Liberal plan to pick 'non-partisan' senators draws quick criticism B.C. Premier Christy Clark slams reforms; NDP calls plan an 'inadequate fix'

Liberal plan to pick 'non-partisan' senators draws quick criticism

B.C. Premier Christy Clark slams reforms; NDP calls plan an 'inadequate fix'

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-advisory-board-non-partisan-leblanc-monsef-1.3348531

 

By Kathleen Harris, CBC News Posted: Dec 03, 2015 8:35 AM ET Last Updated: Dec 03, 2015 8:05 PM ET

                    

    

Monsef on new way to appoint Senators 0:57

New Senate appointment process 10:11

   

New Senate appointment process 10:11

Related Stories

• George Furey named as Senate Speaker, replacing Conservative Leo Housakos
• Senate Liberals unsure how to work with Trudeau government
• Trudeau era to start with sweeping parliamentary reforms, empowerment of MPs
• 7 things to watch for when Parliament returns next week
• Senator John Wallace caucus resignation called 'positive step'

The Liberal government is overhauling the Senate appointment process in a bid to end bitter partisanship and restore public confidence in the scandal-plagued Senate, but the plan is already under fire.

Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef and House leader Dominic LeBlanc today announced a five-member independent advisory board will be struck to make recommendations for "merit-based" candidates to sit in the Senate.

• Liberals appoint Furey to replace Housakos as Senate Speaker
• ANALYSIS | Senate Liberals unsure how to work with Trudeau government
• Senator John Wallace quits Conservative caucus citing 'irreconcilable' differences
• New Parliament's 1st act will be to elect House of Commons Speaker

During a news conference on Parliament Hill, Monsef said the changes will not require any constitutional revisions and will ensure regional, gender and ethnic representation in the Senate. The advisory board will be formed this month and will consult with provinces, community and indigenous groups, business and labour organizations, arts councils and others.

"It brings real change to the Senate for the first time in decades," she said.

British Columbia Premier Christy Clark was one of the first to criticize the proposed changes, announcing on Twitter that her province won't participate in the process.

"Today's changes don't address our concerns — Senate has never represented B.C.'s interests at the national level," she tweeted.

The Speech From The Throne 2015 http://sen.parl.gc.ca/portal/infographics/SenCA-infographic-SFT-e.htm

 

http://sen.parl.gc.ca/portal/infographics/SenCA-infographic-SFT-e.htm

 

 

UPDATED ('We're just not going to make the appointments,) Is a totally irresponsible statement coming from Stephen Harper's mouth, ( the Prime Minister SHALL appoint) BNA act.

Update: Not appointing Senators to Fill the Red Chamber before he goes is a disgrace and will be Harper's Legacy ..

It is totally irresponsible  NOT to appoint NOW ....

Leaving newly minted PM Trudeau fill the Red Chambers is a great dis service to Canada and to the Senate and will make Harper the Laugh stock on Canadian historians .....

WE (CANADA) need a strong Senate Now more than ever and Harper gives it a PASS .... by the way its not the first time Harper leaves us down .. 

History will judge Harper harshly ...

  read again

We're just not going to make the appointments, (SENATE REFORM 2015-2115 NOT!) 

FIX IT! By APPOINTING: People with a set agenda and job description. IT CAN WORK Its also indispensable                                               348

also here
'We're just not going to make the appointments,(SENATE REFORM 2015-2115 NOT!) FIX IT! By APPOINTING: People with a set agenda and job description. IT CAN WORK Its also indispensable

Bloggers note: ('We're just not going to make the appointments,)
Is a totally irresponsible statement coming from Stephen Harper's mouth, ( the Prime Minister SHALL appoint)  BNA act.        1206

official link
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-vows-not-to-name-any-senators-before-reforms-made-1.3167112

Stephen Harper vows not to name any senators before reforms made

'We're just not going to make the appointments,' Harper says as 22 seats sit vacant

