Harper Government™ Appoints 7 Senators

[CaptainCrunch]

Under my regime people who use 10 cent words and put on airs would be working in the national salt mines, endlessly servicing McDonalds distribution centers

Sorry.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by evman150

Under my Putin-headed regime, crotchety middle-aged men don't get the vote. Sorry.

Shouldnt you be out killing bears or something?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by evman150

Under my Putin-headed regime, crotchety middle-aged men don't get the vote. Sorry.

Who does?

Arrogant, self-centered university students?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Who does?

Arrogant, self-centered university students?

It was supposed to be light-hearted.

[Fire]

If every province would hold Senate elections than Harper would select the winners. Blames the provinces for not caring.

Personally I would like to see the Senate abolish.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fire

If every province would hold Senate elections than Harper would select the winners. Blames the provinces for not caring.

Personally I would like to see the Senate abolish.

There are a few issues with why provinces aren't holding them. One major one is money. If the feds put up the cash that would be a start, instead Alberta has paid for their own. Maybe that sounds like its not a big deal, but really its a federal issue, so the premiers largely have no opinion (publicly).

The other issue is that there is no gain for the provinces in a policy aspect. In Alberta we've had three elected senators who have later been appointed (I think). What actual impact has this had though? What impact that has benefited the province? I can understand why they're in no rush to pay for these from that angle.

Lastly, but sort of tied into the second point is that these elected senators could definitely diminish provincial clout. While the actual powers are protected in the constitution, the last thing any premier wants is an elected official in Ottawa running around on behalf of the province saying things they don't necessarily agree with. Consider issues like the gun control registry, financial regulator, etc. where the provinces want to fight implementation. They want the premiers as sole representatives.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Under my regime people who use 10 cent words and put on airs would be working in the national salt mines, endlessly servicing McDonalds distribution centers

Sorry.

You'll never get peter12's vote with an attitude like that!

[Hanni]

Originally Posted by Slava

Lastly, but sort of tied into the second point is that these elected senators could definitely diminish provincial clout. While the actual powers are protected in the constitution, the last thing any premier wants is an elected official in Ottawa running around on behalf of the province saying things they don't necessarily agree with. Consider issues like the gun control registry, financial regulator, etc. where the provinces want to fight implementation. They want the premiers as sole representatives.

Funding aside it seems to me a truly ignorant electorate who believes an elected senator, even under the current system that Alberta elects them by, that believes said senator is somehow a representative of the provincial government as an entity. That being said there obviously is an ignorant portion of the electorate on many, many issues. What percentage that might be who knows.

Secondly, this is a great example of how convoluted our system, specifically the constitution, is. IMO provinces were given far to much power from the start. Either that or the current funding model for the system is poor. I don't think the feds should be collecting taxes to then be redistributed back to the provinces for things like health care. That's not to say health care shouldn't universally funded, but that the federal government is in many cases just a funding agency with overall, general control, but the specifics are left up to the provinces. I think the system would be better off if the funder was much closer to the front line system. To many levels of government and bureaucracy end up causing more road blocks in the system as a whole.

[Yasa]

Sounds like job creation to me. Watch out, economy. Harper's back!

[redforever]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

He tried to push through Senate reform when the Liberals were in power and they scoffed at it

on one hand with a majority government I was kind of hoping he would now, but I can understand his "now that I can do it I should" attitude towards it

I hope he does it before the next election

He introduced senate reform a couple of times while PM with a minority government and the opposition poo pooed it as well.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

He tried to push through Senate reform when the Liberals were in power and they scoffed at it

on one hand with a majority government I was kind of hoping he would now, but I can understand his "now that I can do it I should" attitude towards it

I hope he does it before the next election

The PM can't push through Senate reform on his own. The Senate is reformed according to the procedures as set forth in the amending formula in the Constitution

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I agree, this country needs a strong leader, appointed for life.

I'll take care of the weekends, but can you handle the Mon-Fri shift?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Hanni

Secondly, this is a great example of how convoluted our system, specifically the constitution, is. IMO provinces were given far to much power from the start. Either that or the current funding model for the system is poor. I don't think the feds should be collecting taxes to then be redistributed back to the provinces for things like health care. That's not to say health care shouldn't universally funded, but that the federal government is in many cases just a funding agency with overall, general control, but the specifics are left up to the provinces. I think the system would be better off if the funder was much closer to the front line system. To many levels of government and bureaucracy end up causing more road blocks in the system as a whole.

Universal health care is unconstitutional though. The federal government isn't allowed control of health care but they got around it by offering to pay for a portion of it if the provinces agreed to their conditions. Effectively they are overtaxing the provinces and the giving the money back with strings attached.

