Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[a_majoor]

More on the politicing behind senate reform:

http://langhjelmletter.blogspot.com/2007/10/screw-that.html

Screw that

I know that Senator Hugh Segal is a Conservative and that he helped Harper get elected. But with this proposal in mind, one shouldn't forget that he was appointed by Paul Martin.

Maybe I'm overly suspicious, but to me this looks like a deliberate attempt to kill any prospect of Senate reform. I'll explain.

If there were a referendum simply on whether or not to abolish the Senate, I and most other Conservatives would be inclined to vote "no." The Senate; if reformed, would serve the valuable purpose of balancing the interests of all parts of the country within Parliament. It would also help ease us away from "executive federalism" and toward greater national consensus.

The problem is that the opponents of reform will interpret a vote against abolition as a vote for the status quo. Something that virtually everyone in this country (with the exception of the Liberal Party) is dead set against.

They would subsequently argue that the Senate had been finally granted the stamp of democratic legitimacy and then proceed to slam the door on any proposal for democratic reform.

If my suspicions are correct, Segal is hoping that we won't be able to see through this and walk straight into the trap.

Luckily for us, the Prime Minister is far too intelligent to fall for it. I have little doubt that he will tell the Senator, "thanks, but no thanks" and promptly kill his proposal.

I hope so anyway.

posted by Brandon at 6:27 PM

And the proposal:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/10/23/4599413-cp.html

Survivor: Senate? Tory wants you to say if senators should be voted off the Hill
By John Ward, THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - A Conservative senator wants voters to decide whether to put Canada's sleepy upper chamber into permanent repose.

Senator Hugh Segal - who could be doing himself out of a job if people say yes - says he believes in the value of the Senate, but its legitimacy as a non-elected body is dubious.

Segal, a former chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, says he wants a debate and a referendum on the Senate's future.

"We've had 17 efforts at reforming the Senate since 1900," he said. "All of them have failed.

"The legitimacy of the place is under attack on a pretty regular basis."

Segal says he'd personally vote against abolition because he feels the Senate offers regional and provincial interests and can be a check on poorly drafted laws rushed through the Commons.

He notes, though, that Canadians never voted for an appointed Senate.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who wants to reform the upper house, last week warned the Senate against stalling his big crime bill. There would be consequences, he said, without detailing what those consequences might be. He has said several times that abolishing the Senate would be an option if it cannot be reformed.

But Segal said he's not a stalking horse for the prime minister.

"He can do better than me on that front."

If the motion passes the Senate - and the Liberal majority isn't supportive right now - it would constitute a formal request to the cabinet to hold a referendum.

He said he thinks the Harper government would welcome a chance to ask Canadians what they want.

"There is no question that, amongst Conservatives, Senate reform evokes some of the strongest positive feelings," he said.

Segal wants the vote to come under the Referendum Act, which would require the formation of two bodies to campaign for and against and would require a question approved by the Senate and Commons.

"I think involving the public is a good thing," he said. "It's their institution. We work for them, it's not the other way around, and we shouldn't be afraid to bring the public to the table."

In recent months, the premiers of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario have called for abolition.

If a majority of voters went for abolition in a majority of provinces, that would give the first ministers the push they would need to support a unanimous constitutional amendment to kill the Senate.

But, Segal said, if the pro-Senate side campaigned on a pledge of reform, "that would constitute a basis to go forward."

Harper has tried small reforms - including term limits - without success. He has said he wants an elected and effective Senate.

Segal said a referendum could provide clarity on what changes are needed.

"Let the voters speak," he said. "Let them tell us what they want."

 

[Edward Campbell]

With all possible respect to the good senator, the worst thing we could do would be to consult Canadians. As the article points out, too many Canadians – an overwhelming majority of Canadians, I think – would vote to abolish the Senate. That would be an idiotic idea for a federal state but I have no doubt it would ‘win’ in any free and fair vote.

Canada is a federation; we cannot fix that without a wholesale, top-to-bottom, turn it inside out revision of the Constitution. A federal state is a partnership between sovereign political entities – the provinces in our case. In theory we might not need a national (federal) legislature so long as there is some way for the sovereign partners to work together to manage the federation – in other words we might need only a ’Council of the Provinces’, something akin to the Senate.