By Laura Payton, CBC News Posted: Jul 24, 2015 4:28 PM ET Last Updated: Jul 24, 2015 10:39 PM

Related Stories

• Abolishing the Senate in 10 difficult steps
• Peter MacKay says 'virtually zero' chance of abolishing Senate
• Senate not refusing office space 'based on walking distance,' Speaker says
• Latest NDP ad a compelling bit of anti-Conservative narrative
• Don Meredith staff harassment probe referred to Senate ethics officer

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he refuses to name any senators until the Senate is reformed, adding he hopes it will put pressure on the provinces to figure out a plan to update the institution.

Twenty-two of the Senate's 105 seats are currently vacant. 
"Canadians are not divided on their opposition to the status quo — that is to an unelected, unaccountable Senate," Harper said Friday.

• New: How to kill the Senate in 10 difficult steps
• Stephen Harper's Senate class of 2009
• Senate reform can't be done by Ottawa alone

"The government is not going to take any actions going forward that would do anything to further entrench that unelected, unaccountable Senate."

But while Harper said his intention is to "formalize" the moratorium on new appointments, he later said that it's not possible under the Constitution.

"We'll entrench it simply in this way, which is we're just not going to make the appointments."

"I can't formalize a non-appointment. That would be a constitutional change. But under the Constitution of the day, the prime minister has the authority to appoint or not appoint," Harper said.

Harper said the benefit is that costs are down $6 million with 22 seats now unfilled: about one fifth of the 105-seat chamber. He said the provinces have so far been "resistant" to reform.

The policy will remain in place as long as the government can pass its legislation, the prime minister said.

"It will force the provinces over time — who as you know have been resistant to any reforms, in most cases — to either come up with a plan of comprehensive reform or to conclude that the only way to deal with the status quo is abolition."

Last year, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Senate reform would require consent from seven provinces representing half the population. Abolishing the Senate would call for the consent of all provinces, the top court said.

It's been roughly 2½ years since Harper last appointed a senator, and the question of whether he can choose not to fill the vacant seats is already being challenged in court.

Vancouver lawyer Aniz Alani launched a court challenge arguing Harper has a constitutional obligation to fill vacant seats since the provinces are under-represented. In May, a Federal Court justice threw out the government's application to dismiss the case.

• Senate reform can't be done by Ottawa alone
• Prime Minister Stephen Harper sued by B.C. lawyer for not filling senate seats

"If he takes the position that it's up to him to make the appointments and he simply refuses to do so, I don't see any other way of enforcing the Constitution other than to get a declaration from the courts that it's a duty he has," Alani told CBC's Rosemary Barton on Power & Politics after Harper's announcement.

32 will have to retire by 2020

Of the 22 existing vacancies, 15 belong to Ontario and Quebec. The two provinces combined are allotted 48 seats, something that has long frustrated westerners, with British Columbia and Alberta getting only six seats each.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, seen with Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, says he's not going to appoint any new senators. Wall says it will be up to premiers to 'respond to this' now. (Mark Taylor/Canadian Press )

The Conservatives have 47 Senate seats, more than half of those that are filled. The Liberals have 29, with seven senators sitting as independents.

Another 32 senators will have to retire at age 75 between now and 2020.

Assuming a large number of senators don't quit the Senate or retire early, it would be years before any province was left without representation, and even longer before the Senate was left without enough members to pass legislation.

Harper has long struggled with the Senate on a number of fronts: as a Reform Party MP, he argued against having an unelected Senate.

As prime minister in 2008, faced with the possibility of being unseated by a Liberal-NDP coalition, he named 18 new senators, including three whose expenses have since been investigated by the RCMP (two face criminal charges resulting from those probes).
Over the next three years, he named 39 more. But since the Senate scandal broke, Harper has avoided naming anyone new to fill the growing number of vacancies.

