Constitutional Fun!

Andre has responded, and I'm copying his comments to the front page, because they're better informed than the crap I feed you people. His stuff is in bold, mine is regular.

Jeez, I didn't expect Senate reform to become this big an issue
Well you underestimated what an evil nerd I am. I find constitutional issues fascinating. This being my blog, we all read about what I want! Bwahahaha!

but I'll try and address all your points concisely.
Hell, I can't address my own points concisely. Knock yourself out!

-Constitutional reform will always be a disaster since Quebec will always insist on distinct nation status, which will rile up the west, etc.
Sadly, you're absolutely right about that. I have no idea why the west cares what we call Quebec, especially for something as reasonable as recognizing reality. But there you are.

Repatriating the Constitution was relatively easy because there was no amendment formula then. Trudeau was bound by convention to consult with the Premiers but that's it.
But he did end up getting a deal with most of the provinces, including Ontario, right? So even if the ammending formula had been in place, he still could have pulled it off all other things being equal. Or do I have that wrong?

-Triple E will absolutely never happen 'cause Ontario & Quebec wouldn't allow it.
Absolutely agree. And it would be a bad idea if it did happen.

-Without PR 3rd parties would have no power in the Senate. Senate ridings would be much larger and small parties with diffuse support (e.g. NDP, Greens) would be lucky to muster 10% of seats combined.
Again, absolutely agree. Which is why the Liberals, BQ, and Conservatives all love it, probably. It's also why I think PR is by far the better option for something that will never happen.

-The British system isn't a terribly good example for our purposes.
Absolutely agree.

Since Lords aren't elected they defer to the House of Commons. The mechanics of the Australian system caused what is frequently called the largest domestic crisis in their history. The Liberal coalition Senate majority forced "double dissolutions" (both houses are dissolved) in 1974 & 1975 until they could form the government. During this period they vetoed over thirty major pieces of legislation and made significant alterations to many more.
Well, I wasn't aware of the 1974-75 crisis (the dangers of opening one's mouth...) but it's worth noting that for over a century of governance, one major crisis isn't bad. There are plenty of modern democracies that have done worse - look at some of the European democracies. I don't mean to minimize it in the least, but surely that crisis would inform any reforms we made. For example, the PM can currently appoint temporary extra Senators if the government's being opposed in the Senate. We could certainly keep something like that clause, that would come in to play after a Senate-forced double dissolution. If an opposition Senate is simply being obstructionist, the PM could appoint an extra X Senators from his party, to stay in power until the next election. Just having that option would probably keep the Opposition from inciting a crisis.

-By continually blocking the government's agenda, the Senate could create a de facto confidence situation.
Fair point, and one I hadn't considered. But the 2004 elections were among the tightest we've had in recent memory, and using the examples that I posted earlier, it would still be difficult for any conceivable anti-Liberal coalition to come to the fore, unless the NDP, Bloc, and Conservatives were all willing to vote against the Libs all the time. I know this business is meant for strange bedfellows, but not that strange, surely! I'm not saying it's impossible, but we do have to deal with the Canadian reality.

-Btw., the BQ is already irrelevant in the Senate. No PM is gonna appoint a seperatist.
Yeah, I was unclear when I wrote that. Got to watch my writing. And just to be clear everybody, I'm deliberately writing "I agree" several times in this post to emphasize that, well, I agree with most everything Andre has written. My only broad disagreement would be on whether we are forever condemned to this structure of government. My personal hope would be that either a) we can address Senate Reform without invoking Quebec's Distinct Status, or by acknowledging it and moving on, and b) that if we undertake Senate Reform, it be with a spirit of equality of citizens, not provinces (therefore PR, not Triple-E.) But, like I said at the bottom of the last post, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

(BTW, I'm thinking of publishing this under the title "The Fagfucker Debates". What do we all think? I know, it's not quite "The Federalist Papers", but we can't all be Madison!)