Senate To Stay Says Supreme Court

[waldo]

From the Liberals, all we have is a policy where they want the Senate to act as an independent body that has zero mandate and answers to absolutely no one. . . Sorta like the SCC.

no - the Liberal party announced change/intent to deal with the most significant acknowledged problems of party influenced partisanship and patronage selection. Improved expense accountability must come from within (the Senate). Is there a mandate you hold separately from what the understood, by definition, mandate of the Senate is? Who/what do you presume the Senate answers to... or should answer to?

[waldo]

When will the Left understand that Harper is a moderate, pragmatic PM. What you see is what you get - a bland, very competent, knowledgeable PM.

competent? Knowledgeable? For the better part of a decade now, Harper has made Senate reform one of his most 'play to the base' instruments. He's continually gone against the analysis of constitutional experts... and he ramped that up to the max with his latest SCC gambit. That's "pragmatic"??? That's "knowledgeable"???

after facing his latest SCC defeat, Harper comes forward to say he'll respect the SCC ruling... well duh! But at the same time he pushed his own finding that "no Canadians" agree with ruling! Really? None, no Canadians! And then we have Harper advising he's dropping it all... he's not going to follow the roadmap the SCC outlined for him. Why, no... Harper is just going to ignore all his claimed Canadians want for Senate "reform"... he's casting all the peeps aside! Oh wait... is that the pragmatic side you're speaking to here?

[Boges]

no - the Liberal party announced change/intent to deal with the most significant acknowledged problems of party influenced partisanship and patronage selection. Improved expense accountability must come from within (the Senate). Is there a mandate you hold separately from what the understood, by definition, mandate of the Senate is? Who/what do you presume the Senate answers to... or should answer to?

Well actually electing them would be a good place to start. I would even accept any appointed senators having to receive approval from the HoC. What I don't want to see is Senators appointed by a committee of people who are accountable to no one.

[The_Squid]

Harper doesn't have the courage of his convictions. This has always been for votes...

[cybercoma]

The senate should rep. the provinces/territories and the people

Not it shouldn't. The people already have representatives in the House of Commons. We don't need competing houses.

[On Guard for Thee]

Too funny. Remember how Harper's "hidden agenda" was supposed to result in a Right Wing Supreme Court? Well, he's appointed 5 of the 8 sitting judges and they have mostly ruled against the government. When will the Left understand that Harper is a moderate, pragmatic PM. What you see is what you get - a bland, very competent, knowledgeable PM.

I think if Harper was competent, he would have made himself knowledgeable with regard to our constitution, and not wasted the SC's time with an issue that was as dead as a dodo from the start.

[Keepitsimple]

I think if Harper was competent, he would have made himself knowledgeable with regard to our constitution, and not wasted the SC's time with an issue that was as dead as a dodo from the start.

Eventually, you'll see how wrong you are. There's a bigger picture in play. Harper knew only too well that he couldn't do much - if anything - without opening the Constitution.....and that's simply a non-starter. But the issue was important to the Conservative base.....so he had to be at least perceived as fighting the good fight. Now he can tell his base that he did as much as he could but it's time to move on. This is actually a great day for Harper - he now has a major distraction off his plate. Canada has more important issues than Senate reform. As I said previously - the guy is a moderate, pragmatic. knowledgeable PM. So for those who think he's been "smacked down", think again.

[cybercoma]

Eventually, you'll see how wrong you are. There's a bigger picture in play. Harper knew only too well that he couldn't do much - if anything - without opening the Constitution.....

So you're saying the Prime Minister intentionally wasted everyone's time and taxpayers' dollars on something he knew was going to fail from the start?

[On Guard for Thee]

Eventually, you'll see how wrong you are. There's a bigger picture in play. Harper knew only too well that he couldn't do much - if anything - without opening the Constitution.....and that's simply a non-starter. But the issue was important to the Conservative base.....so he had to be at least perceived as fighting the good fight. Now he can tell his base that he did as much as he could but it's time to move on. This is actually a great day for Harper - he now has a major distraction off his plate. Canada has more important issues than Senate reform. As I said previously - the guy is a moderate, pragmatic. knowledgeable PM. So for those who think he's been "smacked down", think again.

He got smacked down on senate reform, and smacked down on C23, I don't have to think a lot to see that. But here's the problem, he's throwing his hands in the air, or at least thats what it seems he is doing currently, while it seems a lot of Canadians would like to see some reforms but now because he can't do them the way he wants, he's gonna take his marbles and go home like the spoiled kid on the playground we all knew back then. And as Cybercoma pointed out how much did all this waste of time cost us?

[Keepitsimple]

So you're saying the Prime Minister intentionally wasted everyone's time and taxpayers' dollars on something he knew was going to fail from the start?

It was always a question of Constitutional opinion because there was some question as to what could be constitutionally accomplished. For the huge percentage of the population that would like to see reform.....for the NDP who wants to see the Senate abolished, it was important to at least get to the point that everyone knows what could be done - and what couldn't be done.....so it wasn't a waste. I think everyone can now move on - allow the Senate to reform itself in terms of Accountability - and perhaps shore up the appointment process. But as I said, it's a good outcome for Harper and the Conservatives.

[Icebound]

Well actually electing them would be a good place to start. I would even accept any appointed senators having to receive approval from the HoC. What I don't want to see is Senators appointed by a committee of people who are accountable to no one.

A committee "accountable to no one" ???

What you want is a committee "beholden to no one".

The latter might make some very good appointments

....

