Harper Appoints 5 New Senators
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
I half agree with you Grumpy. Close the doors on the senate, but also close the door on the GG. We don't need no stinking monarchy or her approval.
A few comments on this.
As to the question of the election of senators...
The potential effectiveness of The Honourable the Senate of Canada rests with the fact that the Upper House is an appointed chamber. It is an asset to Canadian legislature and governance to have a House that is able to review matters in less of a partisan heat than can their colleagues in the Lower House. (Of course, the more substantial tenure is also a key component of this, which is another fundamental characteristic of the Senate that is under attack by the current prime minister.)
The Senate's powers are equal to those of the House of Commons, with three exceptions: (a) it cannot originate money bills, or amend them to increase appropriation; (b) for constitutional amendments, the Senate enjoys only a 180-day suspensive veto; and (c) Her Majesty's Government for Canada is not responsible to the Senate and is not expected to resign as the result of a defeat of one of its bills in the Upper House. In all other respects, these two chambers are equal.
The Senate can amend and defeat legislation as it fees fit (including budget bills, as long as it either defeats the bill outright or decreases appropriation), and it can block any initiative of the House of Commons. These powers are incompatible with an elected Upper House in the context of responsible government. You could have a situation where a budget has been defeated by an elected opposition in the Upper House (which would now be more keen to exercise its more radical powers, which have traditionally been reserved except in the most serious of cases), and this could grind the operations of the public service to a halt. We should not have a situation such as we see so frequently in the United States of America, where their legislatures are constantly locked in stalemate, threatening the smooth administration of government.
The Senate performs its functions well now. It provides an opportunity for the legislative process to be slowed down so that bills can be more properly scrutinised and reviewed than they are in the House of Commons. As appointed senators, they are also free to vote against measures that they feel are bad for the country, whether or not the prime minister is on board. And that makes a perfect segue to my next point.
As to the prime minister seeking "commitments" to support certain issues...
This is an unacceptable practice that risks damaging the independent review role that the Senate is responsible for performing. The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister, continues to damage effective and responsible legislature by precluding the possibility that honourable senators debate and consider the proposed reforms.
It is vital in a democracy that members of a legislature have the opportunity to consider a matter, to consider amendments to it, and to make a decision based on the cut-and-thrust of debate. By tying the hands of Senate appointees into supporting a given issue, no matter what the conversation to follow may be, he is attempting to erode the effectiveness of the Upper House. If there are reforms to come, then let them come, but do not attack and damage the functions of the Upper House that we work with now pending some notion of reform that may or may not be passed at some later time.
And as to the constitutionality of such reforms...
The prime minister is on shaky ground with his proposed reforms to the Senate, in any case. In a response to questions referred to the Supreme Court of Canada in Re: Authority of Parliament in Relation to Upper House (1980), the Supreme Court assessed that "it is not open to Parliament to make alterations which would affect the fundamental features, or essential characteristics, given to the Senate as a means of ensuring regional and provincial representation in the federal legislative process." The Court determined that fundamental changes, including the direct election of senators, would require the consent of the provinces. The Court declined to answer the question on tenure, but noted that changes to the term of office could fundamentally change the Senate's role as a chamber of sober second thought.
I am of the view that the prime minister is on dubious constitutional footing with his attempts to pass amendments to the Constitution Act, 1867 exclusively through Parliament. The Senate was designed to safeguard regional interests, and so the idea that it could be restructured in so radical a way without the consultation with and the consent of the provinces is ludicrous.
As to the question of the election of senators...
The potential effectiveness of The Honourable the Senate of Canada rests with the fact that the Upper House is an appointed chamber. It is an asset to Canadian legislature and governance to have a House that is able to review matters in less of a partisan heat than can their colleagues in the Lower House. (Of course, the more substantial tenure is also a key component of this, which is another fundamental characteristic of the Senate that is under attack by the current prime minister.)
The Senate's powers are equal to those of the House of Commons, with three exceptions: (a) it cannot originate money bills, or amend them to increase appropriation; (b) for constitutional amendments, the Senate enjoys only a 180-day suspensive veto; and (c) Her Majesty's Government for Canada is not responsible to the Senate and is not expected to resign as the result of a defeat of one of its bills in the Upper House. In all other respects, these two chambers are equal.
The Senate can amend and defeat legislation as it fees fit (including budget bills, as long as it either defeats the bill outright or decreases appropriation), and it can block any initiative of the House of Commons. These powers are incompatible with an elected Upper House in the context of responsible government. You could have a situation where a budget has been defeated by an elected opposition in the Upper House (which would now be more keen to exercise its more radical powers, which have traditionally been reserved except in the most serious of cases), and this could grind the operations of the public service to a halt. We should not have a situation such as we see so frequently in the United States of America, where their legislatures are constantly locked in stalemate, threatening the smooth administration of government.