'Trying to distract'

The New Democrats also want to see the Senate abolished, while the Liberals have proposed creating a non-partisan process for advising the prime minister on appointments.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, who last winter released the Liberals' Senate caucus, said Friday that Harper "has made this promise before.

"He broke that promise 59 times," Trudeau said. "Mr. Harper is trying to distract people from his inability to deal with the economy, and we don't believe him."

Trudeau reacts to Harper's Senate appointment see official link above

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said even though his party has no representation in the Senate, he would not make any appointments while negotiating with provinces to abolish the chamber.
Harper said he doesn't think Canadians will notice if the Senate fades away.

"The number of vacancies will continue to rise and other than some voices in the Senate and some people who want to be appointed to the Senate, no one will complain."

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, who appeared with the prime minister on Friday and favours abolition, said he fully supports the prime minister's move.

"It will be up to premiers ... to respond to this now," he said.
The premier's office in P.E.I. released their own statement Friday, reiterating their opposition to abolition.

"The Senate contributes regional balance and voice in our national institutions," Wade MacLauchlan's office said.

Carissima Mathen, an associate law professor at the University of Ottawa, said she thinks the prime minister's move could do damage to federal-provincial relations.

"There's a very essential constitutional principle that you can't do by indirect means what the Constitution prohibits you from doing by direct means," Mathen said Friday on Power & Politics. 

"The Supreme Court has said that the prime minister does not have the unilateral authority to reshape the Senate even in ways that he might in good faith think are really warranted and legitimate."

Bloggers Note:
Black wrote about the Senate, I agree completely with the last phrase. (The real answer is to name distinguished senators, even if they only undertake to serve for a few years.) SEE MY BLOG ('We're just not going to make the appointments,) Is a totally irresponsible statement coming from Stephen Harper's mouth, ( the Prime Minister SHALL appoint) BNA act. http://thehighchamber.blogspot.ca/…/were-just-not-going-to-…
>>>>> back to the article >>> "Harper claimed the Supreme Court made constitutional change impossible when it determined, as any imbecile knew it would, that the House of Commons could not simply abolish the Senate. His response to the questions surrounding the Senate is not to name any new senators — almost a quarter of its seats are now vacant. The real answer is to name distinguished senators, even if they only undertake to serve for a few years." my Prediction Harper 176. Libs 115. NDP 42 and Harper gone within 2 years Sept 5, 2017.

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

Conrad Black: Stephen Harper did many great things for this country, but he hung on to power a little too long

 http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-stephen-harper-did-many-great-things-for-this-country-but-he-hung-on-to-power-a-little-too-long

MORRIS LAMONT / THE LONDON FREE PRESS It was, until fairly recently, a good government, but it has not renewed its personnel or its program and has become frightening in its disregard for democratic institutions and the rights of its citizens.

 

The arguments for voting for Conservative Leader Stephen Harper are numerous and persuasive. He has been a competent and diligent prime minister who has avoided fiscal imprudence, brought us well through the 2008 financial crisis and has gone to great and imaginative lengths to keep taxes down and shrink public-sector spending as a share of GDP.

His government has cleaned up a mess in immigration, has been creative with native peoples’ questions without signing on to the nationally self-administered blood libel of “cultural genocide” and shown good judgment and restraint in not going into the deep end over unproved ecological alarm. (It was a credit to him that our peppy itinerant Marxist, Naomi Klein denounced Harper last week in the world-renowned Sydney Opera House as a “climate criminal.”)

Harper has shed the cozy myth that we are a nation of beloved peacemakers

His foreign policy has been robust in joining the coalition against ISIL, in not appeasing Russian aggression and in unambiguously recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. 

(The Palestinians could have their state next week if they abandoned their claimed right to inundate Israel with millions of returning Palestinians. The right of Palestinians to return must be to Palestine, not Israel.) He has neither antagonized the United States as former prime ministers John Diefenbaker and Pierre Trudeau did, nor been subservient to it.