The Constitutionally required model, however, calls for something akin to Britain’s Westminster type of parliamentary democracy so we need a full blown federal legislature: HoC1 plus a Senate – which must to be an elected chamber (which will, perforce, make it effective) and in which each province ought to be equally represented.

Equality is a troubling principle for many Canadians. Although many (but not all) will agree with me that one person/one vote is an essential component of a mature, modern, liberal democracy (and is a component which is lacking in Canada and which makes us an immature, antiquated and illiberal democracy) they are less willing to accept one partner/one vote in the senate.

This equality dilemma is not unique to Canada. The (British) authors of the (1949) German Constitution decided that the German Länder could not be equal in the upper house, the Bundesrat so the four smallest Länder (with less than 2 million people) get three ‘votes’2 each while the four largest (each with more than 7 million inhabitants) get 6 votes.

Interestingly the German Bundesrat is not directly elected. The Bundesrat is composed of members of state governments; the members are appointed and recalled by the state government. They may be represented by other members of their state government. This is, in my opinion, an acceptable format for a modern, liberal democracy.

I will restate what I think is the ideal model for a Canadian Senate:

Composition: 100 Senators –

Seven per province, (70)

One per territory, (3)

One per each of three first nations oerganizations: Assembly of First nations, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the Metis National Council, (30)

Twenty four National senators (24)

Appointment: by the Prime Minister according to the following rules:

1. The PM will appoint only elected senators, as follows:

The seventy provincial senators will be elected during provincial general elections on a ‘simple’ proportional representation system (14.3% of the popular vote elects on senator – the first off the party’s list of senatorial candidates. The inevitable extra goes to the party which elects the government.

The three territorial senators will be elected during territorial general elections.

The three first nations senators will be elected for four year ers by their respective organizations.

The 24 national senators will be elected, again by simple proportional representation, during federal general elections.

2. The PM will appoint only those elected senators who submit a signed etter of esignation effective he next appropriate election.

3. The PM will appoint only those elected senators who meet the other qualifications for appointment set out in the Constitution of Canada.

Responsibilities: the Senate will have almost equal powers with the National Assembly. The exception is that the Senate may not introduce a money bill and the National assembly may reintroduce a money bill which was defeated in the Senate and it will receive Royal Assent (without further Senate consideration) one being passed by the National Assembly for the second time.

As a matter of constitutional convention the cabinet should include ministers from the Senate for those portfolios which intrude into areas of provincial jurisdiction as defined in the Constitution of Canada.


I think prime Minister Harper could get part way there right now, without any Constitutional considerations. I have explained how before, here, nearly a year ago and earlier in this thread.

The equality bit is harder. It requires an amendment to the Constitution – one which I am not convinced is within the realm of political possibility in Canada. Assuming Québec is not to ‘lose’ anything then we need to have 240+ senators – that’s 24 from PEI. With a possible respect to Islanders: are there 23 other Islanders you really, really want to send to Ottawa to legislate for us all?

Anyhow: we need a Senate because:

• It is constitutionally required; and

• A bicameral legislature is a necessary part of as proper federation.

Since we need a Senate we should strive to make it democratic – elected and, if we understand the concept, equal. As soon as it is elected it will make itself effective.

----------
1. Which I believe should be renamed as the National Assembly – we don’t have a Canadian nobility so we cannot have commoners either, can we?
2. Each Länder can send as many (or as few) delegates as it wishes to the Bundesrat but it has n votes – based on population.

 

 

[GAP]

That is probably the best outline for change I have heard to date....nice.

 

[RangerRay]

An interesting proposal.  I wonder if the PM reads Army.ca?  ;D

One concern I have, as someone who lives in the western colonies, is where the 24 "national" senators come from.  Under this system, is it plausible that all 24 could be from one province or region?  Or are they spread out amongst the provinces and territories?

Are the senators elected provincially from provincial parties or federal parties?  I have seen some proposals that senators come from provincial parties, which would create a hodge-podge of a senate, IMHO.  For instance, here in British Columbia, both the BC Liberals and the BC Conservatives (fringe party) have no ties to their federal namesakes.

I say you should book an appointment with the PM to sell this idea, Mr. Campbell! 

