NDP says Senate appointments would violate Constitution - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Rerun · 12-16-2008, 02:03 PM

Jack Layton is such a clown.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/can...tml?id=1081954

Quote:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be abusing his power if he appoints unelected senators before the House of Commons reconvenes, NDP Leader Jack Layton said Tuesday.

ken0042 · 12-16-2008, 02:06 PM

Perfect. First order of business for the CPC in January, pass a law saying all future senator appointments will be elected.

The NDP will have to side with the bill. There goes the coalition and the CPC gets their EEE senate that they have always wanted!

metallicat · 12-16-2008, 02:07 PM

Did he ever protest when the Liberals were appointing Senators? Jack Layton and Elizabeh May both need to get lost. I'm embarassed to be Canadian when either of them open their mouths.

vanisleflamesfan · 12-16-2008, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Did he ever protest when the Liberals were appointing Senators? Jack Layton and Elizabeh May both need to get lost. I'm embarassed to be Canadian when either of them open their mouths.

I don't think that he is saying that he is against the appointment of Senators (versus the electing of Senators). He is just saying that doing it while Parliament is prorogued is unconstitutional. How can you conduct Parliamentary business when there is no Parliament?

Resolute 14 · 12-16-2008, 02:18 PM

Obviously the appointments would not go through until the capability to do so exists. There is no harm in announcing the intention now, it just won't become official until later.

Layton is just talking out of his ass, as usual.

Slava · 12-16-2008, 02:23 PM

I think that the distinction here is that with the prorogue of parliament there are some things that the government should not be doing? Things such as appointing senators, spending money on new programs and things like that.

Basically the government should be functioning as though it were in an election. I don't think that is an ideological bias?

Resolute 14 · 12-16-2008, 02:28 PM

Well, there is a difference between saying "government shouldn't be doing this", and stating a lie like "doing this is unconstitutional." Layton is looking to smear the Conservatives to try and regain support and/or save the coalition, nothing more.

Did they expect Harper was going to sit idly by and do nothing while the prorogue is in place?

At any rate, I may be wrong, but Senate appointments go through the GG's office as well. If there is an issue with making the announcements during this time, they simply will be rejected or suspended pending the resumption of the HoC.

Slava · 12-16-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, there is a difference between saying "government shouldn't be doing this", and stating a lie like "doing this is unconstitutional." Layton is looking to smear the Conservatives to try and regain support and/or save the coalition, nothing more.

Did they expect Harper was going to sit idly by and do nothing while the prorogue is in place?

At any rate, I may be wrong, but Senate appointments go through the GG's office as well. If there is an issue with making the announcements during this time, they simply will be rejected or suspended pending the resumption of the HoC.

Well TBQH that is the whole failing of prorogation in the first place....it does tie your hands as a government so you basically have to sit back and do nothing.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post here, and I am not saying that I support Layton. But there is something wrong with a government being able to prorogue parliament and then run around and function as though they have power. (You clearly aren't going to agree in this situation, but you can't deny that the precedent is something bad from a purely democratic point of view?).

ken0042 · 12-16-2008, 02:36 PM

My issue is that Layton implied that appointing elected senators would be fine. But because we don't officially elect senators, that must mean either that he wants all senate seats to be determined by election, or that what Harper is doing is alright.

Bobblehead · 12-16-2008, 02:36 PM

It is up to the Governor General to set the limits on what the government can do while prorogued. There is always the capacity for the country to operate (i.e. meet payroll, run Federal services, etc) but limits can be put on what activities the sitting government can do (for example, appointing Ambassadors/diplomats/Senators). If these Senate appointments do go through, then it is safe to assume that this wasn't one of the limits.

The interesting thing is, the Governor General will never reveal what limits may or may not have been put in place. Heck, the CPC may be barred from doing this (I'm guessing they weren't) and just announce it to get the opposition to say/do something stupid.

Resolute 14 · 12-16-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slava

Well TBQH that is the whole failing of prorogation in the first place....it does tie your hands as a government so you basically have to sit back and do nothing.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post here, and I am not saying that I support Layton. But there is something wrong with a government being able to prorogue parliament and then run around and function as though they have power. (You clearly aren't going to agree in this situation, but you can't deny that the precedent is something bad from a purely democratic point of view?).

I get your point, however I do disagree with it. Government continues to operate. It is just the House of Commons that is Prorogued. If Senatorial appointments do not require any input from the HoC, then I suppose you could argue that Harper can make these appointments at any time.