He has shed the cozy myth that we are a nation of beloved peacemakers enlightening the rabidly anti-Israel and anti-West blocs in the United Nations: it is a badge of honour that Canada has not been patronized by those corrupt despotisms that have hijacked much of the UN apparatus. Harper has earned our gratitude by banishing from our foreign policy what the distinguished American (and half-Canadian) secretary of state Dean Acheson accused us of 65 years ago: “arm-flapping moralism.”

As I wrote in my history of Canada (Rise to Greatness) last year, Harper ranks now with Louis St. Laurent, Lester Pearson and Brian Mulroney as an important prime minister, just one level below John A. Macdonald, Wilfrid Laurier, William Lyon Mackenzie King and Pierre Trudeau. He had to put two quarrelling parties together to become a challenger for that office, and he led his reunified party to steadily better results in four straight elections up to 2011. (No other democratic leader has done this — not even Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected U.S. president four times, but not with increasing pluralities.)

Related

• From coast to coast, the anger at Harper’s distinctive brand of governance is palpable
• Michael Den Tandt: Harper says he is who he is, take him or leave him. That may not be enough

These are remarkable achievements, and it was an honour to have been of some assistance to him in the earlier stages of his progress. It was partly to help reunite the Conservatives and promote an alternative to what had almost been one-party Liberal rule for a century (73 of the 103 previous years) that Ken Whyte and I founded the National Post in 1999, and I tangibly supported Harper as head of the National Citizens’ Coalition, the Canadian Alliance and the reunified Conservatives for many years.

On the other side of the ledger as we approach this election, his government has, with a parliamentary majority, become sclerotically rigid, media-inaccessible, authoritarian and peevish. Strong ministers such as John Baird and the late Jim Flaherty have not been properly replaced, and there is no discernible policy goal or imagination: only the relentless pursuit of extended incumbency. It is a humourless and often paranoid regime where all spontaneity in cabinet or in the governing caucus in Parliament is stifled and punished.

Harper regularly forbids colleagues from being in contact with people of whom he capriciously disapproves. He will not allow Canada, unlike most serious countries, to have a completely non-partisan, individually conscientious, legislative debate about abortion — essentially the issue of when the rights of the unborn start to rival those of the mother — because it is divisive. He will not respond to Quebec’s desire to try to complete the constitutional reforms of Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney, because that, too, is not an easily manageable issue. Leaders are not elected to deal only with what is easy.

Harper claimed the Supreme Court made constitutional change impossible when it determined, as any imbecile knew it would, that the House of Commons could not simply abolish the Senate. His response to the questions surrounding the Senate is not to name any new senators — almost a quarter of its seats are now vacant. The real answer is to name distinguished senators, even if they only undertake to serve for a few years.

While the prime minister’s foreign policy is principled and rigorous, he has allowed our military capabilities to atrophy to the point that we are the mouse that roars. No one, except Israel, which can take care of itself and is grateful for verbal support, pays any attention to us, especially not Russian President Vladimir Putin. If Putin were to test our Arctic sovereignty, we would only have native people in kayaks to defend it.

Harper has gagged Parliament (and probably misled it in the Mike Duffy affair), and garrotted his own cabinet and caucus, but has sat as silent and inert as a suet pudding while the courts of the country, incited by the jurisdictionally putschist chief justice, Beverley McLachlin, have steadily assumed the rights of the federal and provincial legislatures under the authority of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Pierre Trudeau promoted the charter as an antidote to endless dispute over the federal-provincial division of powers, not as a matrix for the emasculation of legislators.

Instead of counter-legislating, or invalidating ultra vires decisions (of which there have been many) by invoking the notwithstanding clause, Harper assailed the chief justice’s personal integrity, almost the only relevant area where she is invulnerable. He has appointed most of the incumbent Supreme Court justices, and a great many judges on junior federal courts, and has only himself to blame for this jurisdictional chaos. The supreme democratic authority of Parliament is being squandered by a control-addicted prime minister and by the falsely righteous depredations and tinkerings of an unchallenged and usurpatory bench.

