Jump to content

Is this a secret Harper plot to reform the Senate?


Recommended Posts

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/26/pol-senators-refuse-to-answer-questions.html

Many Senators, it seems, do not live where they are supposed to. If I understand the constitution correctly - and I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I may not - that's grounds to fire them.

I'm wondering if this, perhaps, was not the plan all along. To fill the Senate with people to be fired, creating a nationwide gap in the Senate. With at least 1 vacant seat in each province, Harper could then call a "Senate Election" and thus, implement his Senate Reform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/26/pol-senators-refuse-to-answer-questions.html

Many Senators, it seems, do not live where they are supposed to. If I understand the constitution correctly - and I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I may not - that's grounds to fire them.

I'm wondering if this, perhaps, was not the plan all along. To fill the Senate with people to be fired, creating a nationwide gap in the Senate. With at least 1 vacant seat in each province, Harper could then call a "Senate Election" and thus, implement his Senate Reform.

An elected Senate would be a mess in Canada. You can't have someone who gets elected by the 12 million people in Ontario have and equal vote as someone from 150,000 PEI. An Ontario Senator would have the largest official mandate of anyone in Canadian history.

They do it in the US, but they have 50 States, we only have 13 Provinces and Territories.

The Senate should be scrapped it's a sinkhole of money and is only useful for patronage.

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then the upper chambers in all federations are redundant. Yet, they all have one....

And I disagree with all of them.

I'm not familiar with how the House of Lords works in the UK but I know in the US it just allows more complication to trying to find agreement in the legislative branch. The will of the Senate is useless if the House disagrees; you still see a stalemate. The Senate makes itself even more irrelevant because ultimately you need 60 seats to avoid a potential fillibuster.

You have Senators in New York and California that represent a huge number of people having no more say than someone from Alaska, it seems anti-democratic.

I understand the idea initially when the US was essentially a bunch of different countries. But now it seems unneeded.

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not debating the merits of electing them, I'm debating if Harper had planned this - to make the Senate look like a bunch of idiots so he could reform it.

Also this.

Number of Senators who refused proof, or have yet to answer, by province, east to west.

NL - 1

PE - 1

NS - 2

NB - 3

QC - 8

ON - 7

MB - 0

SK - 1

AB - 0

BC - 1

Ters - 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I disagree with all of them.

Fair enough. But, I will take the opinions of the framers of the constitutions of every federation on the planet over yours. No offence meant, of course.

Balanced regional representation in an upper chamber works against unbalanced popular representation in the lower house. The members of upper chambers are also less driven by political whims.

I understand the idea initially when the US was essentially a bunch of different countries. But now it seems unneeded.

A bunch of different countries is essentially what federations are.

[ed.: +]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. But, I will take the opinions of the framers of the constitutions of every federation on the planet over yours. No offence meant, of course.

Balanced regional representation in an upper chamber works against unbalanced popular representation in the lower house. The members of upper chambers are also less driven by political whims.

But the Lower House is based on regional representation. It's just cut up equally amongst separate ridings.

If you want to have a proper regional representation then do as the US. Have 2 seats for each province for each and territory. PEI and the Yukon get 2 seats and so does Ontario.

The current system seems inconsistent regarding how the seats are assigned. But ultimately it's irrelevant because all the senators are appointed and have no real power to overturn a bill passed in the House of Commons, if you allow an elected Upper House then they should be able to.

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the suggestion that the prime minister could, if each province had a Senate vacancy, call some sort of "Senate election." There is no such thing as a Senate election, as the method of appointing senators is set out, quite expressly, by section 24 of the Constitution Act, 1867. This method is that our honourable senators are appointed by the Governor General. This method of selection cannot be changed except through an amendment to the constitution made pursuant to section 42(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, through resolutions of the Senate and Commons, consented to by seven provincial legislatures, accounting for a majority of the population.

There is no provisions in the Constitution Acts, 1867-1982, nor in the Parliament of Canada Act, for the election of senators. This clearly amounts to a substantive change in the method of selection for senators and, therefore, cannot be made except through a properly-conducted amendment to the constitution. The prime minister has started to wake up to the fact that even many of his Conservative senators are not prepared to accept a Senate reform bill that is contrary to the constitution, and this is why the seven questions on Senate reform have been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for its opinion.

The prime minister cannot "call" Senate elections, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if anything this is about weakening the governor general even more, because it is the GG that appoints not the prime minister, an election would more or less destroy the governor generals ability to deny senate appointments as a reserve power.

This would change the senate from a place for capable people (as it is suppose to be) to a place of popular people where media will probably sway the uneducated masses to vote for any idiot with a good PR campaign.

Edited by shortlived
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if this, perhaps, was not the plan all along.

The plan, if there was one, was to bring the Senate into utter disrepute in preparation for its reform, or abolition.

I see a similar "plan" behind the PBO and Kevin Page. Have you noticed how the public debate has shifted to controlling government spending?

The left-wing media (eg. CBC) appears happy to see Harper uncomfortable with Senators and Page while in effect, the media is doing what Harper wants: the public debate is now about Harper's agenda.

Trudeau said that a democracy requires counterweights: then he created them - in his own image: (public sector unions, human right tribunals, research groups, independent commissions). Harper seems to have imitated Trudeau, but to shift the public debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if anything this is about weakening the governor general even more, because it is the GG that appoints not the prime minister, an election would more or less destroy the governor generals ability to deny senate appointments as a reserve power.

Since, until the constitution is amended or some act of parliament passed, the governor general will still appoint senators at the direction of the prime minister, the governor general's reserve power to refuse the prime minister's advice will remain. Sure, an appointee who was elected as a candidate for appointment would have that "democratic legitimacy" behind him or her. But, I don't see how that prevents the governor general from doing his job, should he have to. The governor general is empowered to and may have to, in certain circumstances, dismiss an "elected" government.

This would change the senate from a place for capable people (as it is suppose to be) to a place of popular people...

That is a problem, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Harper has a secret plan, he's keeping it so secret even he doesn't know about it:

Harper assures HoC that all senators meet residency requirements

"All senators conform to residency requirements. That is the basis on which they are appointed to the Senate and those requirements have been clear for 150 years," Harper said.

How does he know this? Can he personally vouch for the living arrangements of each senator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Updated list of those who did not respond or refused:

YK
All yes
NW
All yes
NU
No Proof- 1 Con
BC
All yes
(One Vacancy)
AB
All yes
SK
No Proof- 1 Con
MB
All Yes
ON
No Proof- 3 Con
No Proof- 1 Lib
QC
No Proof- 4 Con
No Proof- 2 Lib
NB
No Proof- 3 Con
NS
No Proof- 2 Con
PE
No Proof- 1 Con
NL
No Proof- 1 Con
TOTAL
No Proof- 16 Con
No Proof- 3 Lib
(Plus 1 Vacancy)
Potential new total vacancies: 20
Edited by TheNewTeddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The senate should be like jury duty. You get randomly drafted into it. That way the house of sober second thought truly is a random sample from across Canada with no specific political, business, or populist agenda.

Randomly drafting child molesters and rapists into the Senate? No thank you, I don't want that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...