Reducing excessive powers

[Smallc]

you know as well as I that in what was a precarious time, if the Liberals got back in power, they would have continued with Liberal patronage appointments

That's because unlike the NDP, the Bloc and the people that made up the Reform Party, Liberals tend not to hate the institutions of this country. They seek change when necessary, but never for the sake of it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's because unlike the NDP, the Bloc and the people that made up the Reform Party, Liberals tend not to hate the institutions of this country. They seek change when necessary, but never for the sake of it.

They sure don't hate the institutions! They appoint wannabe party hacks at the drop of the hat just like the Conservatives do. There is no party in this nation advocating cutting the civil service and the patronage positions associated with them.

[Keepitsimple]

But he's not. He's lying through his teeth. He hasn't tried to do ANYTHING meaningful at all. He's nothing buy a hypocrite.

What are you implying?

That line comes from a Steve Martin Movie called "Black Like Me". Somebody calls him a **cking Idiot and Steve Marting says "What are you implying?".

It's too bad that you are so vehemently opposed to Harper's character. If you had followed his career, you would find that reform has been a consistent theme. The problem is that pariament is so polarized that there is no dance partner for the Conservatives. Conservatives are Center/Right. Liberals are Center/Left and the NDP and Bloc are Far Left. I'm afraid that until the Conservatives get a majority, reform will be slow in coming.....as will the majority for the Conservatives.

[Smallc]

But that's what he doesn't get, and it seems that you don't either. He doesn't have a majority because the Canadian people don't want his brand of reform. They aren't looking for the change that he wants to bring. It obviously isn't that important to the people.

Stephen Harper has a minority and he has to work within that. He hasn't tried to do that. He doesn't want the opposition to have any say even when he's getting his own way.

I dislike Harper for one reason (ok, a few reasons, but one in particular). He dislikes most of what this country stands for. He dislikes the Constitution when it doesn't agree with him, and he dislikes the courts when they don't agree with him. As I said earlier in this thread, it truly is his job to set the governments agenda, but it isn't the oppositions job to accept it. Harper has to work within the framework of parliament that the Canadian people choose, and he doesn't seem capable of doing that, because he doesn't beleive in compromise (except when it suits him of course).

[Jerry J. Fortin]

But that's what he doesn't get, and it seems that you don't either. He doesn't have a majority because the Canadian people don't want his brand of reform. They aren't looking for the change that he wants to bring. It obviously isn't that important to the people.

Stephen Harper has a minority and he has to work within that. He hasn't tried to do that. He doesn't want the opposition to have any say even when he's getting his own way.

I dislike Harper for one reason (ok, a few reasons, but one in particular). He dislikes most of what this country stands for. He dislikes the Constitution when it doesn't agree with him, and he dislikes the courts when they don't agree with him. As I said earlier in this thread, it truly is his job to set the governments agenda, but it isn't the oppositions job to accept it. Harper has to work within the framework of parliament that the Canadian people choose, and he doesn't seem capable of doing that, because he doesn't beleive in compromise (except when it suits him of course).

Well said!

[Argus]

I dislike Harper for one reason (ok, a few reasons, but one in particular). He dislikes most of what this country stands for.

Brainless, unthinking drivel.

He dislikes the Constitution when it doesn't agree with him, and he dislikes the courts when they don't agree with him

.

He dislikes idiotic, illogical laws which protect criminals, you mean? Many of us do.

[lily]

He dislikes idiotic, illogical laws which protect criminals, you mean? Many of us do.

Please be more specific.

About the laws, not those who dislike them.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Brainless, unthinking drivel.

I don't think so, Harper wants us to be more like Americans.

.

He dislikes idiotic, illogical laws which protect criminals, you mean? Many of us do.

Just exactly which law protects criminals?

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think so, Harper wants us to be more like Americans.

You mean like Trudeau wanting a real constitution and rights charter?

[Smallc]

Brainless, unthinking drivel.

Tell that to the many Constitutional scholars who felt so strongly about it that they wrote a book about what happened in December. None of them had kind words for Harper.

[Machjo]

The Star and Hill Times have been having an interesting discussion on the powers of the prime minister.

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?...luence/&c=2

For brevity the list is as follows:

1 Appointments

2 Setting the agenda for the government

3 Control over election machinery

4 Control over the organization of the federal government

5 Other tools (as explained in the link)

You may agree or disagree with the solutions offered. I certainly don't agree with all of them but they are interesting.

One thing I would love to see would be to have the Canadian ambassador to the UN elected by Parliament, and given the freedom to vote his own conscience at the UN General Assembly.

It would be democratic in that he would be elected by people who'd have been elected themselves. It would also allow Parliament to focus on federal issues while the Canadian ambassador to the UN could worry about UN issues, thus taking some responsibility off the shoulders of Parliament there.

[Machjo]

I would also not mind having the PM and Ministers with portfolios be elected by Parliament too.

[Machjo]

The problem is not a governmental issue, it's a party issue.

There's nothing wrong, and indeed, it would be silly, for the government not to have control over all of the above. They always have had and I see no real alternative. You want the government NOT to have control over setting its agenda?? Not to have control over the organization of the federal government? Over appointments?