The entire reactionary agenda is obnoxious to traditional Canadian respect for rights and due process. The omnibus crime bill imposed arbitrary and draconian sentences (Parliament’s one counter-attack on the rapacious judiciary). It built more prisons in response to a declining crime rate, reduced rehabilitative activity and inmate access to families, and is in sum an unrelievedly retrograde, total-immersion plunge into primitivism. Native people will be the chief occupants of the new prisons, which should be repurposed at once as assisted housing. The bill is a disgrace and should be repealed, even by this government if it is re-elected.

Bill C-51 in defence of national security from terrorism has unexceptionable objectives, but dispenses with due process and cannot fail to be abused in a way profoundly offensive to Canadian traditions of respect for individual rights and the rule of law. The leaders of the NDP and the Green party, Thomas Mulcair and Elizabeth May, were magnificent in their opposition, and even Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s call for greater oversight was reassuring.

The gratuitously self-awarded right to expel dual citizens convicted of terrorist acts from Canadian citizenship, is another worrisome step toward un-Canadian, if not totalitarian, measures. We can punish our own citizens without expelling them. Trudeau’s objections to this mob-pleaser were also impressive.

Finally, to make a major election issue out of a woman wearing a face-covering niqab at a citizenship swearing-in ceremony after privately identifying herself is a shabby act of desperation. (Public security requires that everyone be identifiable when in public, but in particular ceremonies, exceptions can be made for religious reasons as long as the individuals privately prove their identity to officials.) 

 There is no reason for the government to do any of this except pandering to knuckle-dragging authoritarians, in no danger of straying toward the Liberals or NDP. It all incites worried curiosity about what cloven-footed, horned and furry–headed motivational beasts may lurk within Harper’s mind.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/ Patrick DoyleZunera Ishaq talks to reporters outside the Federal Court of Appeal in Ottawa on Tuesday, September 15, 2015. A new court ruling means Ishaq, who chooses to cover her face, now has a chance to become a Canadian and vote in the Oct. 19 federal election.

 

It was, until fairly recently, a good government, but it has not renewed its personnel or its program and has become frightening in its disregard for democratic institutions and the rights of the citizens to whom it must answer and is sworn to serve.
Mulcair has fought an admirable campaign as leader of the opposition. He is not an extremist. But the NDP favours abstention from military action against ISIL, recourse to the eco-lunacy of Kyoto and cap-and-trade, unsustainable increases in public spending and taxes, the effective abolition of the English language in the federal workplace in Quebec, repeal of the Clarity Act and a direct pitch to Quebec’s defeated separatists (though Mulcair’s stance on the niqab has been admirable). The NDP can only do limited damage in a provincial government; if elected federally, well-intentioned to the end, it would take this country over Niagara Falls.

Justin Trudeau took the headship of a shattered Liberal party that was widely assumed to be beyond recovery. He has been flexible on public finance, principled on the issue of expulsion from citizenship, wants to fund the armed forces and has stepped with self-possession into a daunting role opposite more experienced adversaries at the head of bigger parliamentary parties. He remains a largely unknown quantity, but he has a very alluring personality, a quick intelligence and an apparently reasonable combination of principle and openness. (He also has his lapses, as in his tasteless and nasty attack on popular former Toronto mayor and recovering cancer patient Rob Ford.)

I wrote here earlier this year that the Conservatives’ best chance of re-election was for Harper to follow the example of King, Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, and hand over the leadership of his government to his partisans’ choice as a successor; and I wrote that the Conservatives would make a serious mistake if they assumed that Justin Trudeau would make an air-headed ass of himself in an election campaign. Trudeau and Mulcair are right, given Harper’s now almost sociopathic personality, to say that they will support each other rather than a Harper minority.

