Or, imagine that in May of 2005 Paul Martin ignores a non-confidence vote against his government. Then survives a later vote by inducing Stronach to cross the floor. All this allows Paul Martin to persist as PM until the autumn.

Imagine then, that while Parliament was not sitting during that summer, he makes 8 appointments to the Senate.

Except that you don’t have to imagine it. That’s what happened.

I believe it is worth noting that those rare non-partisan appointments typically occur when the sitting PM’s party already has a majority in the Senate.

That is definitely not the case now with the Conservatives only holding 20 seats in the Senate compared to 58 for the Liberals.

Imagine December 2005; just before Jack Layton pulls the plug, Mr. Martin seeks and obtains a prorogation of Parliament, just to allow him time to pull together an Accountability Act which the oppostion may approve. Pending the return of Parliament, he then proceeds to fill all Senate vacancies and provincial superiour court openings. The politics may be different, but I defy anyone to suggest the constitutionality (again in a conventional sense), of such acts would have been in any way different from the analogues of December 2008.

We now have a sitution where a Prime Minister has obtained prorogation on the eve of a non-confidence vote which would very likely have gone against him, and now intends to fill a number of high offices, Senate seats for starters. And if that is not violative of constitutional convention, why not fill the Supreme Court vacancy before January 27, and any number of provincial superior court openings? As the Supreme Court seat is sole gift of the PM, via the GG, would the appointment of a seriously conservative lawyer or justice, a strict constructionist, so to speak, be objected to on constitutional grounds, or on policy only?

Most of the comments of those above concern the politics of the potential appointees, few are concerned with the constitutional legitimacy of the process. But I ask, at what point can we say that the process has been pushed too far, that Her Excellency must say no, or is there no such point? And if there is no such point, then all that we have been taught about the efficacy of the reserve powers of the Crown is so much nonsense, and a PM willing to push the boundaries truly has no check.

Funny, that’s how my history books say they reformed the House of Lords in 1910. And how Roosevelt got the New Deal past the USSC, by the way.

Part of the conditions on the Line of credit is that they have to make cars (no mandate on electric/ hybrid etc) that meet emmision and fuel economy standards.

Failing that, offer the same deal to Toyota/Honda.

I believe that a new organization is preferrable to restructuring the people/organization who got GM to the edge of the cliff in the first place.

I would like the West to have enough representation in the Senate that it could block such mean-spirited cash grabbing policies that are so blatantly obvious.

While the other minority positions (aboriginal, gays) are protected by the Liberal appointed SCC the minority red-necks in the West are on their own. I do not see the SCC knocking down the Green shift or in the past the NEP as an attack on the minority (hate crime?) by the majority.

Reconfirming the power of Upper Canada with a Rep by Pop senate (elected or otherwise) does not provide the checks and balances required.

Okay, you can argue the purpose for which he’s seeking to appoint senators makes a mockery of the whole thing, but no more so than campaigning to run a government for the purpose of tearing the government down.

I like the Senate. I like that it’s appointed by the governing party, and even that those appointments tend to be partisan. As pointed out, those partisan principles tend to die down when they realize they don’t have to be in perpetual campaign mode and understand that there’s bigger goals for the country. But I think the senate is a good way to represent the character of Canadians over time, protecting us from any fad political swings of the day, and at the same time adapting so that real, long-term change in the Canadian character is properly reflected.

1. Abolish it (it’s one of the few things I agree with McGuinty on)

or

1. Recast 100 seats in proportion to the provincial populations, with 1 minimum seat per territory/PEI and no minimum seats for QC.
2. In provinces with less than 10 seats, elect by STV as at-large members
3. In provinces with more than 10 seats, divide the electoral areas into equal numbers (allowing for odd numbered totals obviously) and do a similar at-large STV election.
4. Elect to fixed terms of six years
5. Provide the Senators with powers equivalent to the UK Parliament Acts, with the Commons retaining ultimate supremacy.

I’m not saying the SCC won’t strike it down, but I’d hardly say it’s a forgone conclusion.

I wasn’t kidding. The SCC will never rule a law constitutional when it explicitly contradicts the Constitution–this isn’t exactly same-sex marriage or child pornography as artistic expression. All Senate reform must be enacted through amendments to the Constitution, or they can be done away with in a heartbeat by a hostile Parliament.