 

[a_majoor]

Canada is a federation; we cannot fix that without a wholesale, top-to-bottom, turn it inside out revision of the Constitution. A federal state is a partnership between sovereign political entities – the provinces in our case. In theory we might not need a national (federal) legislature so long as there is some way for the sovereign partners to work together to manage the federation – in other words we might need only a ’Council of the Provinces’, something akin to the Senate.

I can't think of any really successful confederation in history, the United States was a weak and bickering confederal state until the Constitutional convention adopted and ratified the American Constitution and established "These United States" as Federal Republic. The Confederate States of America suffered many of the same defects as the original confederation, and it would be interesting to speculate on how long that form of government would have lasted had the Confederacy won the Civil War. The Swiss Confederation is in name only, the government is established and run on federal lines.

The alternative is Empire; which eliminates the "sovereign" part of the subordinate political entities.

 

[Infanteer]

With all possible respect to the good senator, the worst thing we could do would be to consult Canadians. As the article points out, too many Canadians – an overwhelming majority of Canadians, I think – would vote to abolish the Senate. That would be an idiotic idea for a federal state but I have no doubt it would ‘win’ in any free and fair vote.

Agreed.  I'm a believer in the Burkean notion of Representative Democracy - you elected me, now let me do my job.  Consultation is not a requirement for our represenatives to do their job.  Apply the same principle to our efforts in Afghanistan.  Why consult the Canadian electorate?  If so, ask the average Canadian to:

1.  Put Afghanistan on a map.
2.  Explain it's geography and ethnic make-up.
3.  Desribe the difference between the foreign "Talibanism" and the traditional Sufism that has existed in the country for centuries.

You get the point.

Canada is a federation; we cannot fix that without a wholesale, top-to-bottom, turn it inside out revision of the Constitution. A federal state is a partnership between sovereign political entities – the provinces in our case. In theory we might not need a national (federal) legislature so long as there is some way for the sovereign partners to work together to manage the federation – in other words we might need only a ’Council of the Provinces’, something akin to the Senate.

Yes, but:

1.  I am opposed to the idea of allowing the Provinces to appoint Senators.  This merely replaces political appointees of the Federal government with political appointees of the Provincial governments, which promises to make affairs in Parliament just as, if not more, acerbic.  It may work for Germany, seeing how it was designed to accomadate the forging of the German states, each with an independant history with different politics, religion, etc, etc, into a whole in 1871 (the post WWII constitution simply reaffirmed this).  The United States tried this and found it was unsuccessful, resulting in the XVII Amendment.  The Australians, who have the same basic federal system as us - far flung, relatively empty regions and a few, populace cities - didn't even bother with it, going for an Senate elected by the voters upon federation.  Giving the provinces this power would, in my opinion, give the provincial governments unprecedented power in Parliament and upset the balance of our federal system.  I suppose it could be argued that this would even be unconstitutional, as it gives the provincial governments say in matters that the Constitution puts firmly in the sphere of the national government.

I see a "triple E" Senate as acting as a stabilizing, counter-active element to the immense power of the provinces.  I can settle for one large, unresponsive bureacracy in Ottawa, but I am loathe to sign more of the country to the ten large, unresponsive fiefdoms that constantly bicker and whine about their own interests as opposed to those of Canada as a whole.

2.  I thinking giving Canada's natives their own Senate seat is probably one of the worst thought out ideas in recent history and I fundamentally oppose it.  It pops up from time to time and I seem to remember seeing it in a book by Jeffrey Simpson.  As I said earlier when Reccesoldier put forth the same idea, "I think giving people political rights based upon ethnic/racial background is the absolute worst thing to do, especially in an egalitarian democracy.  "Super"-empowering any group (by giving them not only a vote for being a citizen but one based upon race) is just as bad as disenfranchising people for the same reason; someone else in the body politic loses out due to their ethnic background.

Not to mention the obvious can of worms that Brad Sallows mentioned which is who among the Canadian native population would be entitled to this "extra" say in govenrment.  Status, card-carrying Indians or are natives without status out of luck because they lack a government card?  If so, are we going to accept the minimal degree of ancestry that qualifies for status - I believe it is something as flimsy as 1/8 ancestory, so we'd be entitling someone to an extra seat based upon a single grandparent.  How about Metis and Inuit, who are not defined as "Native" in the Indian Act, do we include them as well?  Natives that live on reserve only, or off reserve.  How about those who marry a Native and move onto the reserve?

