Tories take senate with 2 new appointments.

[William Ashley]

Although plurality was already there... now it appears to be a majority..??

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/league+commissioner+Larry+Smith+Senator/4004559/story.html

This means only the commons prevents the power of arbitrary legislation to the government - and any agenda attached to that

(if party whiping holds true)

(except for instance of reserve powers)

This at a time when the tories are set to let the united states police canada domestically.

Edited December 20, 2010 by William Ashley

[Saipan]

About time.

[nicky10013]

With every appointment, the hypocrisy grows.

[Topaz]

So now the Tories rule in the senate and the new Tories are doing whatever the PM tells them. Don't they have a mind of their own? We know that the Liberals and the Tories, will take their turns holding power now in the senate but will the Tories be as open minded as the Liberals. Will they refuse to debate a Bill and vote it down? If this country goes down into the pits, the Tories are to blame and worst yet if Harper ever got a majority. Shareholders and corporation will be the only ones to come ahead under THIS government.

[William Ashley]

So now the Tories rule in the senate and the new Tories are doing whatever the PM tells them. Don't they have a mind of their own? We know that the Liberals and the Tories, will take their turns holding power now in the senate but will the Tories be as open minded as the Liberals. Will they refuse to debate a Bill and vote it down? If this country goes down into the pits, the Tories are to blame and worst yet if Harper ever got a majority. Shareholders and corporation will be the only ones to come ahead under THIS government.

There appears to be one major difference with Harper's appointments 1. They don't appear to be "lifelong politicians" or public servants. 2. Many are "youngish" - meaning they likely won't be going away. They really appear to have no "background" with governance let alone law and legislation.

Edited December 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[Shakeyhands]

There appears to be one major difference with Harper's appointments 1. They don't appear to be "lifelong politicians" or public servants. 2. Many are "youngish" - meaning they likely won't be going away. They really appear to have no "background" with governance let alone law and legislation.

Hmmmmmm

In 2008, Meredith ran unsuccessfully for the Conservatives in a Toronto Centre byelection

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Harper+takes+control+Senate+with+appointments/4004559/story.html#ixzz18iNcltqe

and looky here.... no rewarding going on at all.

Among Harper's appointments are: his own former press secretary (Carolyn Stewart Olsen); the former chief fundraiser for the Conservative party (Irving Gerstein); the former Conservative party president (Donald Plett); the Quebec co-chair for Harper's 2004 Conservative leadership bid (Judith Seidman); the national campaign director who ran two of Harper's federal elections, including the one that vaulted him to power in 2006 (Doug Finley) and several defeated Tory candidates who were rejected by voters when they sought a seat in the House of Commons.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Harper+takes+control+Senate+with+appointments/4004559/story.html#ixzz18iOTRLOF

[August1991]

This means only the commons prevents the power of arbitrary legislation to the government...

Gee whiz, just like the Liberals for about several decades.

William Ashley, the basic defence against arbitrary power is our federal system. Provincial governments are sovereign in their domain. They protect us against a tyrannical federal government. They can install firewalls.

But Trudeau, a Liberal, imposed a radical constitutional change despite the opposition of the Quebec National Assembly!

----

Stephen Harper is not imposing arbitary power. Pierre Trudeau did.

[Shakeyhands]

But Trudeau, a Liberal, imposed a radical constitutional change despite the opposition of the Quebec National Assembly!

----

Stephen Harper is not imposing arbitary power. Pierre Trudeau did.

and then there was the NEP.... Geesh

[Moonlight Graham]

does it really matter what colour of underwear is worn by rubber stampers who work 3 days a week, and whose most important work is done in committees.

The alarm bells this sounds off is if Harper/CPC continues to use the Senate to squash legislation that they have extremely little legitimacy to overturn.

[Smallc]

does it really matter what colour of underwear is worn by rubber stampers who work 3 days a week, and whose most important work is done in committees.

Yes. We've witnessed just this last month that the Senate is not a rubber stamp.

The alarm bells this sounds off is if Harper/CPC continues to use the Senate to squash legislation that they have extremely little legitimacy to overturn.

They have little legitimacy...based on what exactly? Certainly not the law, or the Constitution. It seems it's just based on a very narrow view of democracy.

[Moonlight Graham]

They have little legitimacy...based on what exactly? Certainly not the law, or the Constitution. It seems it's just based on a very narrow view of democracy.

Not in the Constitution? Not written, so call it a Constitutional convention.

