Harper Prorogues Parliament Again

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm pretty sure that the main thrust of his appointing senators is not reform, but to gain more control in the Senate. the fact that he is appointing senators who are sympathetic to his cause is just an addition to that main thrust.

I'm interested to know why you feel that way. I agree with your points, but I think they're reversed.

The goal has ALWAYS been to stack the Senate in order to push through Triple-E reform (This goal has existed for a generation). I think that's what happening, and if those Senators happen to be sympathetic towards other legislation, that's the bonus.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm pretty sure that the main thrust of his appointing senators is not reform, but to gain more control in the Senate. the fact that he is appointing senators who are sympathetic to his cause is just an addition to that main thrust.

Control of the Senate will result in Senate reform. Its all ready been proven many times over that a Liberal dominated Senate will obstruct all attempts at reforming the status quo. The Senate Liberals intend to fight any change tooth and nail. They will, I fear, only go down kicking and screaming. Liberals are only for Senate reform in name only. They've had plenty of chances in the past where they've had the ability but totally lacked the will.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Control of the Senate will result in Senate reform. Its all ready been proven many times over that a Liberal dominated Senate will obstruct all attempts at reforming the status quo. The Senate Liberals intend to fight any change tooth and nail. They will, I fear, only go down kicking and screaming. Liberals are only for Senate reform in name only. They've had plenty of chances in the past where they've had the ability but totally lacked the will.

The problem has not been the number of senators alone though; provinces such as the maritimes and Quebec are going to fight this. There is is no way that a province such as Nova Scotia wants to enter into this discussion and not see gains as a result.

Then you have other provinces such as Manitoba where the stance is pure abolition. They are on the road to elected senators at this point (as is Saskatchewan). At any rate, this is a whole constitutional mess that has to be opened to do this properly. Its not a quick and simple, lets have elections and even things out motion.

I also think that there is an interesting point in the article in the Globe and Mail this morninig about the provinces losing some power in the process. Once you start electing senators provincially to represent you then it does have to lessen the clout that a premier will have.

I'm really not sold on the whole Triple E thing for a few reasons, but mainly because we already send enough representatives to Ottawa who are consertive from Alberta and I think that the message is sent. Does it do much good for the average citizen to send more? If we can't come to a decent solution for the senate then we might as well abolish it I guess. Its a shame because I think it does provide sober second thought, and the committee work and initiatives undertaken there by members of all political parties are excellent for the country. It has to be said that because they are not elected and in some ways not fighting for a re-election every couple of years that the hope is that they will do some things for the good of the country even if these decisions are not the easiest politically just because of that fact...although I'm not saying that is always the case and surely someone will now give me a list of examples where this is not.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Great... At a time when our country has the world stage (Olympics), people are wanting to play politics so they can further their own agenda. Think big picture people. Think world reputation. Think.

Is the delay of 2 months (or however long it is) really that big of a deal? Is it worth it to risk giving our country's reputation a black eye on the world stage? Nobody else cares if we have a senate. Nobody else cares if our budget costs an extra hundred million dollars. Nobody else cares if our soldiers knew what the afghans were going to do.

This is the perfect opportunity to show what a respectful and gracious host country Canada can be. Do we want people coming hear only to hear of the petty politics that go on?

Yeesh.

/rant

Parliament has been in recess since prior to Christmas and would have been so until January 25 anyhow.

So the prorougue of of Parliament amounts to about another month of recess.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm pretty sure that the main thrust of his appointing senators is not reform, but to gain more control in the Senate. the fact that he is appointing senators who are sympathetic to his cause is just an addition to that main thrust.

Of course it is. The Liberal controlled senate has been opposing him all along. The Tories are using the current system to manipulate their way into a better position to change it. And, of course, to ensure other bills they favour aren't easily blocked.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Slava

The problem has not been the number of senators alone though; provinces such as the maritimes and Quebec are going to fight this. There is is no way that a province such as Nova Scotia wants to enter into this discussion and not see gains as a result.