[FlamesAddiction]

The only problem I have with it is that Harper makes himself into a hypocrite. One of the biggest political ideals he has promoted going back to his NCC and Reform days was Senate reform - ie. moving away from an appointed Senate.

I realize that opening the consitution is a huge political risk, but where are his convictions now? It's clear that he is just like every other politician now. Whatever it takes to hold onto power...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The only problem I have with it is that Harper makes himself into a hypocrite. One of the biggest political ideals he has promoted going back to his NCC and Reform days was Senate reform - ie. moving away from an appointed Senate.

I realize that opening the consitution is a huge political risk, but where are his convictions now? It's clear that he is just like every other politician now. Whatever it takes to hold onto power...

Now yer gettin it laddie

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Cue the "The Liberals would do the same thing, only they're worse" comments sure to fill out the thread!

You mean like leaving half of Alberta's senate seats vacant for years so as to deny the province even what little representation it does have in the upper house?

Lastly, but sort of tied into the second point is that these elected senators could definitely diminish provincial clout. While the actual powers are protected in the constitution, the last thing any premier wants is an elected official in Ottawa running around on behalf of the province saying things they don't necessarily agree with. Consider issues like the gun control registry, financial regulator, etc. where the provinces want to fight implementation. They want the premiers as sole representatives.

Guess which party Martin stacked those empty seats with when he finally did get around to filling them, right before his government ended? Go on, guess. Care to tell me what the likelihood is that Albera's majority of Liberal Senators share opinions that reflect the province/PC's position on matters?

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I realize that opening the consitution is a huge political risk, but where are his convictions now?

It's not just a risk, it's doomed to failure.

The amendment formula requires 7 of the provinces representing 50% of the population to pass any constitutional changes. That means that there are veto-blocks everywhere for any issue where there is no consensus (like adding Nunavut or renaming Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador).

Far from consensus, there are three basic competing visions for the Senate in Canada right now:
1) Leave it as is.

Because they haven't really proposed anything substantive to the contrary (and despite their hypocritical shrieking about the Conservative approach), this would be the Liberal position

2) Democratize it.

There are lots of different possibilities here - keep it a somewhat geographically representative body as it is now (25% West, 25% Ontario, 25% Quebec, 25% Atlantic); change it to EEE, change it to a Proportional Representative chamber (this would be my vote, like what Australia did). Add in direct elections and term limits. This would be the Conservative position.

3) Abolish it. This is the NDP position and it has been done in New Zealand.

I think that most Canadians who care would be happy with either 2 or 3 but we are caught in a position where the Senate serves a real role in our federal government (and thus can't be left to wither) and nobody wants to talk about making proper changes because it quickly gets into protracted negotiations that go nowhere like the Meech Lake and Charlettown Accords.

I think that the Conservative approach is a long-game where they:
- keep the senate stuffed as is needed for government to function (and despite illusions to the contrary, it is needed now because the Senate is supposed to do everything that the House does - debate bills, hold committee meetings, etc.)
- bring in their bills to enact term limits and elections. This debate will happen this year

Then either:
- both of those bills are struck down by the Supreme Court launching a real discussion in Canada on how to make it into a democratic institution or whether to abolish it
- or the Court upholds the changes and we are left with a slightly more democratic institution (I would guess this is unlikely)

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You mean like leaving half of Alberta's senate seats vacant for years so as to deny the province even what little representation it does have in the upper house?



Guess which party Martin stacked those empty seats with when he finally did get around to filling them, right before his government ended? Go on, guess. Care to tell me what the likelihood is that Albera's majority of Liberal Senators share opinions that reflect the province/PC's position on matters?

I think you've missed my point. I'm not arguing againts the elected senate (here) I'm just pointing out why the provinces aren't flocking to do this. Brad Wall and Christy Clark have both come out and basically said its not a big deal and I would suggest that this is part of their rationale.

Sure Martin stacked the senate when he was in power (what....8 years ago? How long do we have to hear about that? I didn't bring up Mulroney or Diefenbaker!). Martin didn't campaign and fight for an elected senate either, so he did what was expected, whether we agree or not. Why doesn't Harper throw some money in tne.pot for provinces to elect senators? Surely people might have new preferences today than we did eight years ago when Unger was elected. I know that your provincial tastes have changed over that time!

[zuluking]

I think AB has elected two senators now and Harper has appointed them both.

Oops, Slava says three, but still doesn't care. Figures...

[Resolute 14]

No, I got your point. I just think it is absurd reasoning to think that the provinces would oppose elected senators because they wouldn't control the message those Senators share. Except, the provinces already don't control the message, as the senators are appointed by the PM.

There are many reasons why provinces wouldn't find such a reform necessary. I just think you used one of the biggest stretches as your example. The cost argument is the bigger point, though I am not certain how much greater it is given such elections are inevitably held in conjunction with an already scheduled election.