Harper Uses Unelected Tory Senators to Kill Climate Change Legislation

[g_bambino]

Harper needs majority to make the change to Elected Senate.

Harper needs 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 to make the change to Elected Senate.

[missing word]

Edited November 19, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

Now, him having said that.. and if he reconfirms this pledge, in full and without caveats.. I'll actually consider voting for CPC next time around. I'll trade actual real democratic change for a full of s... "progressive liberalism" that just would play same 200 year old tune over and over to their exclusive advantage any day. And without a moment's thought, even if it'd take Harper's majority to get it done. Enough of bs mumble, show us your cash or just get off the train.

Real democratic change doesn't mean, in my books, attempting to get a bill passed that violates the constitution. That's not change, that's just flagrant breach of the obligation of the Executive and Parliament to abide by the basic law of the land.

[ToadBrother]

Harper needs 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 to make the change to Elected Senate.

[missing word]

It seems that for every Tory who realizes what happened yesterday was an absurdity, there seem to be a dozen others that are, for lack of a better word, completely ignorant of our system of government.

Of course, these are the same ignoramuses who go around talking about how the Opposition was pulling a coupe in December 2008.

[myata]

It seems that for every Tory who realizes what happened yesterday was an absurdity, there seem to be a dozen others that are, for lack of a better word, completely ignorant of our system of government.

That "system" is becoming so groteskly ridiculous that I don't care if it'd take Harper's majority combined with a major constitutional conundrum to get people to finally wake up and see.

[Alta4ever]

Harper needs majority to make the change to Elected Senate. The best he can do now it appoint those elected in a Province that has such elections already.

Siapan all he can do is appoint those elected to a senator in waiting list, without a constitutional amendment. A Majority makes no difference.

[Oleg Bach]

Forget about the percentile figures regarding green house gas ...what ever the hell that is...There should be an international law..on that states...If you are going to be ambitious and generate great personal wealth..that during and after that process of enrichment - you clean up or and control all waste products generated by this personal wealth creation..In other words clean up your room or you don't get any spending cash..

If you want to be rich..then you should suffer the pain of imprisonment or detention if you SHIT everywhere while making your dreams manifest. Keep it simple..be rich - be materially successful - but clean up! If not - you go to jail for poisoning other or endangering life on earth. SOUND FAIR TO ME.

[ToadBrother]

That "system" is becoming so groteskly ridiculous that I don't care if it'd take Harper's majority combined with a major constitutional conundrum to get people to finally wake up and see.

I defy you in any civilized nation where the rule of law is supreme to find an example of where a legislature overstepping its constitutional authority is seen as a good thing.

If you think that the Federal Parliament should be allowed to modify aspects of the Constitution at its whim, do you think that Parliament should be allowed to, say, unilaterally yank out the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Do you think it would be legitimate for the Tories to submit a bill removing freedom of religion or freedom of mobility?

[Oleg Bach]

Been on the planet for over 60 years now.. I have seen a degrading in the quality of intelligence and character of our political people..personally I blame abortion on this problem...thousands of people who were denied the right to enter Canada via birth..simply do not exist...perhaps in a subliminal and cosmic way ...all the intelligent people were aborted and are not here to serve...When Morgantaler got the Order Of Canada - I knew we were no offically ruled by the stupified...Henry Morgantaler actually stated - "unwanted children become Nazi concentration camp guards" - well apparently this warped and twisted not to mention paranoid mindset - in all probablity damaged the gene pool..so here we are - men and woman of limited intelligence ruing the nation..great...just great!

[myata]

I defy you in any civilized nation where the rule of law is supreme to find an example of where a legislature overstepping its constitutional authority is seen as a good thing.

I know it's bad.. as bad as can be. But.. something has to be done, ne c'est pas? We can be stuck in this present state, with 10 button activation, like forever?!

If you think that the Federal Parliament should be allowed to modify aspects of the Constitution at its whim, do you think that Parliament should be allowed to, say, unilaterally yank out the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Do you think it would be legitimate for the Tories to submit a bill removing freedom of religion or freedom of mobility?

I did not say it should be a simple majority. But it should be doable in practice.. unlike that 10 button idea. But this is indeet a topic for another discussion.

[ToadBrother]

I know it's bad.. as bad as can be. But.. something has to be done, ne c'est pas? We can be stuck in this present state, with 10 button activation, like forever?!

And thus are some of the worst travesties of the law justified. The ends should justify the means, not the other way around. If Senate reform is a good idea, then Harper, as the head of our government, has an obligation to seek out the consensus of 2/3s of the provinces representing half our population.

[Wilber]

I guess if you can't change it, you have to find ways of working around it. Political reality strikes.

[g_bambino]

I did not say it should be a simple majority. But it should be doable in practice.. unlike that 10 button idea. But this is indeet a topic for another discussion.

No, this is the topic of discussion that you drag around from thread to thread: Canada is not a "modern legitimate sovereign high definition new and improved democracy considered by trendy", or some such weird string of words you use to try to get your thoughts across. You made it clear elsewhere (and again here, just now) that you object to the provinces' role in amending the constitution, which means you'd leave such matters to the federal parliament alone (albeit, changing that institution to have an elected senate and elected president). In such a case, provincial governments could simply be dissolved by an Act of Parliament. Elections could be abolished by an Act of Parliament. Anything could be done by Act of Parliament. Do you really believe that's an improvement? 'Cause it's what you're advocating.