Needlessly, Harper is now likely to follow the route of greater statesmen who didn’t know when to leave: Winston Churchill, Konrad Adenauer, Charles de Gaulle, Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl. He was a good prime minister, but it is time to see him off. Trudeau, with a minority, will grow or go. I believe the former, but he has earned his chance. We really cannot have another four years of government by a sadistic Victorian schoolmaster.

National Post

REFORMING THE SENATE Senators to meet in private to talk red chamber reform

Bloggers note: I think the Senate is indispensable we Must save it and reform it.                  458

And other Post links:  SENATE REFORM >> Blog Archive  

http://thehighchamber.blogspot.ca/2015/09/blog-archive.html
 

Senators to meet in private to talk red chamber reform

'Everything is on the table' in three days of post-election meetings in Ottawa

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-senators-meet-reform-1.3246999

By Alison Crawford, CBC News Posted: Sep 29, 2015 3:00 PM ET Last Updated: Sep 29, 2015 3:00 PM ET

Conservative Senator Stephen Greene and Liberal-appointed Senator Paul Massicotte have invited their colleagues to Ottawa for post-election discussions about Senate reform. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Regardless of which party wins the election, there will be no status quo for the Senate after Oct. 19.

To tackle the prospect of change head-on, Conservative Senator Stephen Greene and Liberal-appointed Senator Paul Massicotte have invited their peers to Ottawa for a post-election meeting on how they can reform the upper chamber from within. 

• Abolishing the Senate in 10 difficult steps
• Tom Mulcair could get help from at least 2 senators if NDP wins election
• NDP, Conservative push to abolish Senate 'blatantly unconstitutional'
• Stephen Harper vows not to name any senators before reforms made

"Everything is on the table," Massicotte said of the meeting, which will be held from Oct. 26 to 28.

"The Senate, obviously, is constitutionally created. But the way we operate and the rules we set, and the process we follow, is totally within the responsibility and the authority of the Senate. 

"There's no limits relative to what we can change," says Massicotte.  

In June, Greene and Massicotte sent out a questionnaire asking their colleagues for feedback on ideas for reform.

"There's no limits relative to what we can change."  - Liberal-appointed Senator Paul Massicotte

Massicotte says the point was to get an idea of where there might be consensus.

"Can we modernize the Senate, can we make it more relevant, can we make it more useful, can we gain better credibility with the public so they understand a bit better what we're doing?"

The two senators are summarizing their findings and will moderate discussions at the end of next month. Massicotte says they are keeping all responses confidential.

Senators push for greater independence

Even so, CBC News has learned there is a great deal of interest among senators in electing their own Speaker, abolishing Senate question period and significantly reducing the number of senators sitting on each Senate committee.

With 22 vacancies in the 105-seat upper house, senators have said they're spread too thin over too many committees where there is no real need for so many members.

Senate question period may not make much sense in the event of a Liberal or NDP government, when there would presumably be no leader of the government in the Senate.

The Conservatives recently ended the practice of having that person in cabinet, making it more difficult to answer questions on behalf of the government.

A Conservative election loss would also force senators to seriously consider electing their own Speaker. They have long bristled at the prime minister appointing a Speaker for the upper house while MPs elect a Speaker in the House of Commons.

Liberal-appointed Senator Larry Campbell says he is keen to address the role of the Speaker, especially after the Conservatives overruled Speaker Leo Housakos in June to force a vote on a controversial private member's anti-union bill.

Senate Speaker Leo Housakos speaks with the media in the foyer of the Senate on May 26, 2015. Housakos was overruled by the Conservatives on a union bill that had passed the House of Commons. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Senate rules allow the government to limit debate only on government business.

"I mean, he made a decision in the Senate and the Conservatives disagreed and just continued on with it," Campbell said in reference to the union reform bill. 

"This is in regard to a private member's bills. This to me is unprecedented. There should be an appeal, obviously, but how that looks certainly should not just be the government standing up and saying we don't agree and we're going on with it."

