Triple M Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 Their position on the senate has been clear over the years but I am interested in how the senate would operate under a NDP government. I am guessing there would be no leader of the NDP in the senate but how would the NDP get their agenda through a conservative majority senate??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 The Senate would rubber stamp legislation like it has always done, or there would be a Constitutional crisis created by appointed hacks in Senate of the previous party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) So will the NDP appoint senators? They have maintained that they hate the Senate. Has that changed now that they're poised to win the election? Edited September 2, 2015 by Canada_First Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 The Senate would rubber stamp legislation like it has always done, or there would be a Constitutional crisis created by appointed hacks in Senate of the previous party.Do you really think it would continue to operate that way with the partisan hacks that Harper put in there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 So will the NDP appoint senators? They have maintained that they hate the Senate. Has that changed now that they're poised to win the election? I think at some point some government is going to have to. The Constitution requires the GG to appoint Senators to fill vacancies, and at some point the GG will have to force the issue; either by appointing Senators on his own authority, which will almost certainly require the government of the day to resign, or by dismissing a government that refuses to allow him to carry out his constitutional duties, and appoint a government that will give him people to appoint. The NDP and Tories are both "lazy revolutionaries"; big on talk, but with no real intent of doing anything than using the Senate as a populist issue to get votes. They all know they will never be able to abolish it, and even more rational reforms will require a level of consensus I doubt either Harper or Mulcair are prepared to generate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 Do you really think it would continue to operate that way with the partisan hacks that Harper put in there? Yes, because Harper isn't the first person to put partisan hacks in there. The Senate has only outright tossed legislation a handful of times in the history of Confederation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Civis Romanus sum Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 The Senate would rubber stamp legislation like it has always done, or there would be a Constitutional crisis created by appointed hacks in Senate of the previous party. Historically, when a party has been in power long enough for the Senate to be mostly filled with its supporters, the incoming party has had difficulties. I expect this to be even worse given there would be, for the first time, zero supporters of the new party in the senate. I would not expect them to simply 'rubber stamp' legislation. Why should they? They sometimes don't do that now. Even with their own supporters in there the Conservatives have had to deal with senate opposition at times. There is no constitutional crisis. The Senate has a legal role under the constitution, whether the new party likes it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 Historically, when a party has been in power long enough for the Senate to be mostly filled with its supporters, the incoming party has had difficulties. I expect this to be even worse given there would be, for the first time, zero supporters of the new party in the senate. I would not expect them to simply 'rubber stamp' legislation. Why should they? They sometimes don't do that now. Even with their own supporters in there the Conservatives have had to deal with senate opposition at times. There is no constitutional crisis. The Senate has a legal role under the constitution, whether the new party likes it or not. The Senate does alter legislation on occasion (heck, it did it earlier this year even though there's a Tory majority in the Red Chamber). But outright flaunting of the House of Commons is considerably rarer. I doubt very much with the recent scandals that the Senate will feel it has anything like the political capital needed to stand up to the House of Commons. That would give the likes of Mulcair all the ammunition they needed to try to seek abolition. No, for the next few years I think the Senate will be a very tame and obedient puppy, regardless of who is living in 24 Sussex Drive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) Here's what I suspect will happen if Mulcair becomes Prime Minister. He'll, just like Harper, put off appointing Senators until he absolutely has to. At that time, instead of triggering a constitutional crisis, he'll appoint a large number of people (for all the empty seats) to the Senate who will not sit as NDP Senators, but rather independents. He'll brush off questions about it by saying he has a constitutional responsibility to make recommendations to the Governor General and that it's far more important that the NDP continues to govern, than force a constitutional crisis and another election. The Senators for all intents and purposes will be NDP, but will not represent the party. Edited September 2, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 Here's