a single Crown or Sovereign.

To conclude, it is worth discussing what might happen if we accept the government’s argument that succession is only a matter of British law and that changes to the rules of succession do not require a constitutional amendment. The most obvious consequence of the government’s position is that Canadian republicans will have been proved right: the Crown is an inherently British entity and Canada cannot claim to be an independent state until our ties to the House of Windsor are cut or we become a republic. The government’s view would also mean that Canada would effectively cease to be a constitutional monarchy if the United Kingdom decided to become a republic. The concept that underlies Canada’s entire system of government, the Crown, could be dismantled by another country.

The government’s narrow construction of the office of the Queen under s. 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 may lead to some interesting outcomes, too. If the office of the Queen covers only those powers of the Crown that are explicitly identified in the codified constitution, a future Parliament could pass various statutes to undermine the monarchy without consulting the provinces. One could image, for instance, a future Parliament passing a regency act that transforms the Governor General from the representative of the monarch to the personification of the Crown in Canada, owing to the Sovereign absence in Canada. Coupled with a new set of letters patent that transferred all of the Sovereign’s remaining authority to the Governor General, this regency act could be used to exclude the royal family from all Canadian affairs. Since this kind of act would not affect the powers of the Crown included in the codified constitution, Parliament could pass it without consulting the provinces. Of course, it is difficult to imagine that this was the intended spirit of s.41(a), but a narrow construction of the office of the Queen might allow it.

Suffice it to say, while the changes to the succession are laudable, a greater degree of caution and debate is warranted here.

Philippe Lagassé is an assistant professor of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa. He thanks James W.J. Bowden for his research assistance.

The very heart of Prof Lagassé's thesis is the idea of a corporation sole; he references a pretty good Wikipedia article, here, but I would also suggest reading this because you have to understand that Blackstone is black letter law on this matter and our Queen is a corporation sole ~ indeed, she is 16 separate and unique corporations sole, each distinct from all the others. As such any matter relating to her succession to her realm is a Constitutional matter for each sovereign state. That's the crux of Lagassé's argument for requiring s.41(a).

You don't have to agree ~ and many don't, arguing that the succession does not, in any fundamental way, alter the office of the monarch ~ but I think it's important to understand the concept.

If this bill passes and survives a court challenge then the preamble to the Statutes of Westminster can be used to disavow the succession, too, leading the way to a Regency.

 

[Infanteer]

My preferred model would be to have provincial parties produces candidate lists for the senate; following provincial elections, the provincial popular vote would be used to allocate seats to each party.  Have half the seats up for grabs at each election to provide for longer terms in the Senate, and prohibit re-appointment.

Saves on the cost of a distinct election, and ensures that turnover in government provincially means turnover in the Senate.

In Alberta we didn't have a distinct election - when we had a provincial election, there was a senatorial card as well in which you ticked off, IIRC, who you wanted and in what priority.

 

[Infanteer]

Back to regencies, or prospects, thereof. You should consider Philippe Lagassé's article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from MacLean's:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/03/the-queen-of-canada-is-dead-long-live-the-british-queen/

The very heart of Prof Lagassé's thesis is the idea of a corporation sole; he references a pretty good Wikipedia article, here, but I would also suggest reading this because you have to understand that Blackstone is black letter law on this matter and our Queen is a corporation sole ~ indeed, she is 16 separate and unique corporations sole, each distinct from all the others. As such any matter relating to her succession to her realm is a Constitutional matter for each sovereign state. That's the crux of Lagassé's argument for requiring s.41(a).

You don't have to agree ~ and many don't, arguing that the succession does not, in any fundamental way, alter the office of the monarch ~ but I think it's important to understand the concept.

If this bill passes and survives a court challenge then the preamble to the Statutes of Westminster can be used to disavow the succession, too, leading the way to a Regency.

There is a great quote from MacBeth that seems appropriate after reading this article....

 

[dapaterson]

In the "Caught red-handed" department, here's Greg MacGregor's follow-up on Senator Duffy and his alleged PEI residency.

Conservative Senator Mike Duffy’s office contacted Prince Edward Island’s minister of health to discuss expediting an application for a provincial health card after being asked to produce documents proving he lives in the province.

Duffy’s office called the office of Health and Wellness Minister Doug Currie after an auditor’s letter was sent to all senators requesting they back up their residency claims by providing clear copies of their health cards, drivers licences and relevant pages of their tax returns.

...

Reached at his home in P.E.I. on Saturday, Duffy said: “Glen, I’m not speaking to you.”

“I’ve spoken to David Tkachuk and that’s my interlocutor,” he said, referring to the Conservative Saskatchewan senator who chairs the standing committee.

“I’m not speaking to you and you’re not encouraged to call this phone.”

Tkachuk declined to comment on Saturday.

...

Duffy has previously said that he did nothing wrong in his expense claims, and says he lives in the P.E.I. home he has owned for 15 years. He has substantially renovated the home in recent years, he has said.

Before his appointment, Duffy, 66, spent most of his career living and working in Ottawa as a broadcast journalist.

The Citizen reported last year that Duffy claimed more than $33,000 in living expenses incurred in the national capital region since 2010.

Senate rules allow senators to charge for hotels, rent, mortgages or other costs of living in the capital as long as they keep their primary residence in the province they represent.

In addition to the health cards and other documents, the committee also asked senators to provide a signed letter indicating where they vote in federal, provincial and municipal elections.

As of November 2012, Elections Canada records indicated Duffy was eligible to vote federally in the Kanata-area riding of Carleton-Mississippi Mills.

...

It is unclear what might happen if the audit finds a senator gave inaccurate information in a residency declaration.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Duffy+office+tried+fast+track+health+card+application/7912531/story.html#ixzz2JtfvPupN

 

[a_majoor]

Re reading the  upthread posts on how Provincial politics could change the Senate, I could only think back to the US Senate prior to the passage of the 17th amendment. Senators represented States to the US government, hence the initial system of Senators being appointed by their State legislatures.

Having Provincial legislatures or political parties appointing Senators or providing candidates for senate elections would do much the same thing (representing the Provincial legislatures to Ottawa). This would provide an entirely new lense to examine proposed legislation through, and probably quiet people who claim their votes are not being counted in a First past the post system