Then you have other provinces such as Manitoba where the stance is pure abolition. They are on the road to elected senators at this point (as is Saskatchewan). At any rate, this is a whole constitutional mess that has to be opened to do this properly. Its not a quick and simple, lets have elections and even things out motion.

I also think that there is an interesting point in the article in the Globe and Mail this morninig about the provinces losing some power in the process. Once you start electing senators provincially to represent you then it does have to lessen the clout that a premier will have.

I'm really not sold on the whole Triple E thing for a few reasons, but mainly because we already send enough representatives to Ottawa who are consertive from Alberta and I think that the message is sent. Does it do much good for the average citizen to send more? If we can't come to a decent solution for the senate then we might as well abolish it I guess. Its a shame because I think it does provide sober second thought, and the committee work and initiatives undertaken there by members of all political parties are excellent for the country. It has to be said that because they are not elected and in some ways not fighting for a re-election every couple of years that the hope is that they will do some things for the good of the country even if these decisions are not the easiest politically just because of that fact...although I'm not saying that is always the case and surely someone will now give me a list of examples where this is not.

We would probably send considerably less.

Take the USA for instance, they have 2 senators per state. Ok, Canada has fewer provinces so say Canada uses 4 or 5 senators per province.

Adding in some representation for the territories, we would then come up with a total ranging from 50 to 60 senators.

[FlamesAddiction]

If we are going to go to a republican style senate, why not just go all the way with the revolution and declare Canada as a republic.

Honestly, I think the outdated and inefficient parliamentary system should be the major concern. It's expensive, contradictory to national unity, and easily manipulated.

I know... easier said than done. Maybe senate reform is a baby step to that, but it seems kind of pointless to go half way with it considering the proposed reform isn't designed to work with current parliamentary system.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

The problem has not been the number of senators alone though; provinces such as the maritimes and Quebec are going to fight this. There is is no way that a province such as Nova Scotia wants to enter into this discussion and not see gains as a result.

This is true. Some provinces have a lot to lose when it comes to numbers.... but what is better, having 10 useless, unelected senators who ended up in the Senate because they were Liberal or Tory bagmen or huge financial or otherwise supporters of said parties who wanted to become Senators because of the prestige or because its an easy paycheque?..... OR 5 elected Senators who will listen to the will of their electorate and who know that if they don't they will be toast come the next Senate election?
Sometimes more is not always better.

Originally Posted by Slava

Then you have other provinces such as Manitoba where the stance is pure abolition. They are on the road to elected senators at this point (as is Saskatchewan). At any rate, this is a whole constitutional mess that has to be opened to do this properly. Its not a quick and simple, lets have elections and even things out motion.

Manitoba and other like provinces may change their mind if they see meaningful Senate reform occurring. .... and elected Senators is one way to get the ball rolling.

Originally Posted by Slava

I also think that there is an interesting point in the article in the Globe and Mail this morninig about the provinces losing some power in the process. Once you start electing senators provincially to represent you then it does have to lessen the clout that a premier will have.

I really don't think provincial premiers have much clout, to begin with, when it comes to Senate appointments. They have some... but not a lot. Currently, if the PM doesn't want somebody in the Senate, even though a Premier may be totally in favour of said person, the PM has the final say and the PM chooses who HE wants. Premiers may be able to exert some influence but thats about it. Its the PMO and the PM who really decide.

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm really not sold on the whole Triple E thing for a few reasons, but mainly because we already send enough representatives to Ottawa who are consertive from Alberta and I think that the message is sent. Does it do much good for the average citizen to send more?

If they are going to be sitting in a different house it does.

Originally Posted by Slava

If we can't come to a decent solution for the senate then we might as well abolish it I guess.

I agree with you on this point... if all else fails (any meaningful reform), abolish the Senate.

Originally Posted by Slava

Its a shame because I think it does provide sober second thought, and the committee work and initiatives undertaken there by members of all political parties are excellent for the country.

