Harper Uses Unelected Tory Senators to Kill Climate Change Legislation

[myata]

We need elected Senate or non.

No, them Libs want all the bells and whistles of the current system but all for themselves. It worked so fine for them under Chretien, so why would they desire anything different?

[nicky10013]

No, them Libs want all the bells and whistles of the current system but all for themselves. It worked so fine for them under Chretien, so why would they desire anything different?

So, what bills have the Liberals killed in the seante?

[g_bambino]

We need elected Senate or non.

No, we don't.

[Shakeyhands]

No, them Libs want all the bells and whistles of the current system but all for themselves. It worked so fine for them under Chretien, so why would they desire anything different?

This is such a stupid thing to say. It cuts both ways Myata, the same argument could be used now.

This is just one more way that the Cons are circumventing democracy to kill the "coalition bill".

[myata]

So, what bills have the Liberals killed in the seante?

They may not have killed any bills, but it's a known fact that Chretien's years Parliamentary tyranny was second to only Harpers (if any).

Nor have they shawn any interest in reforming the system since, and certainly very little to making Senate electabble, without which, and with recently demonstrated powers of this unelected body, the system quickly migrates from a resemblance of modern democracy to a parody on it.

[g_bambino]

This is just one more way that the Cons are circumventing democracy...

Last I checked, the Senate was part of our parliament, not some covert star chamber.

[nicky10013]

They may not have killed any bills, but it's a known fact that Chretien's years Parliamentary tyranny was second to only Harpers (if any).

Nor have they shawn any interest in reforming the system since, and certainly very little to making Senate electabble, without which, and with recently demonstrated powers of this unelected body, the system quickly migrates from a resemblance of modern democracy to a parody on it.

That's essentially what a majority is.

[Saipan]

They may not have killed any bills, but it's a known fact that Chretien's years Parliamentary tyranny was second to only Harpers (if any).

Second to non - even by the UN.

Chretien's rule was called the "Benevolent Dictatorship". And as Chretien Himself said when asked 'if the government approves'; "I am the government!".

[The_Squid]

The only change I think should be made is when appointing new senators, the PM should have to appoint so many of his party but also appoint more of the party who don't have a certain number. So other words, if a PM has to appoint say 12, he can appoint 7 of his party but then appoints 5 NDP since they hardly have any in the senate. As far as this Bill, the NDP should remitted it again.

So now you want appointe BLOC Qubecois senators? This would likely happen if the Senate were elected, but let's not start appointing these clowns.

I've come to the conclusion that this country's electoral system of democracy is broken. There is no one willing to attempt to fix it. Libs/Cons are certainly the different side of the same coin. I'm not sure what can fix the system if there is no political will.... the Reformers, for all their hick stupidity, did have that mentality when they were first elected... I think it lasted 10 minutes when they saw all those great perks that come along with the job... both personal perks and the perks of power if you can form government... why would you want to change that???

Edited November 18, 2010 by The_Squid

[myata]

That's essentially what a majority is.

No, not in a real, responsible democracy, where even majority government is held under scrutiny and check. Exactly the point the Liberals fail to undersand. Or notice. Or both.

To Shakey:

the really stupid thing is to not notice that the system produces near identical results no matter which of the twin "natural" parties happens to be in the government, and to hope beyon all reason, that somehow it would produce a different result next time around.

Edited November 18, 2010 by myata

[Saipan]

the Reformers, for all their hick stupidity, did have that mentality when they were first elected... I think it lasted 10 minutes when they saw all those great perks that come along with the job...

They were overruled by Liberals and NDPs who love the perks. The vote in the House is the evidence.

Yes, not to take the taxpayer's money was considered "hick stupidity".

[madmax]

Abolish the Senate

[ToadBrother]

So, after some sober second thought, I guess I don't really have a major problem with the Senate's role, as defined by the constitution. ToadBrother and g_bambino made some good points. (I'm impressed by the constitutional knowledge around here btw!) I still think it was against at least the spirit of what the Senate should be for them to have called a snap vote on this bill and defeated it on second reading, before it even went to a committee for debate. (How recently has that happened and resulted in a defeat of legislation?)

Is this because the Liberals appear to have been the ones that pulled the plug?

If there was more evidence needed that the Tories and Grits are in an informal coalition, I think this fills the bill.

[g_bambino]

Abolish the Senate

No.

[ToadBrother]

Second to non - even by the UN.

Chretien's rule was called the "Benevolent Dictatorship". And as Chretien Himself said when asked 'if the government approves'; "I am the government!".