The Senate lack legimacy? For similar reasons that the GG is basically a rubber stamp. The GG is appointed, not elected. The GG lacks the democratic legitimacy to use its power in deciding policy decisions. You can go back to the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolition/English Bill of Rights etc. for this.

The Senate lacks the power that other upper chambers may have, like say that of the US or other presidential/congressional systems, because it is not elected and not seen as democratically legitimate to make policy decisions as compared to the House.

My view of democracy is just fine, and most others seem to agree with me due to the way the system works.

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes. We've witnessed just this last month that the Senate is not a rubber stamp.

Which is much other reason why it was such a controversial story.

[Smallc]

Not in the Constitution? Not written, so call it a Constitutional convention.

The Senate lack legimacy? For similar reasons that the GG is basically a rubber stamp. The GG is appointed, not elected. The GG lacks the democratic legitimacy to use its power in deciding policy decisions. You can go back to the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolition/English Bill of Rights etc. for this.

Except that you can't. There are three parts to our Parliament, and each has a purpose. The House is elected, and is constantly changing. The Senate is appointed, and so is not directly accountable to the populace. As a result, they can take a longer term view and worry less about a fickle populace. The Crown is eternal. It keeps a constant watch over the affairs the of the nation, and only intervenes where necessary (something that has happened very few times, thankfully).

The Senate lacks the power that other upper chambers may have, like say that of the US or other presidential/congressional systems, because it is not elected and not seen as democratically legitimate to make policy decisions as compared to the House.

That just isn't true. The Senate in Canada operates the way it does because of its function, not because you don't perceive it as legitimate. It is a place of debate and thought, not of rash action.

My view of democracy is just fine, and most others seem to agree with me due to the way the system works.

Due to the way the system works? We have an unelected Senate, so obviously the system and the people who have the power to change the system don't agree or just don't care.

You seem to be (and you aren't alone) of the mistaken view that democracy is about nothing but voting. That just isn't true. Our form of democracy at least, is about far more. It's about representation, stability, and in some cases tradition. To say that the Senate lacks legitimacy just because it doesn't jive with that many people think that our system and voting is about, well, it just doesn't make it so. Senators are powerful lawmakers. That said, because of their function and the general way things go in the Senate, that power is used sparingly and with great thought. It's the way that the system was designed, and it works well.

[Keepitsimple]

The Senate is appointed, and so is not directly accountable to the populace. As a result, they can take a longer term view and worry less about a fickle populace.

That's an important point. As a result, I like the idea of 12 year terms.....enough to take that long term view......and I like the idea of Provinces electing Senators.....but I'd like to see the candidates divorced from Party labels and not enter the Senate as party affiliates. Why should it be so hard to find candidates who are willing to serve their country as "independents". I can understand a Senator having a bias towards certain types of legislation but to be completely partisan and follow the direction of the House Leaders is not the "sober second thought" that we're looking for. Stop the games and serve your country. Naive? Probably. Possible? Yes.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[g_bambino]

You seem to be (and you aren't alone) of the mistaken view that democracy is about nothing but voting. That just isn't true.

Democracy, as with most things in this era of sound bites, has been in the popular consciousness diluted down to simple majoritarianism; many perceive anything that didn't win a vote and isn't then constantly seen on television dancing for more votes to be an illigitimate barrier against democracy. Which is odd - in Canada, anyway - given all the crowing about rights that goes on simultaneously. The ochlocrats (though they're likely unaware that's what they are) never seem to understand that without limitations on populism, minorities (in which they might well find themselves one day) would easily fall victim to the whims of the majoirty in total control.

[Wild Bill]

"NEWS FLASH! LIBERALS RULE SENATE FOR DECADES! SITUATION NORMAL! COUNTRY IS WONDERFUL! DEMOCRACY IS PRESERVED!"

"NEWS FLASH! TORIES NOW RULE SENATE! COUNTRY IN TERRIBLE DANGER! DEMOCRACY UNDER DIRE THREAT! ARMAGEDDON!"

Talk about your mindless, simplistic, blindly partisan, non-logical biased CRAP!

Why don't Mr. Ashley, Topaz and the others who ascribe to this view simply champion a one-party state? Let's appoint the Liberals as our perpetual rulers!

Apparently, they like a multi-party state only if all parties are actually the same, i.e. Liberals. They should just wear different coloured ties so we can tell them apart. That way, no matter which party wins an election the country will always be Liberal.

I mean, everyone knows that the majority of citizens always agree with them, right? So therefore if we went to a one-party state we would just be ensuring that democracy always triumphed! Their view would always prevail and we could all sit around congratulating each other on our respect for differing thought and true democracy!

