tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post8772980668144839471..comments2023-09-22T06:22:50.820-06:00Comments on Ken Chapman: Update on the Harper Induced Democratic Deficitkenchapmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11384045981190810115noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post-32261036719106265932010-11-28T14:57:59.270-07:002010-11-28T14:57:59.270-07:00I looked at bill S-8 (An Act respecting the select...I looked at bill S-8 (An Act respecting the selection of senators).<br /><br />First, senators will not be elected, but selected.<br /><br />Second, under the current Constitution Act, 1867, the Governor-General does not seek advice formally from the prime minister. Strangely enough, the PM has no distinct status in the constitution. Executive power comes from the Queen through the Governor-General. When S-8 bill states that the PM must consider, what do the words "must consider" actually mean. Must the PM tell the GG to appoint particular Senate nominees? Besides, the GG does not formally follow the instructions from the PM as the PM does not exist in our constitution.<br /><br />If I were Harper, and I did not like the "elected" choices from Ontario, I would "consider" these choices, then tell John Baird to go see the GG to recommend Harper's Conservative choices.<br /><br />Unless I missed something, I did not notice who had the right to vote for Senators. There is nothing stated that citizens of a province or territory have the right to vote for the senators. A legislature could select all of the senators so long as it followed all the rules of S-8. However, the PM would still be able to "consider" the provincially recommended nominees and offer his advice to the GG.<br /><br />I do feel sorry for ardent advocates for an elected Senate. Harper's proposal is just a selected charade. The PM will still consider his recommendations to the GG for the appointment of senators. Nothing will change except for a new veneer of Senate reform.Skinny Dipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12818163310102120130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post-27427079720234151592010-11-28T14:26:15.873-07:002010-11-28T14:26:15.873-07:00The problem with Harper's Senate reform propos...The problem with Harper's Senate reform proposal is that as PM, he would still be appointing the senators. There is no rule that he must recommend an appointment to the governor-general right away. Imagine 12 "elected" Liberal senators from Ontario. I'm sure Harper would take his time in getting on the phone to make his recommendations. Harper's appointment process includes sham elections. If Harper were serious about Senate reform, he would be consulting with the provinces rather than try to impose his own half-baked solution.Skinny Dipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12818163310102120130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post-6535275896000728072010-11-28T13:49:39.593-07:002010-11-28T13:49:39.593-07:00Graham: it doesn't matter what Ken Chapman thi...Graham: it doesn't matter what Ken Chapman thinks of the senate. What matters is that Harper said he would never do what he's doing, use the "undemocratic" senate for his own ends.<br /><br />Anonymous: it doesn't matter if the provinces elect their senators, allowing Harper to select those chosen, or ignore them if they're liberals. Until Harper has the courage to address the constitution, senate reform is meaningless because the final choice will rest with the government of the day.<br /><br />Ken, while I like the idea of an elected senate, I fear it becoming more the American version of elected senators -- a bunch of self-serving, dishonourable power-brokers. While ours isn't purely democratic, at least our senators can't sell out to lobbyists without actually being unseemly, and (until this year) our senators were not the muffled voice of the governing party. In the end, the senate doesn't need to change; Harper does.Kabachiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15191113292155836354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post-6736886962714485702010-11-28T13:19:22.782-07:002010-11-28T13:19:22.782-07:00Hate to let the facts get in the way of a good sto...Hate to let the facts get in the way of a good story Ken, but Harper has made it clear he will appoint duly elected senators as soon as the provinces hold elections to choose them. What would you have him do in the meanwhile? It's pretty obviously partisan if you think he should juts let the chamber sit half empty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post-39361100445135554292010-11-28T12:48:56.809-07:002010-11-28T12:48:56.809-07:00so Ken: You would suggest that the Senate - you kn...so Ken: You would suggest that the Senate - you know - the one you supported when the Libs were in power that the Libs wouldn't reform into Triple E - is now horrible because Conservatives are in control? Did the Libs and you not see that coming? And only NOW you are outraged? <br /><br />Bogus outrage Ken.Graham Fletchernoreply@blogger.com