Liberal-appointed Senator Jim Munson says there are a lot of good proposals in the questionnaire. And while he won't speak to the specifics, Munson says the red chamber should be less partisan.

"Let's exercise our independence even more and be totally separate from the House of Commons," Munson said. 

Change coming whether senators like it or not

Massicotte says taking on this project hasn't been easy, especially when there are no bosses per se in the Senate and each person is free to express their feelings.

"Human nature is such that people are always scared with change and they're always hesitant and so this is a process that is complicated for many."

Ready or not, change is certain come to the Senate, and soon.

The Conservatives say they will appoint no more senators until the body is reformed or until a Tory government has trouble passing its legislation.

The NDP wants to formalize abolition by amending the Constitution, and the Liberals promise to make the Senate less partisan by setting up an independent process for appointing senators.

Blog Archive

SENATE REFORM >> Blog Archive

• ▼  2015 (3)
  • ▼  July (1)
    • ('We're just not going to make the appointments,) ...
  • ▼  April (2)
    • Constitutional Keywords "Amending Formula "
    • PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

• ▼  2014 (4)
  • ▼  December (1)
    • http://globalnews.ca/news/1294025/feds-not-out-of-...
  • ▼  April (3)
  • • I LOVE The Senate of Canada
    • Supreme Court rejects Harper government proposals ...
    • Senate reform can't be done by Ottawa alone. WE

Constitutional Keywords "Amending Formula "

http://ualawccsprod.srv.ualberta.ca/ccs/index.php/constitutional-keywords/489-amending-formula
Amending Formula 
        
A constitution includes the most fundamental values of a nation. Those values should be protected. One of the ways that a constitution is protected is by making it hard to change. If it was easy to change, the government could change the constitution when it wanted to act unconstitutionally.

However, a constitution should not be too difficult to change. Values change over time. Some things may not be as important as they once were, and other things that were not important may have become fundamental. A constitution should be able to respond and incorporate changes in keeping with the times. 

A good constitution needs to find the right balance. It should not be too easy or too hard to change. When Canada’s Constitution was being updated in 1981-82, the people who were suggesting changes had to think about this balance.

Before 1982, Canada could only change its Constitution by asking the British Parliament to do it for Canada. In order to "patriate" the Constitution, that is, to bring it home, Canada needed a way to change the Constitution on its own. 

It needed a formula or a way to make changes to its Constitution that would be acceptable to Britain and to the federal and provincial governments. By creating an acceptable amending formula, Canada would no longer need to rely on Britain. 


The drafters of Canada’s revised Constitution created the amending formulas. They are listed in sections 38 to 49 of the Constitution Act, 1982.[1] Creating the formulas was not easy because all of the provinces wanted to make sure they got a say if and when the Constitution was to be changed.

The amending formulas are complicated. There are five different kinds of formulas. Each one is used for changing different aspects of the Constitution.

The General Formula

The general formula is the standard way to change the Constitution. Unless the Constitution says that another formula can be used, the general formula is needed.

The general formula is also needed for specific changes listed under section 42,[2] like changing what powers Senators have and how they are selected. This formula would also be used to establish new provinces. 

To change the Constitution using the general formula, the change needs to be approved by 1) the federal Parliament, 2) the Senate, and 3) a minimum number of provincial legislatures. There must be at least seven provinces that approve the change, representing at least 50% of Canada’s population.

This is often called the 7 + 50 rule. This means that provinces with large populations will typically need to approve a change in order for the amendment to succeed. However, the change cannot happen without some support from provinces with smaller populations.

The Unanimous Formula

Some things were thought to be so important to Canada that they could only be changed by having all of the provincial governments and federal government agree. Section 41 describes the types of changes that need agreement from all governments.[3]

This includes changing the role of the King or Queen, changing the use of English and French in Canada, or changing the amending formulas themselves. Because all governments need to agree on these issues to change them, it is very unlikely that these changes will ever be made.