"NEWS FLASH! ALL CONTRARY THOUGHT IS NOW BANNED IN ORDER TO PRESERVE OUR FREEDOMS!"

Edited December 21, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Pliny]

With every appointment, the hypocrisy grows.

Maybe we should have gone with a triple E senate? WE didn't - so get over it. Harper seems to have been able to get over it.

[Topaz]

Hey, Wild Bill, why don't you chill for a minute. MY views are what HAS happen in the senate. The Tories senators said NO to a Bill that wasn't even debated! Now, Harper has thrown that in the face of the NDP in the Commons about voting no before debating it so why the double-standard? Harper wanted to get rid of the Senate and what better way to do that then to cause a real mess in it so that it doesn't work anymore and Canadians will say, get rid of it.

[Topaz]

What background should a Senator have before being apoointed or does it matter? One could say, what does someone in sports know about being a senator? Thoughts?

[William Ashley]

"NEWS FLASH! TORIES NOW RULE SENATE! COUNTRY IN TERRIBLE DANGER! DEMOCRACY UNDER DIRE THREAT! ARMAGEDDON!"

Why don't Mr. Ashley, Topaz and the others who ascribe to this view simply champion a one-party state? Let's appoint the Liberals as our perpetual rulers!

All I can say is that some conservatives arn't bad people, I myself am an actual fiscal conservative, an actual monarchist, and someone who highly purports conservative values - except when it comes to enforcement issues - at which point I am very social libertarian - actually I don't support making laws to regulate social values and don't support laws to manipulate the economy - I beleive in a free market, with government protectionism on essential services and the environment.

It isn't that I am against all conservatives, on the contrary I am non partisan - that is why I based my politics on my own views under the auspice of my own party http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/SP.htm.

Peronally I did grow up very complaicent with the government through the mulrooney years as a child and finally with the liberals in the 90's. Only a few things stood out to tarnish my view by the media such as the shwinigan strangler and putdown of the some protests out west with pepperspray.

Of course I learned to despise the denationalization and some aspects NAFTA - things like same sex marriages and other issues came up in 1996/7 for me for instance when I was observant and a minor participant in some student protests - actually against Mr. Harris - but for a good reason from a student perspective - removal of extracurricular activity funding by supporting teachers to work after hours on extracurricular activities - sporting events and other "personality building" of youth. I actually at those same discussion "DEFENDED" Canada's current government whom the more socialist leaning and known person who actually milked Mr. Stockwell Day - actually some of what Julian has protested came about from that day - and I defended the current government and actually supported reform - as I was open to the reform movement in the 90's although I really didn't have anything against the liberals, or anyone else - since I wasn't noticably effected nor politically aware.

I've always been libertarian on social issues though but one of the reform draws for me was fiscal restraint, cutting overspending etc.. something that the conservatives latter renigged on (A total lie) with their parliamentary pensions amongst other things.

My problems with the reform/alliance/conservatives started up after they took the election - and failed miserably to manage the nations finances while pork barreling and cutting taxes while racking up the national debt. Giving 150 billion to the banks (some money was later cut from that but it was billions), likewise a very bad make work program, and a handful of other issues including military aquisitions from american companies instead of canadian companies.

So don't lable me "anticonservative" I am non partisan and part right wing.. and part left wing. I'm a moderate - so left I'm on the right. I just see a divide between government and the rest of society, and a goal of bringing the rest of society closer to government.

The liberals of the 90's actually were "open minded" appearing on social issues, while managing finances. However they started being noticed for putting down dissent in the public - a totalitarian trait. My falling out with the liberals was when they ignored my own pleas - right around the time their government fell. I'm also a dove so I don't support the war - I only support defensive warfare for Canada - not regime topling and interferance in foreign affairs - imperialism. I only support consensual foreign intervention. Allowing refugees or helping organize on humanitarian is where I draw the line for manipulation in foreign affairs - that isn't welcome business or treaty functions.

Mr. Harper actually "was" a liberal. The histories of various members of parliament is actually much more interesting than face value. My statements usually related to issues - not people, except where it is an ongoing issue by a person.

We need inputs from everyone - and law should benefit everyone overall.

Edited December 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[nicky10013]

Maybe we should have gone with a triple E senate? WE didn't - so get over it. Harper seems to have been able to get over it.

I'm not the hypocritical one here. I didn't make a promise about not appointing even 1 unelected senator and then destroyed it with the largest patronage appointment in Canadian history. (kind of like no deficits smashed with the largest deficit in Canadian history)

Then again, Conservatives don't really care about their professed ideology so it clearly doesn't matter as you've shown above. The CPC is all about tough talk and no action.