The politics of ethnicity are so complicated that giving it a political outlet would be disasterous to the ideal of an egalitarian liberal democratic order.  In an increasingly pluralistic society in Canada (we even have an E channel!) race is becoming more and more irrelevent (I don't define myself by the fact that my Grandfather stepped off a boat from a Nordic country) and the politics of bloodlines have, thankfully, been consigned to the dustbin of the 19th century.

Anyways, just my opinion on that.

 

[Edward Campbell]

An interesting proposal.  I wonder if the PM reads Army.ca?  ;D

One concern I have, as someone who lives in the western colonies, is where the 24 "national" senators come from.  Under this system, is it plausible that all 24 could be from one province or region?  Or are they spread out amongst the provinces and territories?

Are the senators elected provincially from provincial parties or federal parties?  I have seen some proposals that senators come from provincial parties, which would create a hodge-podge of a senate, IMHO.  For instance, here in British Columbia, both the BC Liberals and the BC Conservatives (fringe party) have no ties to their federal namesakes.

I say you should book an appointment with the PM to sell this idea, Mr. Campbell! 

That (how do the national senators get nominated? and how do elected senators caucus?) is, for me, the most interesting thing.

I expect that given a requirement for equality the parties will want to put the names of Ontarians and Québecers at the top of their senatorial candidate lists in an effort to appeal to those big provinces by offering them a bigger voice in the Senate.

It’s not clear to me that the federal political parties will be able to enforce anything like discipline in an elected Senate – at least not in one elected using my model. BC Liberals might decide to caucus with federal Conservatives as might Action Démocratique senators – and there would be some in my model. Or, the ADQ senators might try to persuade the Alberta senators to join them in a provincial autonomy caucus.

It would make politics fun again. 

 

[GAP]

Destroy-and-save strategy isn't as crazy as it might sound
Referendum on abolishing the Senate would serve as a pretext for reform
L. IAN MACDONALD Freelance Friday, October 26, 2007
Article Link

Hugh Segal wants to abolish the Senate in order to reform it.

How's that again? Segal, himself a Conservative member of the Senate, was explaining the method to his madness over breakfast in Ottawa yesterday.

"The motion," he said, "requests that a referendum be held under the provisions of the Referendum Act of 1992 to abolish the Senate."

He would then campaign against his own motion.

He knows this process, as one of the authors of the 1992 Referendum Act, the enabling legislation of the Charlottetown referendum, when he was chief of staff to then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

Segal has a seconder for his motion - Lowell Murray, leader of the Progressive Conservative remnant in the Senate and former constitutional affairs minister during the Meech Lake period. To pass, it would require the approval of the Liberal-dominated Senate and the cabinet.

The latter is more likely than the former. Senate reform is Stephen Harper's second-favourite sport after hockey. Harper's office was given a heads-up on Segal's motion and had no problem with it. Neither did Marjorie Le Breton, government leader in the Senate and a member of the powerful cabinet committee on priorities and planning.

The Liberals would probably kill the motion on the floor of the Senate, but if it ever got to cabinet, Segal would propose a simple referendum question: "Do you favour the abolition of the Senate of Canada? Yes or No."

Having started the debate and framed the question, Segal would then campaign against his own motion. Huh? Well, what he really wants is a reformed Senate, preferably an elected one.

And he thinks the best way to do that is to "referendize" the issue of Senate reform. As Pierre Trudeau might have put it: He wants to go over the head of the constitution, to the people of this land.

It takes a little explaining.

In terms of a constitutional amendment, abolishing the Senate, like abolishing the Crown, would require the unanimous consent of Ottawa and the provinces. The provinces are unlikely to approve, least of all Nova Scotia and New Brunswick with their 10 senators, as compared with six for Alberta and B.C., with three and four times their populations, a huge sore point in western Canada.

But if a referendum were approved in all provinces, their governments could hardly oppose the will of the people. Referring to 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown Accord, Segal calls this "the de-facto Mulroney amendment - after Charlottetown, there can be no fundamental constitutional change without a referendum."

Then why propose to abolish the Senate, and why oppose your own motion?

Aha, Segal says.

