5 more Tories to Senate

[Wild Bill]

Try what? Lessening the length of time a Senator can serve is all he's really tried to do. Though, the word "tried" is used very loosely, since there's been little action on the bill or force behind it in the Commons, so far.

Well, he also has encouraged provinces to choose their own senatorial candidates, either through direct election or through provincial appointment. That also is a first, in our system. The idea was pioneered by Reform. Not all provinces are interested but that could change as their people see other provinces doing it. It will start to appear as if things are more democratic in those other provinces.

Once a precedent is set it tends to become more entrenched as years go on, until it has the force of law in practice as strong as by statute. Eventually, a statute can be passed.

Harper is trying to give the people examples. If the idea behind those examples catches on their elected officials will have no choice but to get in front of the parade.

As has already been said, at least he has made some small steps. That's more than any other PM has done for us! More than the other party leaders would do for us now!

[eyeball]

Once a precedent is set it tends to become more entrenched as years go on, until it has the force of law in practice as strong as by statute. Eventually, a statute can be passed.

A blistering pace of change that's sure to leave bambino feeling all panicky and breathless.

Christ on a stick...sedimentary layering on the bottom of the ocean will take less time.

[g_bambino]

Well, he also has encouraged provinces to choose their own senatorial candidates, either through direct election or through provincial appointment. That also is a first, in our system.

It's not a first at all. There have been senatorial "elections" in Alberta, off and on, for years. Any provincial government could do the same. The proposed legislation changes nothing in that regard.

[ed.: +]

Edited September 10, 2012 by g_bambino

[Battletoads]

So therefore you must believe that Chretien's Liberals were far right? After all, Chretien stacked the Senate with Liberals, only tossing in someone from the other parties once in a while, when the numbers were such that the gesture was only a token. With a clear and strong majority, it was totally safe to throw in the odd Opposition Senator.

I never thought of Chretien as "far right". Who would have thought?

Thanks! I learned something new!

I don't seem to recall the Chretien Libs campaigning on senate reform, nor do I seem to recall saying it wasn't tokenism. Unsurprising that a right winger would miss the point.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Battletoads

[madmax]

At least the people harper puts in are for senate reform and it will be reformed. Harper has taken the 1st step to have this done, something no other party has tried.

I have a bridge for sale.

[Mr.Canada]

Harper has named 5 more senators to the senate and pretty soon the Tories will own the country. http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/harper-fills-5-senate-vacancies

The Tories have been in power for almost 10 years now and currently have a majority. Would the NDP put Tories in the Senate? I don't think so. They have never even held the PMO before. it's easy for them to take the high ground when they have zero experience leading a country.

For the record the NDP will not be able to dismantle the Senate even if they wanted to. This is misinformation that they keep spreading. They say this because they know they will never form government.

When there was a rumor that the NDP may get a minority government during last election a lot of the Liberals in the GTA voted instead to have a Harper majority instead of a NDP minority, that should tell you something.

[madmax]

The Tories have been in power for almost 10 years now and currently have a majority. Would the NDP put Tories in the Senate? They say this because they know they will never form government.

Good to see you still around Mr. Canada

Would the NDP put a Torie in the Senate?

A: No, I doubt the NDP would appoint anyone during their term in office.

You suggest the NDP would never form a government.

Well, it will be interesting when they do.

[Smallc]

Since the government cannot legally run without the senate.....

[g_bambino]

I doubt the NDP would appoint anyone during their term in office.

Unconstitutional.

[eyeball]

Since the government cannot legally run without the senate.....

...so blowing up the senate would..?

...never mind.

[g_bambino]

...so blowing up the senate would..?

...mean senators would have to meet elsewhere.

[PIK]

Good to see you still around Mr. Canada

Would the NDP put a Torie in the Senate?

A: No, I doubt the NDP would appoint anyone during their term in office.

You suggest the NDP would never form a government.

Well, it will be interesting when they do.

And why would they, it would take a 100 years for then to build up a majority and the fact they know it is going to be reformed.

[cybercoma]

Unconstitutional.

Since you're so knowledgeable about this stuff, what happens if the NDP becomes government and the prime minister refuses to appoint senators. Does the Governor General then take sole responsibility for their appointments?

[g_bambino]

Since you're so knowledgeable about this stuff, what happens if the NDP becomes government and the prime minister refuses to appoint senators. Does the Governor General then take sole responsibility for their appointments?

It would likely elicit a constitutional crisis.

Section IV.24 of the Constitution Act 1867 mandates that "The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen's Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate..." Of course, by convention, every act of the Royal Prerogative - even those constitutionally mandated - is carried out on the advice of the prime minister. If the prime minister refused to advise the governor general to appoint any senators, yet the governor general is bound to appoint senators and the constitution also requires that the Senate have 105 members, the viceroy would have to make appointments without ministerial advice. Such an act would generally be taken to mean the Cabinet no longer has the confidence of the governor general and would thus have to resign (as Mackenzie King's did in 1926 when the Lord Byng refused King's advice to dissolve parliament). If no other party were able to form a government, the governor general would have to dissolve parliament and drop the writs for an election.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited September 12, 2012 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

Interesting. And if the NDP is returned to power and still refuses to appoint senators?

[g_bambino]

Interesting. And if the NDP is returned to power and still refuses to appoint senators?

Good question. The first part would repeat itself. What happened from then on would depend on circumstances. I'd think the electorate would start to get rather upset by that point, though.

[eyeball]

Good question. The first part would repeat itself. What happened from then on would depend on circumstances. I'd think the electorate would start to get rather upset by that point, though.

And what would the electorate do with the ball so firmly in their court? I'm betting the keepers of the realm would find some musty old precedent that justified kicking it out of bounds myself.

[g_bambino]

I'm betting the keepers of the realm would find some musty old precedent that justified kicking it out of bounds myself.

Unless you know can show that musty old precedent exists, what you say above just sounds like a bunch of old man, "goddamn government", harrumphing.

[eyeball]

Unless you know can show that musty old precedent exists, what you say above just sounds like a bunch of old man, "goddamn government", harrumphing.

I was counting on you to rub our noses in it actually but if you're implying (seemingly harrumphing if I didn't know any better) that there isn't one, then all I can say is, sweet.

[g_bambino]

f you're implying that there isn't one, then all I can say is, sweet.

I don't know if there is or isn't. It was you referring to it; so, I thought you would be the one to find it.

[eyeball]

I don't know if there is or isn't. It was you referring to it; so, I thought you would be the one to find it.

Best to let sleeping dogs sleep if there is one. I'll live in hope there isn't and hope the electorate is upset enough to give a big enough collective harrumph that something actually changes, for a change.