[sp]

Edited November 19, 2010 by g_bambino

[Saipan]

Been on the planet for over 60 years now.. I have seen a degrading in the quality of intelligence and character of our political people..personally I blame abortion on this problem...thousands of people who were denied the right to enter Canada via birth..simply do not exist...perhaps in a subliminal and cosmic way ...all the intelligent people were aborted and are not here to serve...When Morgantaler got the Order Of Canada - I knew we were no offically ruled by the stupified...Henry Morgantaler actually stated - "unwanted children become Nazi concentration camp guards" - well apparently this warped and twisted not to mention paranoid mindset - in all probablity damaged the gene pool..so here we are - men and woman of limited intelligence ruing the nation..great...just great!

We'll could get more of the same crap, but it'll get even worse. More and more "canadians" will wait to see the 72 virgins given to them by Allah.

[ToadBrother]

I guess if you can't change it, you have to find ways of working around it. Political reality strikes.

Passing unenforceable legislation doesn't strike me as "working around it". At best it's a pointless exercise, at worst it's a flagrant violation of core legal and constitutional issues.

If Harper says that while he's PM, and a province wants to submit new senators via some alternative process, that's his business. But he cannot possibly bind a future government to this, not without going through the appropriate steps; which means formally submitting a constitutional change and getting enough support among the provinces to assure the amendment passes.

[PIK]

"Sober second thought"

No debate... just quash the bill. There was no thought to this, sober or otherwise, other than doing what the PM told them to do.

For Con supporters to applaud this is hypocritical in the extreme and shows that you are nothing but a bunch of partisan hacks.

Mr. Harper is a liar and a disgrace. I actually considered voting for his party because of the Senate issue. Glad I didn't.

Don't lie you were not going to vote for him. With all this crying about what happened and about it never happening before, well iggy whipping a private members vote was also the 1st time it ever happen,so enough of the fake rage.

[Wilber]

Passing unenforceable legislation doesn't strike me as "working around it". At best it's a pointless exercise, at worst it's a flagrant violation of core legal and constitutional issues.

If Harper says that while he's PM, and a province wants to submit new senators via some alternative process, that's his business. But he cannot possibly bind a future government to this, not without going through the appropriate steps; which means formally submitting a constitutional change and getting enough support among the provinces to assure the amendment passes.

Exactly, so he is working around it.

[g_bambino]

Exactly, so he is working around it.

The best he can do is recommend for appointment to the Senate a person elected by a majority of a province. He cannot force Senators to resign after eight years, he cannot force future governments to appoint persons elected in any way.

[Wilber]

The best he can do is recommend for appointment to the Senate a person elected by a majority of a province. He cannot force Senators to resign after eight years, he cannot force future governments to appoint persons elected in any way.

Exactly, so he is working around it the best he can. He has to deal with the Senate he has, not the one he would like.

[g_bambino]

Exactly, so he is working around it the best he can. He has to deal with the Senate he has, not the one he would like.

Yes, you're right.

I sometimes wonder if Harper's ever read the constitution, given the things he's said about parliament, the governor general, the Senate, etc. He always seems to be caught off guard by the viceroy's powers, or parliament's supremacy, or how changes to parliament are made, or how governments are formed in this country. Or, is he just playing dumb when it suits him politically?

[c/e]

Edited November 19, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

Exactly, so he is working around it.

How exactly? Other than agreeing to consider senators put forward by the provinces, he's behaved like every other PM before him when vacancies come up. The proposed bill is unconstitutional on the face of it, and won't likely ever pass a vote, and even if it did, it wouldn't survive any kind of a challenge.

This has nothing to do with senate reform, which has to be done appropriately, and everything to do with giving the Reform wing a bone to lick.

[Wilber]

How exactly? Other than agreeing to consider senators put forward by the provinces, he's behaved like every other PM before him when vacancies come up. The proposed bill is unconstitutional on the face of it, and won't likely ever pass a vote, and even if it did, it wouldn't survive any kind of a challenge.

This has nothing to do with senate reform, which has to be done appropriately, and everything to do with giving the Reform wing a bone to lick.

Nothing to do with Senate reform, everything to with defeating a piece of legislation proposed by people who will have no responsibility for carrying it out. He is using the Senate to protect his agenda much to the consternation of the opposition. Just like every government attempts to do. Call me a cynic but given the conditions required to reform the Senate, I'd be surprised if it ever happens. Too much vested interest in the status quo from those who have the power to prevent it.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Wilber

[ToadBrother]

Nothing to do with Senate reform, everything to with defeating a piece of legislation proposed by people who will have no responsibility for carrying it out. He is using the Senate to protect his agenda much to the consternation of the opposition. Just like every government attempts to do. Call me a cynic but given the conditions required to reform the Senate, I'd be surprised if it ever happens. Too much vested interest in the status quo from those who have the power to prevent it.

Maybe... maybe not. While Meech Lake and Charlottetown still cast their long shadow no Prime Minister, no matter how much they would want to, will dare it. The Reform wing has got to start coming to grips with reality.

[Evening Star]

Shorter term limits for appointed senators is the worst-sounding idea I've heard in a while. Aside from its unconstitutionality, it just seems to thwart whatever purpose our current Senate is supposed to serve, without any of the potential advantages of an elected Senate. All this could do, even if it were constitutional, is give even more control to the sitting PM, AFAICT. At least the current Senate system provides some check and balance to the current PM and Commons by preserving people appointed by past PMs.

[Wilber]

As we are in fantasy land, I'll throw this one out there for an elected Senate.

No change in the Senate's functions or powers.

Do an in depth study of the what the place actually does and figure out how many people are required for it to function properly. Add 20% for changes in workload, illness etc.

Divide that number by 10 giving the number of senators each province will have regardless of size plus one or two for each territory.

Elections to the Senate to be held on fixed dates every four years. Ideally as mid terms between general elections.

[Evening Star]

Wait, I wasn't in fantasy land just now. I was commenting on Harper's proposed bill.