It is, he says, like the 1980 Quebec referendum, where it wasn't enough for the No forces to oppose sovereignty-association in order to prevail. In his famous referendum speech at the Paul Sauvé arena on May 14, 1980, Trudeau made a solemn promise of constitutional reform.
More on link

 

[McG]

.... so, why not just put a senate reform question to referendum?  Why beat about the bush?

 

[a_majoor]

.... so, why not just put a senate reform question to referendum?  Why beat about the bush?

Where's the fun in that? 

 

[a_majoor]

Constitutional reform does not have to be hard; many of these ideas have been mused about by Prime Minister Harper in the past

http://www.backseatblogger.com/2007/10/29/sleeper-issue/

Sleeper Issue

I think that this has the potential to be the sleeper issue in any federal campaign(whenever the Fiberals find the political backbone that they’ve so publiclly misplaced).

I’m mystified in a lot of ways. I can’t quite figure out why the Tories, when they get into power, seem to find the issue of constitutional reform, well nigh irresistible. I can only think that this is because Tories, while they are inside the system remain outsiders as far as actually exercising power. Thus they can see all the weaknesses of the current system and fewer of the strengths. I wonder if this constitutional reform impulse will lessen the longer the party is in power.

In the meantime though, the Tories appear intent on ‘rebalancing the federation.’ On the face of it, it’s a pretty scary thought. Particularly when the issue is framed as the federal government giving up power(spending or otherwise) to the provinces. I mean this country is already one of the most decentralized in the world… short of political basket cases like Belgium. (Talk about not being a real country )

I find talk about limiting the federal spending power particularly ironic when Canadian cities start whining about getting more money from the federal government. One, two, three, all together now: cities are creatures of the provinces. They should be looking to their provincial capitals for whatever they desire. Not the federal government.

Calls to limit the federal spending power are particularly ironic when coming from provincial governments whose own empire building efforts are particularly obvious.

The provinces should be careful what they wish for. They might actually get it.

In this case the provinces might come to regret calls for limiting the federal spending power IF the feds move to use the other powers available to the federal government under the constitution. The most obvious of these are the commerce powers which the feds could use to establish free trade within Canada. ie no restriction on the move of goods, services, and labour within our borders. Imagine that. Being able to buy Moosehead bear regardless of what province you’re in. Free trade within Canada might make Canada a real country.

Other examples of using the Federal power under section 91 of the constitution could include the arbitrary establishment of a national securities commission or the invalidation of provincial laws limiting the mobility of labour and capital. The most obvious of these are the law in Quebec and Ontario prohibiting each others construction companies from bidding for work in either province.

Imagine the howls of the provinces if the federal government actually used its constitutional power to invalidate provincial laws….

If those powers were used for the common good, that would be something I could really get behind.

Posted on Monday, October 29th under Canada.

 

[GAP]

Harper would back plan for referendum on abolishing Senate
BRIAN LAGHI From Tuesday's Globe and Mail November 6, 2007 at 2:00 AM EST
Article Link

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper will support a move to put the future of Canada's Senate up to a nationwide vote if the government can't find a way to reform it in the meantime.

The Globe and Mail has learned that the Prime Minister would add his voice to those who would support a referendum that would ask Canadians whether they wish to abolish the Senate.

The idea was broached by NDP Leader Jack Layton on the weekend. Tory Senator Hugh Segal has also put forward the notion of a nationwide plebiscite.

“If it came to the House, it would be hard not to support it,” a source told The Globe
More on link

 

[McG]

I still think this is a backward approach that could very well destroy the Senate when the intent should be to fix it.

 

[McG]

Given the popularity of the abolish the Senate idea, I've added to the poll.

 

[Brad Sallows]

On one hand, one way of amassing the will to change is to first do without something for a while.

On the other, during periods of Liberal government in the House of Commons, how is Canada governed without a Senate any different from Canada with a Liberal-dominated Senate?

 

[McG]

Tories will seek to abolish Senate if reforms blocked
The Conservative government said it will support an NDP motion to abolish the Upper House if two Senate reform bills are again blocked by the opposition.
CTV.ca
13/11/2007 8:53:25 PM

"We are open to different approaches to the details of Senate reform, but we will not compromise on one fundamental aspect: the Senate must change," Peter Van Loan, the minister responsible for democratic reform, told a press conference Tuesday.

"If that change cannot happen through reform, then we believe the Senate should be abolished. But this is not our preferred route."