As for a place of sober second thought?... hmmm I hear that a lot but really don't see too much of it. Mostly what I see is partisanship and game playing. In some ways, because they were not elected, and because they primarily answer to their party masters in the House of Commons (even when in committee), they are worse than the MPs.

Originally Posted by Slava

It has to be said that because they are not elected and in some ways not fighting for a re-election every couple of years that the hope is that they will do some things for the good of the country even if these decisions are not the easiest politically just because of that fact...although I'm not saying that is always the case and surely someone will now give me a list of examples where this is not.

As for doing a better job because they are not elected and not facing re-elections... I think thats a myth put forward by the unelected Senators who want to remain as such. Tell me, who does a better job? Someone who can be fired or someone who cannot and has a job for life? We all know the answer to that one. Most people get lazy when there is no incentive to do a good job.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

I'm interested to know why you feel that way. I agree with your points, but I think they're reversed.

The goal has ALWAYS been to stack the Senate in order to push through Triple-E reform (This goal has existed for a generation). I think that's what happening, and if those Senators happen to be sympathetic towards other legislation, that's the bonus.

I agree that Harper wants reform....but you can't dismiss his gaining control in the Senate "as if they happen to be sympathetic". He knows full well what he is doing; there are a couple of pieces of legislation I believed currently in the Senate that Liberal senators are trying to change or delay or something or other. don't kid yourself, this is about gaining control..as well as Senate reform.

Originally Posted by Slava

The problem has not been the number of senators alone though; provinces such as the maritimes and Quebec are going to fight this. There is is no way that a province such as Nova Scotia wants to enter into this discussion and not see gains as a result.

I also think that there is an interesting point in the article in the Globe and Mail this morninig about the provinces losing some power in the process. Once you start electing senators provincially to represent you then it does have to lessen the clout that a premier will have.

Yup, good article - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1421705/
Senate reform plan sparks standoff with provinces: Eastern provinces with the most to lose vow to challenge Tories, insisting reform would involve constitutional change

A handful of eastern provinces are warning Prime Minister Stephen Harper to brace for a battle if his Conservative government attempts to force a controversial Senate reform plan through Parliament. The provinces, including Quebec and Nova Scotia, insist that transforming the Senate into an elected body with term limits is tantamount to a constitutional change that would require their blessing.
....

Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter, meanwhile, suggested his province would not give up historical guarantees that allocate it 10 Senate seats.

[Fire]

The less time the government have to make decisions the better.

[EddyBeers]

I wonder when that true reformer Bert Brown will be facing re-election, or does getting elected in 2004 mean that he is my Senator until he retires in 2013? How long is that guys term?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

I wonder when that true reformer Bert Brown will be facing re-election, or does getting elected in 2004 mean that he is my Senator until he retires in 2013? How long is that guys term?

10 years or until he reaches the mandatory retirement age of 75.... which ever comes first.....

All un-elected Conservative Senators have agreed, if there is a Senate election in the area they represent, that they will step down and either retire or run for election. All Liberal Senators have refused to do this. The only way a current Liberal Senator will leave the Senate will be either feet first (he's dead) or he absolutely has to because he has reached the mandatory retirement age.

Even with Senate reform, it will be quite some time (10 years minimum) before we get an elected Senate. As I said before, any Liberal Senators will fight any change tooth and nail and kicking and screaming all the way.

[octothorp]

There's nobody in the current group of federal politicians who I would ever trust to open up and tinker with the constitution. Not the complete clustercuss of a liberal party, and certainly not Harper, who's supposed attempt at election reform was completely full of loopholes to the point that it became meaningless within months of being put forward. And the current polarization of the country doesn't help, either. There isn't a party leader out there who has a hope of gaining even a semblance of broad national support. I think we need a majority government before any sort of constitutional change can happen: when it's so hard getting consensus from the provinces, you don't want the extra burden of trying to negotiate with minority parties. What sort of demands would the Bloc or NDP make in trade for their support? Basically, I'm saying the whole lot of them should keep their hands off the constitution until they prove that they can function as a real parliament.

