Harper Uses Unelected Tory Senators to Kill Climate Change Legislation

nicky10013 · November 18, 2010

To lessen the impact of yesterday's vote in the Senate, John Baird, at the end of question period, will be calling a snap vote on bill C-10, a bill to restrict senate terms to 8 years.

ToadBrother · November 18, 2010

To lessen the impact of yesterday's vote in the Senate, John Baird, at the end of question period, will be calling a snap vote on bill C-10, a bill to restrict senate terms to 8 years.

And more pointless quasi-constitutional posturing will ensue. Now that they have a GG who actually knows a little about the constitution, I wouldn't be half-surprised if it doesn't receive assent. It certainly shouldn't. Parliament has absolutely no right to legislate on this matter alone.

Alta4ever · November 18, 2010

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.

Yes I agree.

ToadBrother · November 18, 2010

Yes I agree.

Damn it! Stop that!

Saipan · November 18, 2010

One day this gravy train will come to an end.

And El Presidente will rule the Socialist paradise

Alta4ever · November 18, 2010

Damn it! Stop that!

Would you rather play the game?

myata · November 18, 2010

And El Presidente will rule the Socialist paradise

Or El Primo Ministro Honorario E Permanente.. yes, we're on the way, just there.

ToadBrother · November 18, 2010

Would you rather play the game?

No. It's just reassuring to see a Tory supporter who does recognize that we have a constitution which puts limits on the Government and Parliament.

PPS. Oh well, it's all for naught. The House of Commons put it to a vote on the second reading and turfed it. Now all those Tory supporters can run around mouthing off about how the Opposition don't want to reform the Senate, without the embarrassment of a court challenge, or potentially of the GG withholding assent until the appropriate constitutional requirements were met.

Edited November 18, 2010 by ToadBrother

Alta4ever · November 18, 2010

No. It's just reassuring to see a Tory supporter who does recognize that we have a constitution which puts limits on the Government and Parliament.

PPS. Oh well, it's all for naught. The House of Commons put it to a vote on the second reading and turfed it. Now all those Tory supporters can run around mouthing off about how the Opposition don't want to reform the Senate, without the embarrassment of a court challenge, or potentially of the GG withholding assent until the appropriate constitutional requirements were met.

What I'd like to see is the provinces get together and change the amendment formula to the constitution.

ToadBrother · November 18, 2010

What I'd like to see is the provinces get together and change the amendment formula to the constitution.

If they did, I doubt it would be to allow Ottawa to unilaterally alter at its leisure a House of Parliament who, as one of its roles, was to represent the provinces.

Alta4ever · November 18, 2010

If they did, I doubt it would be to allow Ottawa to unilaterally alter at its leisure a House of Parliament who, as one of its roles, was to represent the provinces.

Thats fine I'm not looking for Ottawa to be able to unilaterally change the constitution, but as it stands now, any constitutional amendment is virtually impossible.

ToadBrother · November 18, 2010

Thats fine I'm not looking for Ottawa to be able to unilaterally change the constitution, but as it stands now, any constitutional amendment is virtually impossible.

As I constantly explain to myata, it's not the amending formulas that are impossible (there not much worse than the kinds of formulas found in constitutions elsewhere), it's the nature of Confederation itself, particular after Mulroney's failed attempts. It's a psychological barrier, not a structural one. It's going to take a long time for everyone to get over Charlottetown and Meech Lake. I suspect it will be another decade or more before we can start talking about any substantial reforms.

myata · November 19, 2010

As I constantly explain to myata, it's not the amending formulas that are impossible (there not much worse than the kinds of formulas found in constitutions elsewhere), it's the nature of Confederation itself, particular after Mulroney's failed attempts. It's a psychological barrier, not a structural one. It's going to take a long time for everyone to get over Charlottetown and Meech Lake. I suspect it will be another decade or more before we can start talking about any substantial reforms.

No, it's not the pants... then, maybe, the owner? Or is there another rational explanation, why change though theoretically possible, can never happen in practice?

myata · November 19, 2010

I suspect it will be another decade or more before we can start talking about any substantial reforms.

And why do you suspect that, TB, I wonder, could you elaborate? I mean why it'll be a decade and not e.g a century.. or two? Look how much has changed in the political system here since the times of Confederation. Or did you happen to have some sort of a political revelation? Or it's just another hunch of yours, like that prorogations shouldn't be invoked to avoid the will of the Parliament, or that unelected appointees should not be able to block the will of elected represenatives of the people? All those little things (before they grow bigger.. and bigger.. in this atmosphere of total carelessness and impotence to do anything about it) that are never supposed to happen (or only "extremely rarely") but somehow and nonetheless...happen very easily in this very political atmosphere.

myata · November 19, 2010

If they did, I doubt it would be to allow Ottawa to unilaterally alter at its leisure a House of Parliament who, as one of its roles, was to represent the provinces.

"Represent" by unelected partisan appointees of head of the government in the same Ottawa? Another good one.. of those democratic jokes.

g_bambino · November 19, 2010

I mean why it'll be a decade and not e.g a century.. or two? Look how much has changed in the political system here since the times of Confederation.