Chretien was hardly the first one to do that. You can look as far back as Mackenzie King to see the diminishing of the role of Cabinet and the rise of the Prime Minister as the fount of all policy, but the true author of our modern system of running things out of the PMO is Trudeau. Mulroney, Chretien and Harper simply followed suit in that management style.

Edited November 18, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Alta4ever]

This is just one more way that the Cons are circumventing democracy to kill the "coalition bill".

How exactly are they doing this?

I believe the senate is part of our government, and if you are going to argue that they are unelected then maybe just maybe you should have supported Harper when her called for the rest of canada to adopt the model of electing senators in waiting like Alberta does, and lobbied the liberal senators to pass the senate reform bill that died in.....wait for it the senate.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Alta4ever

[ToadBrother]

So, what bills have the Liberals killed in the seante?

They attempted to kill, well, more properly, delay the GST enabling legislation in 1990, which is why Mulroney picked up the phone and called Buckingham Palace and got the Queen, for the first time in Canadian history, to use Section 26 to add Senators.

The Senate almost always does not do this, but as I demonstrated, the Constitution does give it almost the same powers (except the introduction of money bills). We can talk about how that shouldn't be a power of the Senate, but nothing done yesterday in any way was strictly speaking wrong.

[ToadBrother]

How exactly are they doing this?

I believe the senate is part of our government, and if you are going to argue that they are unelected then maybe just maybe you should have supported Harper when her called for the rest of canada to adopt the model of electing senators in waiting like Alberta does, and lobbied the liberal senators to pass the senate reform bill that died in.....wait for it the senate.

Except, as everyone points out, that bill is a violation of the Constitution. The provinces must agree to that alteration of how the Senate is constituted. Parliament alone does not have the authority.

[Shakeyhands]

To Shakey:

the really stupid thing is to not notice that the system produces near identical results no matter which of the twin "natural" parties happens to be in the government, and to hope beyon all reason, that somehow it would produce a different result next time around.

Fair comment. Your post however intimated that this was the Liberals domain and alone theirs.

[Alta4ever]

Except, as everyone points out, that bill is a violation of the Constitution. The provinces must agree to that alteration of how the Senate is constituted. Parliament alone does not have the authority.

Not if it is non binding and creates the expectation of senators to step down after 8 years.

[nicky10013]

Not if it is non binding and creates the expectation of senators to step down after 8 years.

Non-binding will accomplish, what? Harper had a whole bunch of commitments re: the senate. All of which are in tatters.

[ToadBrother]

Not if it is non binding and creates the expectation of senators to step down after 8 years.

So we have a non-binding Act of Parliament? I'm not sure I've ever heard of a sillier notion. I mean, what will we have, after eight years, the House of Commons goes "shame shame shame" if the Senator refuses to step down.

Come on, Alta, you're not that dumb, and neither is Harper. The whole point of the bill was a crumb to the Reform wing of the party, but anyone who knows anything about these things works knows that the best a Prime Minister can possibly promise is to take it to the Provinces. But of course, no Prime Minister after Mulroney's two shellackings has the least bit of interest in actually doing something like this.

In other words, the bill was all show, and Parliament should be in the business of passing real laws, not fake ones.

[M.Dancer]

Harper had a whole bunch of commitments re: the senate. All of which are in tatters.

All of them? Every single one of them...

I know election financing reform was stalled....and I know why. The liberals and the NDPO feel if they get votes, they should get paid...

But all of them?

Can I expect anything from you other than partisan hyperbole?

[madmax]

Non-binding will accomplish, what? Harper had a whole bunch of commitments re: the senate. All of which are in tatters.

Harpers Senate Commitments.

Triple U Senate

Unelected

Unaccountable

Underhisthumb

The only difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals is that Harper said the Liberals Could use the Senate to overturn the democratically elected house, where as with the Conservative Party, they actually did it.

I believe this shows Harpers True Character. He is a pointificate of principles but has none of his own.

Its time to get rid of the Senate, its time to get rid of the Conservatives too.

I have no idea how the values of two different parties who merged could be thrown in the trashbin, for expendiency of power.

Its proof that all those reform ideas will never go anywhere because it relied on people with principles and intenstinal fortitude to follow through.

Everything about this Conservative Government is a sham.

Shame on them, SHame on the Senate.

I believe there will be more populists movements once again, and these band of CRAP will be reduced to the other side of the chamber within another minority parliment.

And there lapdogs in the upper chamber...

One day this gravy train will come to an end.

[ToadBrother]

Its time to get rid of the Senate, its time to get rid of the Conservatives too.

And how are you going to go about convincing the Provinces to give up their representation in Ottawa?