The Senate performs its functions well now. It provides an opportunity for the legislative process to be slowed down so that bills can be more properly scrutinised and reviewed than they are in the House of Commons. As appointed senators, they are also free to vote against measures that they feel are bad for the country, whether or not the prime minister is on board. And that makes a perfect segue to my next point.
As to the prime minister seeking "commitments" to support certain issues...
This is an unacceptable practice that risks damaging the independent review role that the Senate is responsible for performing. The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister, continues to damage effective and responsible legislature by precluding the possibility that honourable senators debate and consider the proposed reforms.
It is vital in a democracy that members of a legislature have the opportunity to consider a matter, to consider amendments to it, and to make a decision based on the cut-and-thrust of debate. By tying the hands of Senate appointees into supporting a given issue, no matter what the conversation to follow may be, he is attempting to erode the effectiveness of the Upper House. If there are reforms to come, then let them come, but do not attack and damage the functions of the Upper House that we work with now pending some notion of reform that may or may not be passed at some later time.
And as to the constitutionality of such reforms...
The prime minister is on shaky ground with his proposed reforms to the Senate, in any case. In a response to questions referred to the Supreme Court of Canada in Re: Authority of Parliament in Relation to Upper House (1980), the Supreme Court assessed that "it is not open to Parliament to make alterations which would affect the fundamental features, or essential characteristics, given to the Senate as a means of ensuring regional and provincial representation in the federal legislative process." The Court determined that fundamental changes, including the direct election of senators, would require the consent of the provinces. The Court declined to answer the question on tenure, but noted that changes to the term of office could fundamentally change the Senate's role as a chamber of sober second thought.
I am of the view that the prime minister is on dubious constitutional footing with his attempts to pass amendments to the Constitution Act, 1867 exclusively through Parliament. The Senate was designed to safeguard regional interests, and so the idea that it could be restructured in so radical a way without the consultation with and the consent of the provinces is ludicrous.
Your point being..........what? Excuse me if I thought that topic was the Senate appointments.......not some provincial election.
Be better to do away with the unelected GG. At least senators must be Canadians.
Not even a provincial election. Just another rudderless liberal ship in search of a new capitan.
Our last several Governors General of Canada have been Canadians, and it is a virtue of the office that our viceroys and vicereines are appointed rather than elected. To elect the representative of the head of State makes the Office of the Governor General partisan, which is what the Office must -- at all costs -- avoid. The role of the Crown, as the last possible check on the abuses of a prime minister's power, must be a non-partisan one to ensure that such an emergency intervention is a credible one.
Besides, the head of State must be represented by someone. I would rather this officer be someone who is non-partisan and who would only exercise their independent authority in the most grave of circumstances (i.e., to let Canadian legislature and governance run its course as far as it can go without intervention), than have an elected officer who would feel some democratic mandate to exercise the Crown's authority in political (read: inappropriate) ways.
The fact that they are appointed by the PM and usually either servants or supporters of his party makes them partisan. Be real, a conservative PM will not appoint a liberal senator just like he wouldn't appoint a liberal judge to the supreme court.
Most I know don't want some foreign old cow as our head of state. If we do away with the monarchy (like Australia) then we don't need a GG.
Last edited:
Oh yeah?????
Our government - australia.gov.au
At the top of the page
You seem to be blowing smoke again......
Oh yeah?????
Our government - australia.gov.au
At the top of the page
You seem to be blowing smoke again......
My mistake. Thought they dumped the royals a few years back and went to a republic with a president. There was a large separatist movement not long ago.
Doesn't matter anyway, we should dump the royals and become a democratic republic. The queen does sh*t for us anyway but cost us money. I say get rid of her and her inbred family in favour of a Canadian head of state. The monarchy is antiquated and unnecessary.
Last edited:
As well as being a national embarrassment in this age. We have been a colony long enough.
I don't know about embarrassment....but I might agree on a waste of money...the Monachy being simply ceremonial with no executive power in Canada.....
But governments are known to waste money on a lot of things.......Isn't this Monarchy thing just another drop in the bucket of waste???
I tend to prefer the NDP's position over the Conservative one here: scrap the Senate. Though I am even more attracted to the ideas of the First Peoples National Party of Canada:
First Peoples National Party of Canada
"- Abolish the Senate and replaced with an equal but second house, the First Nations House / Gimaa-gamig (First Nations elected representatives for First Nations Peoples of Canada) in the House of Commons equal to that of the present parliament."
So are you proposing that China and India should each have about 25% of the seats at the UN general Assembly?
Democracy based purely on demographics has its problems when one ethnic group has the majority or when a small number of them can collude as is the case between French and English Canadians in Canada right now?
In such cases, representation by nation makes sense.