I do agree with the issue of a lack of democracy, but given the Senate has never been democratic in nature, this really doesn't set much of a precedent. I also don't see any precedent in the first place. Even if the appointments cannot go through until the Prorogue expires, I just don't see anything wrong with stating "I intend to do this when I have the power to do so."

It is, afterall, exactly what the opposition is doing with their $30 billion blank cheque.

Slava · 12-16-2008, 03:00 PM

Well clearly we'll have to agree to disagree. The opposition is proposing a stimulus package, nothing more. Its the same as saying during an election that you will enact certain programs if you are elected.

I understand the government continues to operate (and it should of course!). But if you prorogue parliament and won't face the opposition than you should not be undertaking actions like this in the meantime. Face it, it sets a dangerous precedent for future governments.

troutman · 12-16-2008, 03:01 PM

Treason! Undemocratic! Coup D'etat!

FanIn80 · 12-16-2008, 03:14 PM

I say we send in two tanks and Ralph Klein.

Jetsfan · 12-16-2008, 03:17 PM

I don't think that he is saying that he is against the appointment of Senators (versus the electing of Senators). He is just saying that doing it while Parliament is prorogued is unconstitutional. How can you conduct Parliamentary business when there is no Parliament?

As Prime Minister, Stephen Harper is well within his rights to conduct his duties as he sees fit. There is a parliament, its just prorogued.

The irony of all this is for three years the Libs, NDP & Block have been accusing the Conservatives of having a secret agenda when in the end it was the coalition who were plotting in secret.

Titan · 12-16-2008, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slava

Well clearly we'll have to agree to disagree. The opposition is proposing a stimulus package, nothing more. Its the same as saying during an election that you will enact certain programs if you are elected.

I understand the government continues to operate (and it should of course!). But if you prorogue parliament and won't face the opposition than you should not be undertaking actions like this in the meantime. Face it, it sets a dangerous precedent for future governments.

I am not sure I understand your point. Senate appointments do not face the house. The PM has sole discretion as to when and how. You may be saying that he should not do it but that is different. By appointing Senators he is only following how it has always been. There is no new precedent to follow. If you mean appointing while parl. is prorogued then you may have a point but I would still say this is just another part of running the operation of government, as the power resides wholly with the PM.

Slava · 12-16-2008, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titan

I am not sure I understand your point. Senate appointments do not face the house. The PM has sole discretion as to when and how. You may be saying that he should not do it but that is different. By appointing Senators he is only following how it has always been. There is no new precedent to follow. If you mean appointing while parl. is prorogued then you may have a point but I would still say this is just another part of running the operation of government, as the power resides wholly with the PM.

Well when you get right down to it you have a PM who prorogued because he knew he would lose a confidence vote. Now he is loading the upper chamber with his cronies. Obviously as someone who cares about democracy I have a problem with that!

old-fart · 12-16-2008, 10:43 PM

Are you sure he would have lost the confidence vote? Within days of the prorogue, the Libs toss out Dion. Many libs have been quoted "off the record" suggesting they would have been sick on the day of the vote.

Layton can argue as much as he wants that the PM has lost the confidence of the house, but it simply isn't true. The most recent confidence motion in the house was the thrown speach, and that passed. It is possible, perhaps even probable that he would have lost a confidence motion if he didn't prorogue... but he did and as such he didn't have to face the confidence vote. Too bad for the coalition of losers. Harper was well within his rights to prorogue, just like he will be well within his rights to appoint senators.

Layton is an idiot if he thinks it isn't consitutional for Harper to appoint senators whenever and however he sees fit. He might not actually like the rules, but they are the rules we have. He was perfectly willing to attempt to use them to his benefit a few weeks ago, why the problem when Harper uses the rules?

Aside from the fact that Harper using the rules keeps Wacko Jacko further away from power of course....

Slava · 12-17-2008, 06:13 AM

^ I guess my saying that he would've lost the vote is all conjecture. But if Harper didn't think that he would lose the vote than he prorogued just so that he could have an early Christmas? I might come across as a Harper hater on these boards, but even I can't believe that would be the case!

LChoy · 12-22-2008, 10:33 AM

BUMP

Harper has appointed 18 new senators

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/to...000/story.html

Quote:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper filled all 18 vacant Senate seats on Monday, a move he was expected to make some time before Christmas.

CTV broadcaster Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Fabian Manning and Patrick Brazeau are among some of the familiar names who now have a job in the Red Chamber and who will collect an annual $130,000 salary.

The prime minister said in a television interview last week that making the move was "the only option" since his government has been blocked in its attempts to reform the Senate. Harper has a long-held belief that senators should be elected, not appointed.