what I suspect will happen if Mulcair becomes Prime Minister. He'll, just like Harper, put off appointing Senators until he absolutely has to. At that time, instead of triggering a constitutional crisis, he'll appoint a large number of people (for all the empty seats) to the Senate who will not sit as NDP Senators, but rather independents. He'll brush off questions about it by saying he has a constitutional responsibility to make recommendations to the Governor General and that it's far more important that the NDP continues to govern, than force a constitutional crisis and another election. The Senators for all intents and purposes will be NDP, but will not represent the party. While I agree in practice, I don't think the constitutional crisis would come in the next term, but likely in the ones after it, as the number of retiring Senators is set to rise. Someone did an analysis in a few months ago about when the Senate will really empty and as I recall it would be around 2020 or thereabouts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Civis Romanus sum Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 The Senators for all intents and purposes will be NDP, but will not represent the party. You don't think that's more than slightly dishonest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 You don't think that's more than slightly dishonest? How is it dishonest? They will be NDP-aligned Senators that wouldn't sit in caucus and thus wouldn't be whipped. It's essentially Trudeau's idea for at least some sort of nominal reform of the Senate. At the moment the Tory Senators are part of the Tory caucus, which means they are bound by the same rules of solidarity that MPs are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 You don't think that's more than slightly dishonest? It depends... Did he follow through on his promises? Was there a referendum? Were there consultations with Provinces about changing the Constitution to abolish the Senate? The Constitution does say that the GG must appoint Senators. There is a current court case about this. If the SCC says that a sitting gov't must appoint Senators, then that's what he will have to abide by. Or was he more like Harper where he did not lift a single finger to try and fix the Senate like he said he would and simply uses it as a partisan hack dumping ground? If Mulcair does what Harper did, then it is dishonest. If Mulcair attempts to follow through on his commitment, then it won't be dishonest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 How is it dishonest? They will be NDP-aligned Senators that wouldn't sit in caucus and thus wouldn't be whipped. It's essentially Trudeau's idea for at least some sort of nominal reform of the Senate. At the moment the Tory Senators are part of the Tory caucus, which means they are bound by the same rules of solidarity that MPs are. It's much worse than that... As has been revealed in the Duffy case, the Senators are controlled by the PMO and do its bidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Civis Romanus sum Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) How is it dishonest? They will be NDP-aligned Senators that wouldn't sit in caucus and thus wouldn't be whipped. It's essentially Trudeau's idea for at least some sort of nominal reform of the Senate. And Trudeau's saying Liberal senators are not Liberals is also dishonest. They will do as they are told and act in concert with the party and for the party's benefit. Of course the votes will e whipped! It would be naive to think otherwise. Why do you suppose he would appoint senators who wouldn't vote for his legislation? Edited September 2, 2015 by Civis Romanus sum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 And Trudeau's saying Liberal senators are not Liberals is also dishonest. They will do as they are told and act in concert with the party and for the party's benefit. Of course the votes will e whipped! It would be naive to think otherwise. Why do you suppose he would appoint senators who wouldn't vote for his legislation? They are not part of the Liberal caucus. It was a good first step. I don't see any evidence to the contrary... can you provide some? Whether it lasts, only time will tell... but so far, so good when it comes to Liberal Senators not being beholden to the party leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 If Mulcair does what Harper did, then it is dishonest. If Mulcair attempts to follow through on his commitment, then it won't be dishonest. It's all what ifs at this point. I'm merely speculating based on the fact that the Governor General is required to appoint Senators and since this is a constitutional monarchy, the GG is required to act on the advice of the prime minister. If the PM refuses to give advice on this matter, then it remains to be seen what will happen. There's also the option of the GG acting unilaterally. I'm not sure if it's allowed, but Mulcair could potentially tell the Governor General to appoint whomever he/she wishes. It's really not clear what would happen if Mulcair were PM. I'm sure he has something in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Civis Romanus sum Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 They are not part of the Liberal caucus. It was a good first step. I don't see any evidence to the contrary... can you provide some? They say they are Liberals. They vote in concert with the wishes of