NDP and Thomas Mulcair Flip-Flop on Senate abolition

[Fletch 27]

Comical..

Just Yesterday from the NDP website with smiling Thommy Mulcair:

http://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-calls-senate-abolition

And then a DAY later from Thommy Mulcair:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/05/tom-mulcair-ambiguous-if-he-will-appoint-ndp-senators-if-party-wins-next-election/

First he will CLEARLY abolish the Senate (well yesterday anyhow..) and today he is not sure if he will appoint Senators? Completely not mentioning or calling for the abolition of the senate?

This guys is as sneaky as his predesessor.... Whatever you wanna hear today,,, He will play that tune tomorrow.,.. Well, unless pushed a bit...

PS: Dont forget to "danate" when you visit the first link... Thommy's smiling face is standing just to the right of his own words.....

Edited March 5, 2013 by Fletch 27

[g_bambino]

I suspect the NDP's anti-Senate stance isn't really one the leadership believes in. Given they've never articulated a real argument as to why and how it could be abolished, it seems more like classist lip service to the anti-elitist, blue collar, union types the NDP always panders to.

[Fletch 27]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/05/conservatives-attack-ndp-over-motion-to-abolish-senate-where-the-average-senator-works-56-days-a-year/

The Last Statment is clear... If its an NDP senate.. Its "A-OK"

If the Supreme Court rules abolishment requires unanimous consent, it would make the task very difficult, said NDP parliamentary reform critic Craig Scott.

“The key is to note that on either of those formulas…ultimately, the Senate does not have to consent to its own abolition,” he said.

As for what the NDP would do if it formed government, Scott said, “There are good senators. We do hope to work with those senators if abolition doesn’t happen before this party forms government in 2015.”

Or maybe thats simply more double-talk and Flip-Flop.....

[g_bambino]

Or maybe thats simply more double-talk and Flip-Flop.....

Well, what's their option? For half a century, they've been raising the working man's cry against the elitist upper chamber; but, only now are they faced with the possibility of actually having to deal with the Senate. The prime minister is constitutionally bound to select senators for the governor general to appoint. Abolishing the Senate requires unanimous consent of all the provinces. And there's been not one page of study (that I know of) on how to operate a federation without a bicameral parliament.

It's kind of fun watching them squirm now. (As it is with Harper and his promises about the Senate.)

[ed.: punct.]

Edited March 5, 2013 by g_bambino

[Sleipnir]

Just Yesterday from the NDP website with smiling Thommy Mulcair:

http://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-calls-senate-abolition

And then a DAY later from Thommy Mulcair:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/05/tom-mulcair-ambiguous-if-he-will-appoint-ndp-senators-if-party-wins-next-election/

lol do you even know what it means to flip-flop?

[shortlived]

Well lets see how much the CPC is lying about their want to get rid of the senate. The NDP has played the card. Lets see the CPC flipflop and try to reserve the influence they have gained from the senate. It was all just lies to woo the public.

The CPC campaigned on this, and after sitting on it for 6 years the NDP has brought it to the plate.

Edited March 5, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

Well lets see how much the CPC is lying about their want to get rid of the senate.

The CPC campaigned on this...

No, they didn't.

[Paradox]

The Conservatives have never seriously proposed the abolition of the Senate. They have mused about it, on occasion, if repeated attempts to reform the Upper House are unsuccessful, but they have never campaigned on transforming the Parliament of Canada into a unicameral legislature. It should be interesting to see what the interpretation of the Supreme Court of Canada might turn out to be.

On the one hand, changes to the method of selection for senators requires the consent of the Commons, and seven out of ten provincial legislatures (representing at least 50% of the population); the Senate, in this case, has a suspensive veto of 180 days, and once that suspensive veto expires, the House may forward the amendment for proclamation, assuming they have the requisite provincial consent.

