Is Harper in trouble...

[geoffrey]

It has nothing to do with having a lead in the poll...it has to do with the senate vacancies. Not that I think it's a good idea...unless of course they want to form a coalition with the NDP or Bloc.

A Liberal-NDP coalition is the only reasonable outcome, and that would certainly require a new election in my opinion... the Liberals are supposed to be a free-market democratic party... the NDP is socialist. That's a big change (unless the Liberals have really scared all the moderates off).

We'd see another election before the GG giving power to the Liberals. It would be a constitutional crisis like we've never seen.

[jazzer]

Now that they're behind, we'll hear the cons say, "we don't believe in polls."

And suddenly the libs do.

Nice deflection, something you cons are so good at.

[scribblet]

Well, a change of government without an election, eh? That may suit Canadians very well. It would also sacve Harper face from losing an election, and all the Conservatives could rally behind him about the injustice of it all.

Change Government without an election because the Liberals have a three point lead in one poll?

Well, I guess they are Canada's Natural Governing Party.

Please tell me that most of the Liberal supporters out there would be totally disgusted at mere suggestion this might take place. Anybody?

It certainly would not suit Canadians well, and I do think most would be disgusted at such a move by an unelected GG. I think it would add to the perception that we don't need an appointed GG telling us who the gov't will be with no election. Not a good move for her to do that.

[normanchateau]

Well, a change of government without an election, eh? That may suit Canadians very well.

You're joking, right?

[g_bambino]

Well, a change of government without an election, eh? That may suit Canadians very well. It would also sacve Harper face from losing an election, and all the Conservatives could rally behind him about the injustice of it all.

It certainly would not suit Canadians well, and I do think most would be disgusted at such a move by an unelected GG. I think it would add to the perception that we don't need an appointed GG telling us who the gov't will be with no election. Not a good move for her to do that.

Electing the Governor General has nothing to do with it - that would only worsen the situation. Jean has the constitutional mandate to dismiss a government and form a government at her will - in fact, as representative of the Monarch - she is the government. Anyway, if it ever came to Jean having to dismiss Harper over his mishandling of the Senate, she would have one course of action: appoint Dion - as leader of the next largest number of seats in the House - as PM on the grounds that he would immediately advise her to call an election. Jean must always ensure the stability of government, and expecting someone without majority support in the House to be prime minister would not achieve that end.

[dpwozney]

... Michaëlle Jean, ... Governor General ... of Canada.

The Governor General of Canada is a “corporation sole”, according to Elizabeth II in this document. A “corporation sole” is defined and recognized as being a corporation.

It is a fiction that a corporation is a person.

“A corporation is a fiction, by definition, ...”, according to Patrick Healy in a statement found here.

“A corporation is a ‘fiction’ as it has no separate existence, no physical body and no ‘mind’”, according to this presentation by Joanne Klineberg.

Do Canadians want businesses, companies, their government, and their Queen to operate in the realm of reality, or in the realm of fiction?

[Michael Bluth]

There would be zero precedent for Michaëlle Jean to invite Dion to form Government.

In the King-Byng affair at least Meighen controlled the largest number of seats in the House of Commons at the time.

He normally would have been invited to form Government right after the election, but King legitimately tried to govern with the support of the Progressives.

I would actually love to see Dion try.

That would definitely hand the Conservatives a majority.

[scribblet]

Electing the Governor General has nothing to do with it - that would only worsen the situation. Jean has the constitutional mandate to dismiss a government and form a government at her will - in fact, as representative of the Monarch - she is the government. Anyway, if it ever came to Jean having to dismiss Harper over his mishandling of the Senate, she would have one course of action: appoint Dion - as leader of the next largest number of seats in the House - as PM on the grounds that he would immediately advise her to call an election. Jean must always ensure the stability of government, and expecting someone without majority support in the House to be prime minister would not achieve that end.