You really have to realise that any redistribution of Senate seats would be just about completely impossible to pass as a constitutional amendment referendum. It would have to come at so high a cost that I doubt it would be worth it. If anything, going down that road will lead to Meech III, and could very well destroy the country. All in the name of having 100 more clowns like Poillievre in Parliament Hill?

Eliminating the Liberal senate appointments in case the budget is defeated is showing that Harper is getting ready to stand up to the coaltion forces. He is getting prepared to lose the budget vote in January. Stimulating the economy by a 1-2% GST cut will be wildly supported by the electorate and drive the Liberals crazy. The Liberals will be put in a position to have to defeat the government for giving $5-6 Billion stimulus to the taxpayers rather than the $6B to the big 3 auto and Quebec forestery.

The coaltion will mess up Libs and NDP for a generation and after GG gave permission to poroque there is no reason to think that she wouldn’t let call an election if the budget is defeated. Good Luck running on raising GST or not cutting it.

The coaltion will mess up Libs and NDP for a generation and after GG gave permission to poroque there is no reason to think that she wouldn’t let call an election if the budget is defeated. Good Luck running on raising GST or not cutting it.

“And you expect a subsequent Constitutional negotiation to be agreed to by Quebec and Ontario? In exchange for what?”

We’re talking down the road here. First, provinces like Alberta and BC would elect Senators. They would have a legitimacy that Ontario and Quebec Senators wouldn’t. That might lead to Senatorial elections in Ontario and Quebec. Once the body has power, you can bet that the public would demand it be representative. A referendum on the matter somewhere along the way might help, too.

Do I think it’s possible that Harper truly doesn’t believe in an elected Senate? Yes. Do I still think gradual reform is probably the way to go? Yes.

I’m also pretty sure that this Senate reform will leave almost everyone unhappy, as it would legitimize a Senate with vast regional imbalances. And you expect a subsequent Constitutional negotiation to be agreed to by Quebec and Ontario? In exchange for what? Do you actually expect such a constitutional amendment to pass?

It’s all pure fantasy, designed to keep your eye off the ball.

You have recently cut Harper slack on avoiding a confidence vote, breaking his own fixed-election law, a grotesquely partisan financial update and his inability to spit out a straight story on the existance of and response to the recession and now this. I know, as per your usual response that you have criticised Harper without condition in the past but it has been a bit. Given the seriousness of the list he gets away with where is or what is the nature of the transgression that would garner outright criticism?

Also the libs can’t criticize Harper for once again abandoning principal in favour of solely partisan decision making because they disagree with him? Please.

On an somewhatn related matter why is a hyper-partisan Conservative now blogging along journalists on Maclean’s?

With Harper’s gradual approach, — which, by the way, can only be achieved if he has a majority in the Senate — he at least takes the first step.

And I have been of the belief that putting elected members in the Senate will eventually force the provinces to negotiate things like regional distribution. Nothing else will. And I think Liberals know that.

As for constitutionality, I’d just love to watch the Supreme Court kill a process of democratic reform after it’s already been implemented. That’s why you do reform first, then ask Supreme Court justices later.

Oh, and I’m also of the belief that an elected Senate serves as a check on majority governments. The other alternative in democratic reform, which is proportional representation, is a recipe for permanent minority government and less stability.

You are forced to pay the people who live off your taxes even when they do nothing for your benefit. That is the definition of a parasite. The key factor which makes it thus is that governments enjoy a coercive monopoly. Plumbers do not, nor do the people serving you coffee at Timmy’s. Teachers, doctors and lawyers are somewhat monopolistic, but the extent to which you are forced to deal with them, as a class, is entirely due to the power over you which government has granted them.

In theory you could vote in a better class of parasite, but in practice there will always be better organized and more desperate people who will with relative ease succeed in electing parasites which are a good deal more bloodthirsty and unscrupulous than what you would prefer. That is why democracy is the most dangerous and unstable form of government.

And here I thought we only had the one Bowell for Prime Minister. But we have two — and they’re both Conservatives!

“This country can’t afford a second set of “relevant” and “accountable” parasites. With relevance and accountability come the will and the means to siphon off even greater amounts of money from earners’ and savers’ pockets and shove it into the pockets of non-earners and non-savers.”