Changes to the powers of the Governor General, which would include the power to appoint senators, requires the consent of the Commons, and the unanimous consent of the ten provincial legislatures, and the Senate, again has a 180-day suspensive veto. Even were the amendment not to concern the powers of the Crown, the right of a province to have a minimum number of the House of Commons members never less than its number of representatives in the Senate would render the amendment a reform under this part (i.e., all provinces' consent).

On the other hand, changes to the powers of the Senate require the consent of only the Senate and the House of Commons, and the Senate has an absolute veto on these amendments. There is no amending formula set out, at least expressly, for the abolition of the Senate. If I were a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, my argument would be that we must meet the minimum standard for constitutional amendments based on all of the areas in which the amendment touches.

And so, I would think that the abolition of the Senate would require the consent of the House of Commons and of the ten provincial legislatures, because of the selection of senators, provincial representation, and the powers of the Crown; and, the consent of the Senate, since the amendment would also extinguish the powers of the Senate, which is a substantive change to the Upper House outside of the scope contemplated in any of sections 38(1), 41, 42, or 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

[scribblet]

Well lets see how much the CPC is lying about their want to get rid of the senate. The NDP has played the card. Lets see the CPC flipflop and try to reserve the influence they have gained from the senate. It was all just lies to woo the public.

The CPC campaigned on this, and after sitting on it for 6 years the NDP has brought it to the plate.

The CPC did not campaign on getting rid of the Senate, that is the NDP position. There are some issues before the S.C; now, when their answers come back, the legislation can go forward.

The CPC want an elected senate with term limits and Senators they appt. have to agree to that.

[shortlived]

No, they didn't.

Yes they did, for example Stephen Harper vowed not to support unelected senators.

Yet he "flipflopped" not that I give a damn really for general policy, on his I'm not going to fill the senate, which would lead to it to become ineffective and it loosing its legislative power once quorum failed to be met.

But that lie was quickly demostrated within 2 years of being appointed prime minister. Note he wasn't elected.

This does not sound like the CPC line

"The Canadian Senate has been proclaimed by the Conservative Party of Canada as democratic and accountable."

Yet this is what they said.

Reality check THEY LIED.

TOTAL POLICY FLIP FLOP...

HOW STUPID DO YOU THINK PEOPLE ARE, clearly you don't think I'm that stupid do you?

Edited March 6, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

Yes they did, for example Stephen Harper vowed not to support unelected senators.

Which is very obviously not the same thing as abolishing the Senate.

[madmax]

Senators Appointed by Harper are making a strong case for its abolishment.

And hearing former Harper Frontman and exSenator Fortier state that the Senates should be abolished is more icing on the Senate Cake.

I never thought I would see this, but I believe that the clock has official started ticking and that the discussion of abolishing the institution is gaining traction.

[Paradox]

Senators Appointed by Harper are making a strong case for its abolishment.

And hearing former Harper Frontman and exSenator Fortier state that the Senates should be abolished is more icing on the Senate Cake.

I never thought I would see this, but I believe that the clock has official started ticking and that the discussion of abolishing the institution is gaining traction.

I do not know that this is necessarily true.

The only party that is actually advocating for the abolition of The Honourable the Senate is the New Democratic Party of Canada. Since the NDP is likely to be overtaken by the Liberal Party of Canada in the next general election, once they are led by Mr. Justin Trudeau M.P. (Papineau), it is nearly a moot point. Granted, many of the prime minister's appointments have been less than perfect, but the majority of the Senate membership is of the highest calibre.

The New Democratic Party has, frankly, acted irresponsibly in its role as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the way that they are criticising the Senate of Canada. This includes ridiculous accusations that democracy is subverted when the Senate initiates legislation, despite the fact that any Senate bills must be sent to the House of Commons and passed, amended, or entirely rejected. The NDP is misleading the Canadian public in its Senate discussions.

[g_bambino]

I never thought I would see this, but I believe that the clock has official started ticking and that the discussion of abolishing the institution is gaining traction.