Edited December 21, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

"NEWS FLASH! LIBERALS RULE SENATE FOR DECADES! SITUATION NORMAL! COUNTRY IS WONDERFUL! DEMOCRACY IS PRESERVED!"

"NEWS FLASH! TORIES NOW RULE SENATE! COUNTRY IN TERRIBLE DANGER! DEMOCRACY UNDER DIRE THREAT! ARMAGEDDON!"

Talk about your mindless, simplistic, blindly partisan, non-logical biased CRAP!

Why don't Mr. Ashley, Topaz and the others who ascribe to this view simply champion a one-party state? Let's appoint the Liberals as our perpetual rulers!

Apparently, they like a multi-party state only if all parties are actually the same, i.e. Liberals. They should just wear different coloured ties so we can tell them apart. That way, no matter which party wins an election the country will always be Liberal.

I mean, everyone knows that the majority of citizens always agree with them, right? So therefore if we went to a one-party state we would just be ensuring that democracy always triumphed! Their view would always prevail and we could all sit around congratulating each other on our respect for differing thought and true democracy!

"NEWS FLASH! ALL CONTRARY THOUGHT IS NOW BANNED IN ORDER TO PRESERVE OUR FREEDOMS!"

You're a tool. Yet another CPC playing card. If someone disagrees with you in debate, act as if they're trying to censor you. I wish people were smart enough to realize there's a difference.

[William Ashley]

Provincial governments are sovereign in their domain. They protect us against a tyrannical federal government.

I use to think the same thing, but after learning more about how the law really works it is important to note.

notwithstanding the federal government can veto provincial law

the federal government holds title to Canadian land "except" for parts of nova scotia - which isn't held by a current government of Canada - it is sub-baronies - or barronetages.

Newfoundland may also have its title.. I havn't researched its title but it may actually still be british or "native newfoundlander.. but I think they were all killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beothuk

apparently it does appear to still be british title held by the monarch

as the native title -- may have expired before 1832 Newfoundland granted Representative Government - meaning that if it was claimed by the british in right of the king at the time then it would still be british title unless transfered.

Bear in mind there are many types of title on the same peice of land.. the title I am talking about is where the actual sovereignty of the land exists.

Most of Canada is native title by the basis of claim. it is however "overriden by treaty" but should those treaties expire the exercise of title would legally shift - it is all based on agreements that can change, rather than the "underlying law" recognizing exercise of ownership and thus jurisdiction and application of law on a particular peice of land.

This isn't the same as deeds... deeding isn't actual ownership it is a form of conveyance of some rights --- but almost never are all rights conveyed.. only in some extreme ancient allodialism - where only perhaps fealty was involved or a seperate fuedal domain completely.

Most of Canada is conveyed from native sovereignty.. only nova scotia and newfoundland seem exceptions to this.

http://www.electricscotland.com/canada/fraser/baronets_novascotia.htm

Quebec is also a special circumstance because it was also administered different - however... this becomes issue because the treaty that transfered quebec to the british is "extinguished". (by quebec I mean the canadas - and this includes part of ontario)

Edited December 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

notwithstanding the federal government can veto provincial law

Only if the lieutenant governor involved witholds Royal Assent and directs the bill to Ottawa for the federal Cabinet's approval.

apparently it does appear to still be british title held by the monarch

Not since the former British Crown protectorate joined Confederation in 1949 and became a Canadian province. Since then it's been under the sovereignty of the monarch of Canada.

[+]

Edited December 21, 2010 by g_bambino

[William Ashley]

Only if the lieutenant governor involved witholds Royal Assent and directs the bill to Ottawa for the federal Cabinet's approval.

Not since the former British Crown protectorate joined Confederation in 1949 and became a Canadian province. Since then it's been under the sovereignty of the monarch of Canada.

[+]

When was the title given to the newfoundland itself.. show me the title transfer event. I think you just don't understand title, and you equate civil government to "title holding". Legislatures mearly make laws - this can be done through a conveyance of right.. thus granting or removing the legislating capacity. You simpy are not understanding so discusion on this point may have to wait until you understand sovreignty.

This opens up a "constitutional" situation things like the magna carta and a whole bunch of other issues - also the british and canadian situations have converged a tini bit over the last 50 years.

To say the least the whole pro forma of ones domain is still there.

I don't think I'm going to convince you otherwise.

Edited December 21, 2010 by William Ashley