Except that there has been no 'mishandling' of the senate, that's your interpretation only. The public would never stand for the GG disolving the current gov't and handing it to the Liberals for no reason other than the Liberals would like it. If the opposition doesn't like what's happening they can bring down the gov't with a non cofidence vote.

[g_bambino]

There would be zero precedent for Michaëlle Jean to invite Dion to form Government.

In the King-Byng affair at least Meighen controlled the largest number of seats in the House of Commons at the time.

He normally would have been invited to form Government right after the election, but King legitimately tried to govern with the support of the Progressives.

I would actually love to see Dion try.

That would definitely hand the Conservatives a majority.

Australia, 1975. Governor General John Kerr dismisses Gough Whitlam and appoints Leader of HM's Loyal Opposition, Malcolm Fraser as a "caretaker" PM - all over a Senate/PM stalemate, no less. If things were to progress to the same point here, it seems Jean's only course would be the same one Kerr took 30 years ago; Dion would get his government, but Jean would require him to go to the polls to seek the approval (or disapproval) of the electorate.

[Michael Bluth]

Except that there has been no 'mishandling' of the senate, that's your interpretation only. The public would never stand for the GG disolving the current gov't and handing it to the Liberals for no reason other than the Liberals would like it. If the opposition doesn't like what's happening they can bring down the gov't with a non cofidence vote.

Of course the public would never stand for it.

For some reason bambino is part of the .000001% of the population who strictly construes the constitutional powers of the Senate over the whole concept of "democracy".

Is Grandpa a Senator?

[g_bambino]

Electing the Governor General has nothing to do with it - that would only worsen the situation. Jean has the constitutional mandate to dismiss a government and form a government at her will - in fact, as representative of the Monarch - she is the government. Anyway, if it ever came to Jean having to dismiss Harper over his mishandling of the Senate, she would have one course of action: appoint Dion - as leader of the next largest number of seats in the House - as PM on the grounds that he would immediately advise her to call an election. Jean must always ensure the stability of government, and expecting someone without majority support in the House to be prime minister would not achieve that end.

Except that there has been no 'mishandling' of the senate, that's your interpretation only. The public would never stand for the GG disolving the current gov't and handing it to the Liberals for no reason other than the Liberals would like it. If the opposition doesn't like what's happening they can bring down the gov't with a non cofidence vote.

Actually, it's not my interpretation, it's that of Senators. Of course it falls on the House to give or take support from the government, but, part of the original question here was: how long can these Senate seats be allowed to remain empty, causing underrepresentation of a certain area of the country, at a time when important Senate reform is being discussed?

I don't think it's a matter of the Liberals pushing for Jean to dismiss Harper because they'd "like it" - in fact the only two who've seriously proposed such an action were two Senators, one Liberal, one Conservative - but more a matter of proper parliamentary process. It's Harper's duty by convention to be advising Jean to fill those seats, and he hasn't because he promised he wouldn't have anyone not "approved" by the populace appointed to the Upper House. But with no real way to yet do such a thing, he's stuck, and the seats remain empty, with more vacancies to come. Quite the quagmire. At some point someone's going to have to make a move; hopefully it'll never come to Jean dismissing Harper and calling an election, but it might.

[g_bambino]

Except that there has been no 'mishandling' of the senate, that's your interpretation only. The public would never stand for the GG disolving the current gov't and handing it to the Liberals for no reason other than the Liberals would like it. If the opposition doesn't like what's happening they can bring down the gov't with a non cofidence vote.

Of course the public would never stand for it.

For some reason bambino is part of the .000001% of the population who strictly construes the constitutional powers of the Senate over the whole concept of "democracy".

Is Grandpa a Senator?

That's an interesting take on my stance. Ignorant, but interesting.

[Catchme]

It now seems some Senators are grumbling about Harper's not making any recommendations to the Governor General to fill the current 13 vacancies in the Senate; in particular, 5 of the Atlantic region's 24 spots are empty, 3 out of 10 for Nova Scotia alone. Amazingly, the two Senators about to call on Michaelle Jean to unilaterally make appointments each come from different parties - one Liberal, one Conservative.