No. The problem arises because the parties have ceded more and more authority and control to the party leader. Trudeau was the first to begin to take over that control, but in his time there were still a lot of strong figures in the party with authority and a lot of say in things like appointments, agendas and organization. Mulroney took over more of it, wresting control over things so that there were only a few strong ministers able to argue with him. Chretien took almost everything which was left. At the height of his power there was Jean Chretien, and a bunch of trained sheep who clapped and applauded on demand. The rest of the people in the party, with the exception of Paul Martin, became non-entities. Martin only stood out because he was seen as a strong leadership contender with a huge following who could not be pushed aside or downgraded in cabinet without severe internecine repercussions.

Who rivals Harper in the present government? Who can he not dismiss without much difficulty? He has only two ministers with any kind of sense of personal strength; Flanagan and Baird, and neither of them are seen as likely candidates for the leadership.

The NDP is the same. Chairman Jack makes all the decisions. It's his way or the highway.

As for the present Liberals, Ignatieff is yet too new to hold all the reigns of power, and too inexperienced. He still has a rival in Bob Rae, and he has to be careful not to alienate various segments of the party because of the recent civil war they've been through. But give him a few years in power and I suspect all that power will be centralized in his hands once again.

Good points here. I think this could be a solution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy

[Machjo]

And let's scrap the Senate.

[Smallc]

One thing I would love to see would be to have the Canadian ambassador to the UN elected by Parliament, and given the freedom to vote his own conscience at the UN General Assembly.

That would be silly. He's representing the Government of Canada and the Canadian State. It isn't about his view.

[Machjo]

That would be silly. He's representing the Government of Canada and the Canadian State. It isn't about his view.

And MPs are representing their constituents. So is it silly that they're free to vote their conscience too?

[Smallc]

They really shouldn't be voting their conscience on most issues. They're either representing their party or the people in their constituency, no their own views.

[Machjo]

They really shouldn't be voting their conscience on most issues. They're either representing their party or the people in their constituency, no their own views.

Then looking at it that way, seeing that they are elected by their constituents and not the party, then they should vote according to the wishes of the constituents.

usig the same parallel, then the Canadian ambassador to the UN, elected by Parliament, would be representing the will of Parliament, not the PM.

[Machjo]

And of course since Parliament comprises MP representing the will of the people, then representing the will of Parliament would be an indirect way of representing the will of the people.

[Smallc]

Ambassadors represent the will of the Government of Canada, not the Parliament of Canada, and the two aren't always on the same page.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Smallc

[Machjo]

Ambassadors represent the will of the Government of Canada, not the Parliament of Canada, and the two aren't always on the same page.

So if he represents the Government of Canada, which comprises a handful of MPs from specific ridings, then what voice do Canadians living outside those ridings have at the UN? Is that democracy?

That's why we need to change this and ensure that parliament elects Canada's ambassador to the Un, who would then have to represent the will of Parliament, not just the Cabinet. That would be a highly effective way to limit excessive power concentrated in a few hand while at the same time improving our democracy.

[Smallc]

What makes the UN ambassadorship any more special than any other? Canada speaks with one voice, and that is the voice of the government. The government is determined by parliament, and can be influenced by parliament.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Smallc

[Machjo]

What makes the UN ambassadorship any more special than any other? Canada speaks with one voice, and that is the voice of the government. The government is determined by parliament, and can be influenced by parliament.

The Canadian ambassador gets a vote at the UN General Assembly on resolutions of symbolic importance. And if the Government is determined by Parliament, then it shouldn't bother the Government that Canada's ambassador should be electec by Parliament too, right? After all, if Parliament determines the Government and the Ambassador, then it's reasonable to suppose that they'll speak with one voice, no?

[Smallc]

It also seems completely pointless if you put it that way.

[jdobbin]

The point is, he's the first PM I can remember who's actually making any effort at all. If the Conservatives had a majority - like the Liberals were blessed with for so many years - the Appointments Commission would be up and running and very transparent.

I just find it ironic that Harper did not want scrutiny of his appointments commissioner. And then her threw his hands up.

Perhaps he would have had his majority if he had attempted to find a way to have the Commission rather than turn against the process in anger.

Marshall Rothstein went through the process - which is a long one. Thomas Cromwell filled the ninth judgeship that had been vacant for 8 months - I admit, largely because of the wranglings of a minority parliament. However, it was understood by anyone who actually cared about an effective Supreme Court that you can't have 8 judges deciding what were very important upcoming issues - you need nine to ensure a decision. Harper consulted with Mr. Ignatieff before making the appointment and he also concurred that it couldn't wait any longer.

The Liberals had no problem with his appointment. I'm sure the other parties would have liked to address the judge. There was no reason to leave the position vacant for long. I can't think of anyone who was holding up the process.

As for Senate appointments - of course there are Constitutional issues but I think Mr. Harper is trying to make the best of a bad situation and not just appointing just anyone. Don't bother getting back to me on the 18 senate appointments - you know as well as I that in what was a precarious time, if the Liberals got back in power, they would have continued with Liberal patronage appointments and forever ruined any chance of establishing a balance in the upper chamber.

The Tories plan on filling more Senate seats in August. And if they last till January, they get their majority. Even if the Senate passes the Tory bill from the House, it doesn't mean elections. It doesn't even mean term limits since the provinces could possibly challenge that.