And still, myata is convinced (on what grounds, nobody knows) that massive change hasn't happened because it's not possible, rather than simply because it's never been desired. Silly myata.

myata · November 19, 2010

And still, myata is convinced (on what grounds, nobody knows) that massive change hasn't happened because it's not possible, rather than simply because it's never been desired. Silly myata.

Du-h, but of course! I'm so mighty.. just never "desired" to show it. In practice.

How about it didn't happen despite obvious progression from quaint to strange to "doesnt't make much sense" and now to "doesn't make any sense" through to ridiculous then farcial and superficial .. and then, the end. Of democratic road.

g_bambino · November 19, 2010

How about it didn't happen despite obvious progression from quaint to strange to "doesnt't make much sense" and now to "doesn't make any sense" through to ridiculous then farcial and superficial .. and then, the end. Of democratic road.

How about you, for once, just once, provide some tangible evidence to support your wild claims? Go on...

myata · November 19, 2010

How about you, for once, just once, provide some tangible evidence to support your wild claims? Go on...

You have that evidence delivered right before your eyes courtesy of our uber democratic PM, and yet you can't (or won't) see it. Apologies, psychology isn't really one of my specialities.

Pliny · November 19, 2010

I haven'twasn't going to read any of the thread or even the opening post but decided I should so read the up to the claim of hypocrisy.

It was pointed out that someone did call for a triple EEE senate many moons ago but as it was part of the Reform Party platform it was smugly tucked away by all other parties while Liberals busied about appointing their own Liberal toadies because they could and Stephen Harper hypocritically continued to do the same thing. Now he has used it to the governing parties advantage, in the best interests of the people, and he's a even a bigger hypocrit. :lol:

Apparently, hypocrisy is not being able to make government more accountable to the people with something like an elected Senate and having to live with the system but not be able to use it unless you are a liberal. Sort of like, even though I pay into the health care system I shouldn't seek medical services because I believe the health care act in it's current form a violation of my rights.....yeah....yeah... I can see the hypocrisy in that. Can I get a refund please?

If anything the end of a triple EEE senate many moons ago was more of a signal to the end of the democratic road than the working of the system for what you believe is in the best interests of the country.

nicky10013 · November 19, 2010

I haven'twasn't going to read any of the thread or even the opening post but decided I should so read the up to the claim of hypocrisy.

It was pointed out that someone did call for a triple EEE senate many moons ago but as it was part of the Reform Party platform it was smugly tucked away by all other parties while Liberals busied about appointing their own Liberal toadies because they could and Stephen Harper hypocritically continued to do the same thing. Now he has used it to the governing parties advantage, in the best interests of the people, and he's a even a bigger hypocrit.

Apparently, hypocrisy is not being able to make government more accountable to the people with something like an elected Senate and having to live with the system but not be able to use it unless you are a liberal. Sort of like, even though I pay into the health care system I shouldn't seek medical services because I believe the health care act in it's current form a violation of my rights.....yeah....yeah... I can see the hypocrisy in that. Can I get a refund please?

If anything the end of a triple EEE senate many moons ago was more of a signal to the end of the democratic road than the working of the system for what you believe is in the best interests of the country.

It wouldn't be hypocritical if he sat down and said we want to change the seante, but we have to do it with our people in it, or it'll never get done. However, no, he would rather use rhetoric instead of common sense.

Here’s the Prime Minister, speaking about the Senate in 2005. “An appointed Senate is a relic of the 19th century.” And again in 2004: “I will not name appointed people to the Senate. Anyone who sits in the Parliament of Canada must be elected by the people they represent.”
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/18/john-ivison-harpers-triple-u-senate-unelected-unrepresentative-under-his-thumb/#ixzz15kB3d9wf

Saipan · November 19, 2010

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.

myata · November 19, 2010

Here’s the Prime Minister, speaking about the Senate in 2005. “An appointed Senate is a relic of the 19th century.” And again in 2004: “I will not name appointed people to the Senate. Anyone who sits in the Parliament of Canada must be elected by the people they represent.”

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.

Pliny · November 19, 2010

It wouldn't be hypocritical if he sat down and said we want to change the seante, but we have to do it with our people in it, or it'll never get done. However, no, he would rather use rhetoric instead of common sense.

He did say he wanted to change it and knew it wouldn't get done without a majority. Maybe he is illustrating how foolish it is and people will finally see the light. Do you now want to change it?

Stephen Harper: “I will not name appointed people to the Senate. Anyone who sits in the Parliament of Canada must be elected by the people they represent.”

He did appoint people to the Senate. Very hypocritical. An excellent example. What should we do? How about a triple EEE senate?

g_bambino · November 19, 2010

You have that evidence delivered right before your eyes courtesy of our uber democratic PM, and yet you can't (or won't) see it. Apologies, psychology isn't really one of my specialities.

In other words, you've no tangible evidence to support your claim that massive change has been or is now needed, just your ethereal opinion, again.

[+]

Edited November 19, 2010 by g_bambino