Other Amending Formulas

The other three amending formulas are used to make changes to the Constitution that do not affect all provinces. Typically, only the governments that are affected by the change need to agree. For example, if it is a change to a provincial constitution, only that province needs to agree to the change.

If it is a change to how the federal government works, the federal government alone can make that change. If it is a change that affects two or more provinces, like changing provincial boundaries, only those provinces and the federal Parliament need to agree. 

Amendments since 1982

So far there has been very little use of the amending formulas in Canada. Most changes have been made by using the "province-only" formula. There was one successful use of the general formula in 1983 to make some additions to Aboriginal rights.

There were two famous attempts to change the Constitution that failed: the Meech Lake Accord in 1987 and the Charlottetown Accord in 1990. Both attempts proposed a number of changes to the Constitution that were negotiated by the different leaders of Canada. However, when it came time to use the general amending formula, neither attempt could get all of the different agreements required using the general formula.


None of the amending formulas require direct approval by the people of Canada. Some governments think that it is not a good idea to change the Constitution without having a public vote or referendum on it.

Alberta[4] and BC[5] have now passed laws that require that a referendum must be held before they approve a change to the Constitution. Additionally, the federal government has a law called An Act respecting Constitutional Amendments, that requires support from Ontario, Quebec, BC, at least two of the Atlantic provinces and at least two of the Prairie provinces before proposing an amendment.[6]

These laws add an extra step needed before the Constitution is changed, which may make it even harder to change the Constitution. On the other hand, some think that this would make the change more democratic.

Although there is a lot of debate about changing Canada’s Constitution, it is important to understand how it can be completed. So far, changing the Constitution has been very difficult.

Whether there will be more changes in the future remains to be seen. For now, Canada's amending formulas have made sure that the Constitution is well protected. 

---

[1]  http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html#sec38

[2]  http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html#sec42

[3]  http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html#sec41

[4] Constitutional Referendum Act, RSA 2000, c C-25,  http://canlii.ca/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-c-25

[5] Constitutional Amendment Approval Act, RSBC 1996, c 67,  http://canlii.ca/en/bc/laws/stat/rsbc-1996-c-67

[6] An Act respecting Constitutional Amendments, SC 1996, c 1,  http://canlii.ca/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-1996-c-1.

PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

                        Constitution Act, 1982                     150
http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/partv.html
  PART V PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA 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 the 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 the provinces.

(2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1).

(3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment.

(4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.

39. (1) A proclamation shall not be issued under subsection 38(1) before the expiration of one year from the adoption of the resolution initiating the amendment procedure, unless the legislative assembly of each province has previously adopted a resolution of assent or dissent.

(2) A proclamation shall not be issued under subsection 38(1) after the expiration of three years from the adoption of the resolution initiating the amendment procedure thereunder.

40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers provincial legislative powers relating to education or other cultural matters from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.

41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assemblies of each province:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

(b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;

(c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;

(d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(e) an amendment to this Part.

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):

(a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;

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

(c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;

(d) subject to paragraph 41(d), the Supreme Court of Canada;

(e) the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and

(f) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces;

(2) Subsections 38(2) to 38(4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to matters referred to in subsection (1).

43. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all provinces, including

(a) any alteration to boundaries between provinces, and

(b) any amendment to any provisions that relate to the use of the English or the French language within a province
may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.

44. Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.

45. Subject to section 41, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.

46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41, 42, and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of province.

(2) A resolution of assent for the purposes of this Part may be revoked at any time before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it.

47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41, 42, or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution.

(2) Any period when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved shall not be counted in computing the one hundred and eighty day period referred to in subsection (1).

48. The Queen's Privy Council for Canada shall advise the Governor General to issue a proclamation under this Part forthwith on the adoption of the resolution required for an amendment made by proclamation under this part.

49. A constitutional conference of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada within fifteen years after this Part comes into force to review the provisions of this Part.
 
[Note that this requrement was satisfied at the 1996 First Ministers Conference]