Senator Moore presented a motion:

That an humble Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General praying that she will fill the vacancies in the Senate by summons to fit and qualified persons.

Senator Cools went further:

That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada:

To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:

We, Her Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects, the Senate of Canada in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Her Excellency our just anxiety for the constitutional condition of our country, which condition is needing Her Excellency's intervention to provide Her Majesty's Canadian subjects with proper and full representation in the Senate of Canada, and thereby to avert the constitutional crisis arising from the Prime Minister's refusal to perform his sworn constitutional duty of advising Her Excellency in the exercise of Her lawful constitutional duties, in particular, Her Excellency's vice-regal duty in regard to Her Majesty Queen Victoria's command which Her Majesty enacted as the British North America Act, 1867, Section 32., in the most carefully chosen words, "When a Vacancy happens in the Senate by Resignation, Death, or otherwise, the Governor General shall by Summons to a fit and qualified Person fill the Vacancy.'', which words "shall ... fill'' are clear and unambiguous in their constitutional construction, meaning, and interpretation, and are not open to any doubt whatsoever;

That it appears to your faithful subjects and senators that the Prime Minister has claimed a power unknown to our Constitution and to our law, being the false power of refusal to advise the Governor General, and, that the Prime Minister's public refusal to advise the Governor General on qualified persons for appointment to the Senate is a power which is not only false, but which is also wholly repugnant to the Constitution, because the exercise of such a power by a prime minister has the effect of making the Governor General into a felon and outlaw of the Constitution, and that this would be a most terrible infamy, not countenanced by the Constitution, of which Her Majesty is the source of all power and authority, and that such infamy would be a most terrible constitutional crisis;

That it appears to your faithful subjects and senators that prime ministers have no constitutional power whatsoever to compel or to cause the Governor General of Canada to transgress the law, and that confronted with such compulsion and provocation from any prime minister, the Governor General's proper constitutional duty is to refuse to acquiesce to that prime minister, and to decline to transgress the law, therein to uphold the Constitution, the law, and the rights of Canadians to responsible government and a lawfully abiding prime minister;

We therefore humbly pray Your Excellency, that, in conformity with the law and the B.N.A. Act, 1867, Section 32., Your Excellency, the Head of Parliament, the high representative of the people of Canada and the actuating power in the Constitution, will be pleased to exercise her lawful and constitutional duties, and will be pleased to summon qualified persons to the Senate of Canada to fill the many and growing vacancies, thereby to provide Her Majesty's Canadian subjects with proper representation in the Senate and thereby also to provide for the proper operation of the Parliament of Canada, for peace order and good government, and for the amelioration of the constitutional condition of the country.

The references to the Constitution Act are, of course, correct; it is the Govenrnor General's duty to fill Senate seats... how long can she wait for Harper to advise her?

Where is the link for this, you cannot site thing without referencing and providing a link if source was on line?

[Michael Bluth]

That's an interesting take on my stance. Ignorant, but interesting.

There are rules about insults.

But I take it you agree that you are part of the tiny majority of Canadians who favour keeping the Senate the way it is.

[g_bambino]

That's an interesting take on my stance. Ignorant, but interesting.

There are rules about insults.

But I take it you agree that you are part of the tiny majority of Canadians who favour keeping the Senate the way it is.

Ignorant means lacking knowledge or comprehension. That isn't necessarily an insult, but may well be a fact.

You may take things as you want, but I believe I've made my position (or lack of one) on Senate reform clear.

[Guest chilipeppers]

That's an interesting take on my stance. Ignorant, but interesting.

There are rules about insults.

But I take it you agree that you are part of the tiny majority of Canadians who favour keeping the Senate the way it is.

Looking at some threads in another forum one would never know it.

I don't see why Harper just doesn't say okay, I'm going for it and fill the spots, better dead conservative wood than deader liberal wood.

