Will Stephen Harper resign over the Senate scandal?

[Mighty AC]

If the roll of the senate is to be a regionally representative check on the power of the HOC, then it needs to be reformed. However, if is simply a body that should defer to the HOC and offer a salary to team players, then it is fine as is.

[GostHacked]

Nope. Just with vague references to "leaders". Are you having trouble being specific?

[ed.: +]

Pick one. Or five, or ten. You really think these people give a damn about you or me?

[g_bambino]

Pick one. Or five, or ten.

That doesn't help. One or five or ten of what? You said "leaders". Who're they? Senators? I don't see senators as leaders. MPs? PMO staff? Ditto. The only leader I see involved here is the Prime Minister, and he's being held accountable right now. Hence my question way back: who are you referring to?

[GostHacked]

That doesn't help. One or five or ten of what? You said "leaders". Who're they? Senators? I don't see senators as leaders. MPs? PMO staff? Ditto. The only leader I see involved here is the Prime Minister, and he's being held accountable right now. Hence my question way back: who are you referring to?

If you consider Harper a 'leader', then you are correct, we have no leaders. They are lawmakers, so things they do like make laws, lead the population in a certain direction.

But this is another case of semantics.

[g_bambino]

If the roll of the senate is to be a regionally representative check on the power of the HOC, then it needs to be reformed. However, if is simply a body that should defer to the HOC... then it is fine as is.

It doesn't "simply defer", it normally defers, since it is the unelected chamber.

This article, though, gives an interesting analysis of how the role of the Senate has changed somewhat in the last 30 years because of changes in the House of Commons.

[g_bambino]

But this is another case of semantics.

It is a matter of defining roles so that responsibilities and accountability can be accurately discussed.

[GostHacked]

It is a matter of defining roles so that responsibilities and accountability can be accurately discussed.

I admire your statement, but reality has something very different in store for us. Accountability? Harper is no leader on this incident. He has already changed his statements a couple times. If he was not lying he would be saying ONE thing through the whole scandal, not a different thing each time new information comes out.

[g_bambino]

Harper is no leader on this incident.

He is the leader of the Cabinet; i.e. head of government.

He has already changed his statements a couple times.

I am aware of that and have already pointed it out (in which thread, though, I can't now remember). However, he's done so in the process of being held to account; in this case, the Opposition is doing its proper job. Of course, voters will have the ultimate say.

[cybercoma]

No, the "roll" of the Senate is to provide less politicised and regional representation in the federal legislative process. It will, however, normally defer to the elected House of Commons, since it is to that chamber the government is responsible.

i like the idea of the Premiers or Lt Govs giving names to the GGs for appointment to the Senate, instead of the PM. I believe this would keep the intent of the Senate intact and ensure that no one party has total control of it, unless they control all of the provinces too.

[GostHacked]

He is the leader of the Cabinet; i.e. head of government.

I am aware of that and have already pointed it out (in which thread, though, I can't now remember). However, he's done so in the process of being held to account; in this case, the Opposition is doing its proper job. Of course, voters will have the ultimate say.

So changing his words only after being called out on it is a quality of a leader you admire? Also voters don't have the ultimate say. This current 'majority' government won by the minority of votes, less than 40%.

[g_bambino]

i like the idea of the Premiers or Lt Govs giving names to the GGs for appointment to the Senate, instead of the PM. I believe this would keep the intent of the Senate intact and ensure that no one party has total control of it, unless they control all of the provinces too.

Yes, that's come up before. But, I'm still not convinced there wouldn't be cross-jurisdictional issues. The governor general takes advice from the prime minister because the latter is responsible to the elected House of Commons. If a premier is advising the governor general on Senate appointments, to what body is he or she responsible for such direction on a federal matter?

Another idea I read recently proposed a body similar to the Advisory Committee on Viceregal Appointments.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited November 7, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

So changing his words only after being called out on it is a quality of a leader you admire?

That's entirely irrelevant to the subject of the conversation.

[GostHacked]

That's entirely irrelevant to the subject of the conversation.

Completely relevant. If he was a man of integrity, he would say ONE thing and one thing only. You are apologizing for leaders who keep changing their damn song and dance. If they won't hold themselves accountable, can you ever hope to hold them accountable? It's club and you and I are NOT in it.