the party. There is no earthly reason for Muclair to appoint people to the senate who will not be NDP supporters and will not vote in favour of his legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) They say they are Liberals. They vote in concert with the wishes of the party. Except for bill C-51 where many of them voted against the House caucus. Edited September 2, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 They say they are Liberals. They vote in concert with the wishes of the party. There is no earthly reason for Muclair to appoint people to the senate who will not be NDP supporters and will not vote in favour of his legislation. You are definitely missing the point of Trudeau's Senate pronouncements. I'm not going to argue the minutia, because it isn't that important to the discussion. However, I do agree with your point.. Yes, the Senate is full of people with Party alliances... That won't change unless Senators are selected in a different way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 And Trudeau's saying Liberal senators are not Liberals is also dishonest. They will do as they are told and act in concert with the party and for the party's benefit. Of course the votes will e whipped! It would be naive to think otherwise. Why do you suppose he would appoint senators who wouldn't vote for his legislation? How would you whip votes when the Parliamentarians involved are not in your caucus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 It's all what ifs at this point. I'm merely speculating based on the fact that the Governor General is required to appoint Senators and since this is a constitutional monarchy, the GG is required to act on the advice of the prime minister. If the PM refuses to give advice on this matter, then it remains to be seen what will happen. There's also the option of the GG acting unilaterally. I'm not sure if it's allowed, but Mulcair could potentially tell the Governor General to appoint whomever he/she wishes. It's really not clear what would happen if Mulcair were PM. I'm sure he has something in mind. What we know is that the Constitution requires the Governor General to fill vacancies, and that this power and responsibility is essentially a Royal Prerogative. Under our constitutional system of government, a Prerogative (as opposed to a Reserve Power) can only be used on the advice of the Government. This is why refusing to appoint Senators would inevitably lead to a constitutional crisis, as the GG isn't supposed to invoke any Royal Prerogative or similar constitutional instrument without the advice of the Government. My personal feeling is that the GG would not unilaterally appoint Senators, as this would be a violation of how the powers of the office are supposed to be invoked. Rather, my feeling is the GG would obey the framework of the constitution and would inform the Prime Minister that he or she must within some time frame provide a list of names to fill the Senate vacancies, and if this is not done, the Governor General will dismiss the Government, and appoint a caretaker who will fulfill the obligation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 I don't think the GG would appoint a caretaker. He/she may dissolve parliament and call another election (if it's sufficiently far enough from the previous election). But then if the NDP is returned to power, it would be interesting to see what happens there should they continue to avoid appointments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 I don't think the GG would appoint a caretaker. He/she may dissolve parliament and call another election (if it's sufficiently far enough from the previous election). But then if the NDP is returned to power, it would be interesting to see what happens there should they continue to avoid appointments. The GG would appoint a caretaker because he couldn't guarantee that an election wouldn't end up with the same reticent government. The caretaker government would likely have a fairly short life anyways (as happened in the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis). But frankly, I think the threat enough would be sufficient to force a Prime Minister to fill vacancies. I cannot imagine any PM putting his government at risk over Senate vacancies, nor can I imagine his cabinet allowing him to drive straight into a major constitutional crisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 It's all what ifs at this point. I'm merely speculating based on the fact that the Governor General is required to appoint Senators and since this is a constitutional monarchy, the GG is required to act on the advice of the prime minister. If the PM refuses to give advice on this matter, then it remains to be seen what will happen. There's also the option of the GG acting unilaterally. I'm not sure if it's allowed, but Mulcair could potentially tell the Governor General to appoint whomever he/she wishes. It's really not clear what would happen if Mulcair were PM. I'm sure he has something in mind. Agreed. My only point was that Mulcair hasn't been dishonest about anything yet, as he is not the PM and hasn't had a chance to implement anything obviously. Some people on the forum seem to want to claim he's dishonest before he has even been elected! It is going to take years to sort out the Senate, at best. And he may not even be able to do anything at all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.