[Keepitsimple]

He got smacked down on senate reform, and smacked down on C23, I don't have to think a lot to see that. But here's the problem, he's throwing his hands in the air, or at least thats what it seems he is doing currently, while it seems a lot of Canadians would like to see some reforms but now because he can't do them the way he wants, he's gonna take his marbles and go home like the spoiled kid on the playground we all knew back then. And as Cybercoma pointed out how much did all this waste of time cost us?

Not "thinking a lot" - and whining about everything Conservatives do is why the Liberals are not even the Official Opposition. Your polarized thinking of only seeing good guys or bad guys is not what real politics are about.

[On Guard for Thee]

Harper keeps on trying

Not "thinking a lot" - and whining about everything Conservatives do is why the Liberals are not even the Official Opposition. Your polarized thinking of only seeing good guys or bad guys is not what real politics are about.

If that's the case then just look at how your protege Harper plays politics. It's all good guys and bad guys to him, just look at these pathetic ads he throws on TV about Trudeau. Totally tasteless. Aside from that he keeps on trying to overreach his power, he can't change the constitution, I know that, he doesn't seem to and he's the PM, but he seems to want to keep on wasting time and money trying. Maybe now he'll give it a rest.

[waldo]

Well actually electing them would be a good place to start. I would even accept any appointed senators having to receive approval from the HoC. What I don't want to see is Senators appointed by a committee of people who are accountable to no one.

as I indicated in the post you responded to, the Liberal party has vowed to deal with the concern over Senate patronage appointments by supporting/advocating for an "open, transparent, non-partisan process" to manage candidate selection and appointments of new Senators. How does your HoC approval of a 'party in power appointment' move above and beyond potential patronage?

[Boges]

Takes it away from the PMO at least. You'd have a broad support of the electorate. Even legislating a Senate confirmation hearing as an open vote would take the appointment away from the PMO.

[Topaz]

Not it shouldn't. The people already have representatives in the House of Commons. We don't need competing houses.

Many MP's don't listen to their constituents and follow their leader instead, so that doesn't wash. If you say then, they get voted out, not always true.

[cybercoma]

It was always a question of Constitutional opinion because there was some question as to what could be constitutionally accomplished.

So Harper knew he couldn't do to much to it's all opinion and there's was questions about what could be done.

If I keep responding, will your position keep changing?

There was no question about what could be done. Those who understand the Constitution and our institutions knew very well that it would take a 7/10 50% approval for Senate changes.

Harper and his team don't understand our institutions.

I take that back, maybe the do. They just have absolutely no respect for them, as was shown when they were found in contempt of Parliament.

[cybercoma]

Many MP's don't listen to their constituents and follow their leader instead, so that doesn't wash. If you say then, they get voted out, not always true.

What would make the Senate any different? You'd still have candidates campaigning, beholden to the party brass for the rights to fly their banner. An elected Senate is a bad idea.

I would like to see the provinces appoint their own senators, but there's some question about how that would be possible.

[cybercoma]

I should note that provincial senate appointments would also eliminate (or at least significantly limit) the ridiculousness of residency issues. I can't see a province appointing someone not from the province.

[jbg]

It probably won't be the end of talking about it.

The real take away from this is just how impregnable the edifice of our governing system is from the outside. But that said it's always been the vulnerabilities of the system to venality and corruption from within that's caused the discontent and disaffection that runs deep in so many Canadians. This ruling won't do anything to change that either.

So, just keep driving it till it breaks then. Nothing lasts forever.

Does it surprise anyone that the Government would have to adhere to the amending formula to abolish a major part of the government? I don't know how anyone can believe otherwise, unless done by a highly unlikely direct royal decree.

Might as well seek to upend the Magna Cara or the British Bill of Rights from the Glorious Revolution.

[Moonlight Graham]

Exactly. This was not rocket science. The Government employs many constitutional lawyers and the CPC has a few constitutional experts.

Senate Reform is a big deal to the CPC base who think the government has the power to change whatever it wants at the stroke of a parliamentary pen.

Harper was not blind to this belief of the base, and rather than expose himself to their ignorance by explaining why it cannot be done, he made the reference to the SCC to explain why it can't be done. Now he can roll his eyes and shrug and the ignorant will believe Harper gave tried but those non-democratic liberal judges shut him down.

Well that's one theory. I hope it's true and the Harper gov really isn't arrogant enough to think they could make massive senate reform on their own. I guess they can save face this way and say "we tried".

[eyeball]

Might as well seek to upend the Magna Cara or the British Bill of Rights from the Glorious Revolution.

What were the point those again?

[jbg]

What were the point those again?

Too fundamental a change to not require years of deliberation and consensus building.

[eyeball]

So change could be measured in eras as opposed to eons?

Edited April 28, 2014 by eyeball

[Big Guy]

Not it shouldn't. The people already have representatives in the House of Commons. We don't need competing houses.

I respectfully disagree. I believe that having competing houses is a good idea and yet another check and balance. I also believe that the intent of those who drafted our constitution wanted a form of democracy where there was representation by population but also a guarantee of regional representation. The US model of 2 reps from every state satisfies that criteria but because of the large number of states, the situation is far less volatile then would be in Canada.

Just to review the constitutional restrictions on the make up of our Senate;

The Senate is to consist of 105 members appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister. “Seats are assigned on a regional basis, with each of the four major regions receiving 24 seats, and the remainder of the available seats being assigned to smaller regions. The four major regions are Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces. The seats for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut are assigned apart from these regional divisions.”

Under the recent SC decision, the regions could form their impartial committees and submit names to the PM. The PM would then appoint his picks. He has that constitutional responsibility and right. If he chose not to make those submitted choices than he would be judged at the next election.

That could be achieved to-morrow under the existing constitution and latest SC decision.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Big Guy