[Smallc]

There would have to be a Constitutional change moving the appointment power from the federal Crown to the provincial Crown....and so we're back to where we started.

[g_bambino]

You are apologizing for leaders who keep changing their damn song and dance.

You must have me mistaken for somebody else.

[cybercoma]

There would have to be a Constitutional change moving the appointment power from the federal Crown to the provincial Crown....and so we're back to where we started.

Not exactly, at least I don't think so. It wouldn't be the Lieutenant Governors making the appointments. It would still be the Governor General making the appointments, but on the advice of the Lieutenant Governors or the Premiers, instead of the Prime Minister. Edited November 7, 2013 by cybercoma

[g_bambino]

Not exactly, at least I don't think so.

I'm not so sure about that. It is convention that the governor general follows the prime minister's advice. However, I suspect that to change a convention like that, an Act of Parliament is required. I'm thinking of the process by which the line of succession to the throne is being changed: it's merely convention that the eldest son of the late monarch inherits the throne, but legislation is needed (and has been drafted and passed in various parliaments) to alter that so that its the eldest child who's the inheritor.

[Argus]

you're clearly not informed - perhaps you should actually read some of this thread before jumping in. In any case, what you've just described, "payment for shutting up"... allegedly... fits the bribery narrative.

No it doesn't. The payment was to pay back the public purse. The "shut the hell up" was the thing you tell members of your caucus to do when the media is hovering around.

[cybercoma]

I'm not so sure about that. It is convention that the governor general follows the prime minister's advice. However, I suspect that to change a convention like that, an Act of Parliament is required. I'm thinking of the process by which the line of succession to the throne is being changed: it's merely convention that the eldest son of the late monarch inherits the throne, but legislation is needed (and has been drafted and passed in various parliaments) to alter that so that its the eldest child who's the inheritor.

I don't know, which is why I'm asking. Is there a law that states it must be the Prime Minister that advises the GG on who to appoint to the Senate?

[g_bambino]

Is there a law that states it must be the Prime Minister that advises the GG on who to appoint to the Senate?

Not a written law.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not a written law.

I think the current protocol requires that the PM direct the GG as to his choice of an appointment to the senate. But that choice could certainly come to the PM by way of an election process. At this point I bet Harper wished he would have stuck to his guns and followed that election process so that the current scandal wouldn't be populated by his hand picked people.

[cybercoma]

Not a written law.

Custom and precedent, sure. I guess I'm asking, in theory, is the GG allowed to appoint whomever he/she wants?

Here's what I'm thinking. It's not a simple answer.

If the Prime Minister agrees with the Premiers or Lt. Govs (hereafter "the provinces") nominating Senators, then the PM would just advise the GG to appoint the nominees of the provinces. In this case it's pretty straightforward.

Where it gets complicated, I would think is if the Prime Minister disagrees with the provinces' nominees. Should the GG go against the Prime Minister, then it calls into question the Constitutional part of Constitutional monarchy. However, the provinces are just as democratic, except that they have no federal authority.

It's a strange situation, where the GG can go against the PM, but still be taking democratic advice only from a different source.

[Smallc]

But I'm not sure that the federal Crown could take advice from the government of a provincial Crown. It would almost be like the GG making appointments based on the advice of the Prime Minister of the UK.

[cybercoma]

But I'm not sure that the federal Crown could take advice from the government of a provincial Crown. It would almost be like the GG making appointments based on the advice of the Prime Minister of the UK.

True. But if he could make decisions unilaterally, then it doesn't matter who advises him. It's his final decision.

[g_bambino]

I think the current protocol requires that the PM direct the GG as to his choice of an appointment to the senate. But that choice could certainly come to the PM by way of an election process. At this point I bet Harper wished he would have stuck to his guns and followed that election process so that the current scandal wouldn't be populated by his hand picked people.

Yes, an election can be held to choose an individual whom the prime minister can present to the governor general for appointment to the Senate. However, setting aside the fact that Harper's bill put before parlaiment left it to each provincial government to decide whether or not to hold and pay for senatorial candidate elections, Senate seats could not have been left vacant while the bill made its way through parliament and then provincial legislatures went through their own processes of establishing and running elections.