The first bill calls for a term limit of eight years for senators. Currently, senators only have to retire when they turn 75, meaning they can hold terms of up to 45 years.

"This is unacceptable in a modern democracy and must change," said Van Loan.

The second bill changes the way senators are selected. Canadians would be involved in a consultation process for nominees and vote for their choice, in conjunction with either a federal or provincial election. The prime minister would then be shown a list of nominees and make the final choice.

"This will allow Canadians to pass judgment on the conduct of senators, who will now have to be accountable for the decisions they make, the work they do and the pay they receive," Van Loan told reporters.

Both bills are essentially the same as two pieces of legislation proposed in the previous parliamentary session. But this time, the term limit bill clarifies that senators would only serve one term, and it will be introduced in the House of Commons rather than the upper chamber.

In the last session, the Liberal-dominated Senate never voted on the bill because it said the issue of term limits could only be addressed with provincial consent, and asked for a Supreme Court decision on the matter.

"The senators refused to carry out their constitutional obligation to deal with that bill," said Van Loan.

However, the governments of Quebec and Ontario sided with the Senate in the last session, saying any reforms would need a constitutional amendment approved by seven provinces.

Liberal Senator George Baker said everyone holding a seat in the upper chamber would like reform, and that senators had actually reduced the possible term limit outlined in the previous bill.

He told CTV's Mike Duffy Live that the previous term limit bill had called for two sessions of eight years, for a possible total of 16, while senators had amended the bill to a single 15-year term -- although that would only be a potential one-year difference.

"That term limit bill was limited to less than the government wanted ... and at the end we said it should then go to a court for verification," he said.

Conservative Senator Hugh Segal said that Prime Minister Stephen Harper indicated his willingness to support amendments to the bill, but in the end the Liberals stalled the legislation's passage.

"The Liberals never amended the bill so it could pass. They in the end held it up for some kind of ephemeral reference to the Supreme Conference," he said.

On Tuesday, Van Loan was accompanied by Conservative Senate Leader Marjory LeBreton, who said it's "unhealthy" for Canada's democracy to have a Senate unchanged since Confederation.

"The Senate must change and become the effective and independent voice it was meant to be. It must change because Canadians want the Senate to change," she said.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071113/senate_reform_071113/20071113?hub=TopStories

 

[bdog]

My personal views would be for consesus goverment however given how strong the parties are that not going to happen so I think some form of PR is need

 

[a_majoor]

PR also includes political parties, and even strengthens their role in Parliament at the expense of the electorate (who controls the Party lists of members who will sit in the house?).

There is a "consensus" of sorts in Canada; all the opposition parties espouse some variation of Socialism inside the "Socialist Democratic" framework, although for tactical reasons the Liberals are spending more time and effort to fend off their fellows to prevent being decimated at election time (battles among "family" members are the most bitter, after all). If you look closely, the Harper Government is also running a fairly Socialist Democtatic platform as well, with the only major shift away from that philosophy still in the wings (restricting government legislation and spending powers to areas of jurisdictional responsibility).

Why the partisanship is so bitter these days (in all democratic nations, not just Canada) has to do with the awesome stakes; billions of dollars in spending power and the ability to control massive sectors of the economy. People will do anything to win with those rewards.

 

[Reccesoldier]

The powers and responsibilities currently assigned to government are the root of the problem.  Limit government to indispensable public works and services and let individuals sort out what of the rest they want, and are willing to pay for.

Government in my opinion should have responsibility for the military defence of the nation, establishing foreign affairs and relations, Law and the courts.  As for the rest it should have a very limited role in establishing attainable national standards for industry, business, education, transportation and all those other things currently set up as government ministries or parts thereof.

Alas, in Canada we oscillate between Liberals and Conservatives (both of which spend their time fighting over the mushy middle ground of politics), the chance of electing any radical party, and therefore seeing any radical change is slim to nil.

The government is best that governs least.

 

[stegner]

BTW, Mr Harper only promised to advise the GG to appoint persons selected through popular vote. He didn't promise not to appoint others. In the end, the GG makes the appointment and has the power to ignore the PM on the issue. I know it's a power that has seldom if ever been exercised, but it exists none the less.

Exactly!

Do think like I do, that the GG should exercise the prerogatives of the Crown more often.  Is such a debate worthy of a new thread?