Even if that were true, it's irrelevant. There will never be agreement among the components of a federal country (especially the smaller, less populated ones) to abolish the one chamber in the federal parliament in which the regions are represented.

[g_bambino]

The NDP is misleading the Canadian public in its Senate discussions.

Of course it is; it always has. As I said earlier, it's just part of their perenial class warfare against certain elites that appeals to the blue-collar "working man" and the chardonnay socialists who romanticise the latter's "plight".

[WWWTT]

The New Democratic Party has, frankly, acted irresponsibly in its role as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the way that they are criticising the Senate of Canada. This includes ridiculous accusations that democracy is subverted when the Senate initiates legislation, despite the fact that any Senate bills must be sent to the House of Commons and passed, amended, or entirely rejected. The NDP is misleading the Canadian public in its Senate discussions.

False statement.

The senate is not elected and can not be voted out.

Therefore any actions taken by the senate is not a democratic action!

If you feel the NDP statement is misleading than you do not understand democracy.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

The NDP relation with the senate is very unique in that never in Canadian history has there ever been a political party in a position of forming government without any members in the upper house.

The NDP have been very successful in addressing this issue by attacking the credibility of the senate!

The NDP are truly winning this one and are well on their way to forming government.

Never before has the senate been under such scrutiny and has been able to provide such a feeble defence.

I guess the strategic master mind Harper never saw this ever happening when he appointed his senators(not much of a wiz is he).

I predict a Harper resignation,late 2014?

WWWTT

[g_bambino]

The senate is not elected and can not be voted out.

Therefore any actions taken by the senate is not a democratic action!

If you feel the NDP statement is misleading than you do not understand democracy.

He perhaps doesn't understand your (seemingly simplistic) version of democracy. Much of our system of governance isn't elected; the prime minister isn't even elected. That doesn't mean the actions of those bodies (the courts, the senate, the governor general, the police, the civil service) "subvert democracy". They are part of a democratic system.

[g_bambino]

NDP are truly winning this one and are well on their way to forming government.

When they will be legally forced to appoint senators. Oh oh...

[WWWTT]

He perhaps doesn't understand your (seemingly simplistic) version of democracy. Much of our system of governance isn't elected; the prime minister isn't even elected. That doesn't mean the actions of those bodies (the courts, the senate, the governor general, the police, the civil service) "subvert democracy". They are part of a democratic system.

False again.

First off,Harper was the leader of the conservatives when elected,therefore he is prime minister elect.(unlike Campbell or Turner or John Abott)

Secondly,only parliament can make or pass LAWS.And the senate is not elected.

Is that simple enough?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

When they will be legally forced to appoint senators. Oh oh...

To bad Harper is having his "oh oh" moment six years after bein elected as PM.

WWWTT

[g_bambino]

To bad Harper is having his "oh oh" moment six years after bein elected as PM.

No. He had his "oh oh" moment not long after being appointed as prime minister.

What's your point?

[g_bambino]

First off,Harper was the leader of the conservatives when elected,therefore he is prime minister elect.(unlike Campbell or Turner or John Abott)

The prime minister is appointed by the governor general on the latter's understanding that the former holds the confidence of the House of Commons.

Secondly,only parliament can make or pass LAWS.And the senate is not elected

Nor is the governor general and no bill becomes law without Royal Assent. Again, what's your point?

[WWWTT]

Ok so he had his uh oh moment after being elected PM.

But for some reason that didn't phase him so he continued appointing conservative senators?

Makes no difference,senate is still not a democratic institution as you claim.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Nor is the governor general and no bill becomes law without Royal Assent. Again, what's your point?

Governor General can not introduce a private members bill.

Governor General is not a partisan,or act as one.

Governor General is an outdated figurehead.

God forbid the GG ever did(act as partisan),or you will see a witch hunt against the crown in this country like never before.

My point is you are wrong

WWWTT