[Mad_Michael]

It now seems some Senators are grumbling about Harper's not making any recommendations to the Governor General to fill the current 13 vacancies in the Senate...

Harper may not be the brightest bulb, but he's not a fool.

The Senate is a nasty hot potato that is electorally ugly for Harper. Ignoring it is the least damaging policy. The issue is probably only of interest in the Maritimes and Alberta/BC. And Harper's own party has a strong interest in electing Senators, not appointing them. If Harper 'appoints' Senators, that will piss off his own party supporters.

Yet in Ontario/Quebec, even mentioning the Senate will put people to sleep. If you mention the Senate there, they just want to put the thing of out of its own misery and get rid of it.

So, Harper has nothing to gain by appointing any new Senators and is likely to take serious flack if he does so. Ergo, he's taking the safe route and doing nothing.

Senator Cools

Them's fighting words!

To anyone from Ontario/Quebec, the appointment of that particular person to the Senate is categorical proof that chamber serves no good purpose and never will.

Indeed, praise for anything she says or does makes you suspect in my book. Do you know who she really is?

[g_bambino]

The Senate is a nasty hot potato that is electorally ugly for Harper. Ignoring it is the least damaging policy.

As the number of vacancies increases it's only going to get worse. How long can he avoid it?

Senator Cools

...praise for anything she says or does makes you suspect in my book. Do you know who she really is?

Who ever said I praised her in any form at all?

[normanchateau]

If Harper 'appoints' Senators, that will piss off his own party supporters.

It might even piss off a Conservative MP who "criticized Harper's decision to appoint Michael Fortier - who did not run for a seat in parliament - to the Senate and his cabinet":

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...c6-a20034397584

But then again, Harper knows how to deal with Conservative MPs who criticize him.

[Michael Bluth]

Ignorant means lacking knowledge or comprehension. That isn't necessarily an insult, but may well be a fact.

You may take things as you want, but I believe I've made my position (or lack of one) on Senate reform clear.

Ignorant is commonly considered an insult.

I have my made my point clear to.

To accuse me of lacking knowledge and/or comprehension on the issue is condescending and inaccurate.

[jdobbin]

As the number of vacancies increases it's only going to get worse. How long can he avoid it?

There will be just more Senators for Dion to appoint once Harper is defeated. He isn't getting a Senate reform bill through the House before the next election.

[ScottSA]

As the number of vacancies increases it's only going to get worse. How long can he avoid it?

There will be just more Senators for Dion to appoint once Harper is defeated. He isn't getting a Senate reform bill through the House before the next election.

Harper would have to be caught eating dead babies to be beaten by Dion.

[Michael Bluth]

Harper would have to be caught eating dead babies to be beaten by Dion.

You know he'll be accused of it.

[g_bambino]

Ignorant means lacking knowledge or comprehension. That isn't necessarily an insult, but may well be a fact.

You may take things as you want, but I believe I've made my position (or lack of one) on Senate reform clear.

To accuse me of lacking knowledge and/or comprehension on the issue is condescending and inaccurate.

When you say I am "part of the .000001% of the population who strictly construes the constitutional powers of the Senate over the whole concept of 'democracy,'" you demonstrate either a lack of understanding of, or a lack of knowledge about my comments on the Senate's role and abilities, and it is neither inaccurate nor insulting of me to point it out.

[Michael Bluth]

When you say I am "part of the .000001% of the population who strictly construes the constitutional powers of the Senate over the whole concept of 'democracy,'" you demonstrate either a lack of understanding of, or a lack of knowledge about my comments on the Senate's role and abilities, and it is neither inaccurate nor insulting of me to point it out.

The Senate has almost equivalent powers to the House of Commons. (The lone exception being the origination of money bills.)

The vast majority of Canadians either don't know what the true powers of the Senate are or think the Senate lacks the legitimacy to fully exercise the powers it has.

Am I reading you correctly in believing that you are aware of the powers of the senate and do not think they lack legitimacy?

If I'm not, I apologize.

If I am correct, please quit with the insults.