harper and the senate

[August1991]

What is it with this American-esque myth that a piece of paper is somehow an omnipotent protector of the populace? Constitutions are but documents that can be changed, whether through democratic means or by any self-interested individual who has used a weak system to attain a position where he can do so. In the Canadian Westminster parliamentary model, constitutional change is very hard to do, as it should be, and is that way because both the excess of democracy and the ambitions of potential totalitarians are held in check by certain unelected bodies. Governance isn't just about a popularity contest and a hope that the winner abides by the rules.[ed. to rm. excess word]

Bambino, have you changed your meds? Your post is the raving of a lunatic.

Pierre Trudeau, under the Canadian Westminster parliamentary model (as you describe it), made substantial Constitutional Change by the stroke of a pen. As he said famously to Margaret Thatcher, "Hold your nose and pass it."

As to the supposed myth of a piece of paper (as you describe it), whatever your British delusions, what is the Magna Carta? (Heck, Margaret Thatcher gave Hongkong back to China because of a "piece of paper".)

-----

Nevertheless, IMHO, the question of Harper and the Senate is far more interesting than discussions of coalition governments (the current fad among leftish, anti-Harper political junkees).

The party standings in the Senate now favour the Liberals 58 to 20, with three old-line Progressive Conservatives and six nominal independents. Of the seven who are scheduled to retire next, only four are Liberals, so things are not going to get noticeably better if Mr. Harper continues in his principled insistence that the provinces choose senators through the ballot box.

National Post

Canada's federal Senate has 105 members decided by geography (of which 19 seats are now vacant) and the PM can name 8 more Senators on whim for a total of 113. I suspect that Harper is perfectly aware of this arithmetic. Harper's calculations may explain why he has not named anyone yet to the 19 vacancies.

If I were looking to understand current tactical federal politics, I'd look at Harper's treatment of the Senate (rather than Liberals salivating at the prospect of a coalition government and a return to power, or obsessively anti-Harperites imagining Harper's fall).

Edited November 29, 2008 by August1991

[Smallc]

Pierre Trudeau, under the Canadian Westminster parliamentary model (as you describe it), made substantial Constitutional Change by the stroke of a pen.

Think you better go back and look at that again.

[g_bambino]

Bambino, have you changed your meds? Your post is the raving of a lunatic.

Ah, the ever omnipotent August has passed his infallable judgement.

Pierre Trudeau, under the Canadian Westminster parliamentary model (as you describe it), made substantial Constitutional Change by the stroke of a pen. As he said famously to Margaret Thatcher, "Hold your nose and pass it."

As to the supposed myth of a piece of paper (as you describe it), whatever your British delusions, what is the Magna Carta? (Heck, Margaret Thatcher gave Hongkong back to China because of a "piece of paper".)

Besides the error in your post that Smallc has already drawn to your attention, you seem to have missed the point completely: paper alone does nothing to protect anything.

[g_bambino]

Glad to see that you like the decree from on high.

The senate will fall, the way it sits is an out date antiquated body that has no place in a democracy. If they cannot be elected then they must be removed.

I prefer to vote for my government not have it appointed.

Talk about decrees from on high! Keep up your quest for an all-elected government, but I'm afraid I can't offer any suggestions as to where you might go set yourself up under such a system; appointed positions exist in every government.

[Wilber]

Only thing I would like to see is an equalization of the number seats in the atlantic provinces to 6 each. As much of a problem as that would cause though, I'm fine with things the way they are.

Sure as long as you cut back Ontario and Quebec to 6 each.

[Wilber]

Talk about decrees from on high! Keep up your quest for an all-elected government, but I'm afraid I can't offer any suggestions as to where you might go set yourself up under such a system; appointed positions exist in every government.

In government yes, not in legislative assemblies that can veto or delay legislation made by elected representatives.

[g_bambino]

In government yes, not in legislative assemblies that can veto or delay legislation made by elected representatives.

Well then, you have a few choices of where to go. But unelected upper chambers do exist in legislative assemblies in countries that would not be called undemocratic.

[Wilber]

Well then, you have a few choices of where to go. But unelected upper chambers do exist in legislative assemblies in countries that would not be called undemocratic.

The countries, maybe not, the legislative assemblies, most definately. What is democratic about an unelected legislative assembly?

[g_bambino]

The countries, maybe not, the legislative assemblies, most definately. What is democratic about an unelected legislative assembly?

Nothing. But we're not talking about such a thing.

[Wilber]

Nothing. But we're not talking about such a thing.

Who says? How can you talk about the senate and ignore the fact it is an unelected legislative body made up solely of the political appointees of successive Prime Ministers. Let the Queen herself appoint them as in that other shining beacon of democracy you referred to, Jordan.

[g_bambino]

Who says? How can you talk about the senate and ignore the fact it is an unelected legislative body made up solely of the political appointees of successive Prime Ministers. Let the Queen herself appoint them as in that other shining beacon of democracy you referred to, Jordan.

Let's be clear that we're discussing an unelected legislative body that forms a part of the legislature, not an unelected legislature on its own. Democracy resides in the former in the guise of the appointees being selected on the advice of those individuals who enjoy the confidence of that other elected part of the legislature: the House of Commons.

Jordan is a constitutional monarchy; it operates in the same fashion as Canada.

[ed. for sp.]

Edited December 1, 2008 by g_bambino