Now you have me wondering about the value of all those earners you’re defending against the parasites. Doctors and plumbers are good. Lawyers are… well… lawyers. How many of the rest are parasites too? Like my financial adviser for example? Or the b*stard who sold me my last car, or the people that ran the company that made the piece of junk?

Yeah, you’re right, 99% parasites.

Sincerely,

Stu Pididiot

They didn’t say it was the right thing to do.

They weren’t asked that.

Nobody was asked that.

This country can’t afford a second set of “relevant” and “accountable” parasites. With relevance and accountability come the will and the means to siphon off even greater amounts of money from earners’ and savers’ pockets and shove it into the pockets of non-earners and non-savers.

If PMSH succeeds, then when the Commons wastes billions on farmers and car companies (or whatever bunch of welfare bums to whom they feel relevant and accountable), the senate will have to demonstrate it’s relevance and accountability by shoveling more money into ACOA and the gun registry (or whatever). The country will not last very long if it is tag-teamed like this.

Perhaps the PM is in a sneaky way trying to do the country a favour by bankrupting the central govt more quickly than it would if left lurching along under the status quo – accelerating its inevitable breakup into smaller, less socialistically bloated and less obnoxiously pretentious and nationalistic principalities. Helping the people along by giving them exactly what they asked for, good and hard. Clever monkey.

Tell that to Paul Martin and Hugh Segal.

His bona fides as a Senate reformer are not in doubt

Really, Andrew? I think you know better than that.

The package he’s trying to push through now is piecemeal, and quite possible unconstitutional. If he was truly serious about Senate reform, he would sit down with the provinces and negotiate a constitutional reform package with the provinces that truly reforms the Senate: election, distribution of seats, and the balance of powers between the executive and the houses of parliament.

But he hasn’t done that. Instead he is trying to ram though little bits of legislation to make it seem like he’s serious about Senate reform, in order to placate his base.

But I believe strongly that piecemeal Senate reform is dangerous. It needs to be all or nothing. Right now the Senate is loath to use its substantial power, cognizant of their un-elected status. A mixture of elected and un-elected Senators will lead to two classes of Senators, some willing to use that power, others lacking the legitimacy.

Also, certain regions, such as BC, are seriously underrepresented in the Senate. There needs to be redistribution. That can only happen by constitutional amendment. And it will mean other provinces having to give things up. That can only happen through the give and take of a full negotiation of reforms. And if you leave redistribution for some mythical future date, then you will have BC and other regions under-represented in a newly elected, powerful, legitimate Senate. That’s unacceptable.

But if you got ahead and make it elected now, and put in term limits, you remove much of the impetus for the constitutional changes, which will only serve to entrench the regional disparities and fuel regional anger.

So that’s a wordy way of saying Stephen Harper’s bona fides as a Senate reformer are not only very much in doubt, he’s actually putting in a roadblock to the real, needed Senate reform.

RTFA

Dr. Carolyn Bennett.

I think Harper is looking to have his cake and eat it too – Make those partisan Senate appointments (and reaping the usual benefits), but still have people believe that his Bona Fides as a Senate reformer are beyond reproach.

Much the same way the fiscal update was probably designed to insulate him from criticism that he ran a deficit (by allowing him to claim that he ran a deficit at the behest of the opposition because they wouldn’t support his package that would have put us in surplus), he’s trying to have it both ways with the Senate appointments. All that remains to be seen is whether it blows up in his face as badly.

I actually hope it doesn’t – or at least not as much – because these appointments need to be made, and they should be Tory appointments by a Tory leader.

Nevermind that elected Senators are probably a bad idea. I’d rather see a cross-partisan appointment process similar to what we have for the SCC to help select more thoughtful, less partisan senators.

A: That he’s being wildly Partisan in his appointments if his appointments are 100% Conservatives (Whereby they can point to past Liberal PM’s less then 100% partisan appointment record). and/or,
B: That he’s “Stephan Harper – Promise Breaker”. There is absolutely zero way that anyone who isn’t wearing partisan blinders can legitimately see this as anything less then a total flip flop/broken promise on his part.

Just for the record I favor either abolishing the Senate or leaving it as is. I’m not of the opinion that the legislative paralysis we frequently see in the United States is something that we should be adopting.