[Pastiche]

Senate abolishment would be much more desirable.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Rerun

10 years or until he reaches the mandatory retirement age of 75.... which ever comes first.....

All un-elected Conservative Senators have agreed, if there is a Senate election in the area they represent, that they will step down and either retire or run for election. All Liberal Senators have refused to do this. The only way a current Liberal Senator will leave the Senate will be either feet first (he's dead) or he absolutely has to because he has reached the mandatory retirement age.

Even with Senate reform, it will be quite some time (10 years minimum) before we get an elected Senate. As I said before, any Liberal Senators will fight any change tooth and nail and kicking and screaming all the way.

Under what law did I agree as an Albertan to elect a Senator for a 10 year term? Also, if there is such a law in place that allows for 10 year terms, why did Brown have to get "re-elected" in 2004, a mere 6 years after the start of his inaugral 10 year term? One would suppose he would have been a Senator-in-waiting until 2008, why the need to get elected in 2004? It would make sense to have an election to replace Morton, as he stepped down I suppose from his "Senator in waiting" position to run for the legislature, but Bert had time left on his alleged term.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Under what law did I agree as an Albertan to elect a Senator for a 10 year term? Also, if there is such a law in place that allows for 10 year terms, why did Brown have to get "re-elected" in 2004, a mere 6 years after the start of his inaugral 10 year term? One would suppose he would have been a Senator-in-waiting until 2008, why the need to get elected in 2004? It would make sense to have an election to replace Morton, as he stepped down I suppose from his "Senator in waiting" position to run for the legislature, but Bert had time left on his alleged term.

My mistake. In Alberta, the terms of the Senate election, as written by your duly elected provincial government, are that Senate terms expire after 6 years.

www.international.alberta.ca/592.cfm

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

I blame this on Michaelle Jean. She had to approve this stupid move.

What on Earth is she supposed to do? There's no right decision for her... enable a PM who abuses the system to circumvent our democracy, or step in as an unelected person to stop an elected PM.

Originally Posted by calculoso

Great... At a time when our country has the world stage (Olympics), people are wanting to play politics so they can further their own agenda. Think big picture people. Think world reputation. Think.

Is the delay of 2 months (or however long it is) really that big of a deal? Is it worth it to risk giving our country's reputation a black eye on the world stage? Nobody else cares if we have a senate. Nobody else cares if our budget costs an extra hundred million dollars. Nobody else cares if our soldiers knew what the afghans were going to do.

Our world reputation will be tarnished if our politicians are working over the Olympics? I think proroguing parliament on a whim tarnishes our reputation much more. Politics isn't going to go away because parliament isn't in session, but most people don't care at the best of times and will care even less over the Olympics, whether or not parliament is in session.

Also, it's not a delay, it's a reset. Basically Harper is hitting the power button on the parliamentary machine, and any unfinished work gets scrapped. It's not just a break, it's a set back. Not that I mind, the less bills the conservatives get passed over their term, the better.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Out of all the anti-Harper/anti-Conservative bs you just spouted, I agree with one thing. Nobody cares.

I dunno. The EKOS poll suggests otherwise. A considerable majority of people know about it and a considerable majority of those people think that it is not right.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Rerun

My mistake. In Alberta, the terms of the Senate election, as written by your duly elected provincial government, are that Senate terms expire after 6 years.

www.international.alberta.ca/592.cfm

Irrelevant because Senators are appointed by the Governor-General and as thus is constitutional right of the Prime Minister.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

Irrelevant because Senators are appointed by the Governor-General and as thus is constitutional right of the Prime Minister.

Not really irrelevant because the great Senate reformer Harper has the power. I can only assume that Bert will be up for re-election this year, as per the legislation of the Province of Alberta. I can only assume that an individual like Harper will be adhering to the democractic wishes of the province of Alberta. Afterall, he only prorogued the House and cancelled Parliamentary democracy for 3 months because he wanted greater Senatorial democracy.