What bugs me most is that the prorogue is totally legally & constitutionally legitimate.

[Lucy Goosey]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to let Harper off the hook - he knows he's doing something that is unnecessary, that is all politics and no governance, and that goes against the wishes of most Canadians. But. He's not wrong when he says that the prorogue is entirely acceptable in our Parliementary system.

I think the outrage about Harper hamstringing democracy should also be directed at our antiquated system of government. Harper is totally taking advantage of the rules, but he didn't write them.

More than we even neen an elected Senate, we need an elected Head of State. I think it offends the sensibilities of most modern Canadians that an MP elected only by the people of Calgary Southwest, whose party does not hold a majority of the seats in the House, can do this, while an appointed figurehead isn't really in a position to stop it, because she isn't elected by anyone at all. Yet it would be just as constitutionally legitimate for the GG to reject the prorogue as it is for Harper to propose it.

There's been a long push for an elected Senate, but the idea of an elected head of state seperate from the head of government hasn't been on the radar nearly as much. I wonder why that is - because some of us feel attached to the Queen? I like the Queen fine, and I really like the current GG, but I think we should cut those official ties and replace them with someone who is elected nationally. Or maybe it's because we think electing a President (even if we call the office something else) is too American? I don't know.

Am I alone in this? I don't think I've heard many people seriously talking about an elected a Head of State, but it seems so logical.

[Spazito]

1. I disagree, an elected Head of State ala the U.S. means...

there is no way to directly hold the leader accountable whereas with our current system, the PM must appear in the House of Commons to be answerable for his and his party's actions.

The system we have, for the most part, works well, imo. It does, however, need 'tweaking'. A clarification to the legitimate uses of prorogation is in need as has now been shown by it's gross misuse by Harper and his cabal.

Another tweaking that is in order, imo again, is a stipulation that all parties MUST run candidates in at least 7 out of 10 provinces in order to be on the ballot. They don't have to win in those 7 provinces, although that would be preferable, but it would make parties like the Bloc, who has NO interest in representing Canadians as a whole but, rather, Quebec's interest alone, have to compete and expend the dollars in time and advertising the other parties do.

Edited to add: Oops, I am not meaning to discount the Territories but was using the 7 Provinces as does the Constitution wrt the criteria for amending the Constitution.

[HeresyLives]

3. Much of the way we govern isn't written down.

It's been done all this time by 'tradition' and 'gentlemen's agreements'.

However, Harper isn't a gentleman.

In order to prevent it's misuse again, I'll agree it needs 'tweaking'. Spelled out.

No, I don't want the American system. Congress and the Senate get gridlocked, the leader doesn't get questioned by either QP or scrums, and the 'other' party ends up without a leader, position, or a chance to say anything.

[Lucy Goosey]

6. There would have to be some sort of power-sharing arrangement that was different from the US.

I definitely don't think we should ape the American system exactly, but I still think the current system needs someting more than clarification. I just do not feel like we're all really represented. Harper is literally the MP from Calgary Southwest, and as PM he's meant to be first among equals, not to be the functional head of state. But we have no stomach for an appointed GG overriding an elected PM, which to me means we have no stomach for an appointed head of state.

If the House is the only elected body, then regional parties don't really belong, I agree - I just think the answer might be to have another elected body or entity or something. I think there should be some national place for independent representatives (ala Bernie Sanders!) or regional parties. (On regional parties - is anyone else hoping that Wildrose fields national candidates and splits the Alberta vote?)

I mean, this is all moot, anyway, isn't it? There will not in my lifetime be any consensus to change the Constitution, which means our only option is revolution, and that's not very Canadian. :)

(I hope I'm not being to nasty - I'm not trying to be argumentative, at least not in a bad way - I'm a philosophy grad, and I love a good debate.)

[Spazito]

8. The GG did NOT fulfill her responsibility....

the fault is hers as opposed to the duties and responsibilities of the position itself. Were we to clarify what is acceptable use of the right to prorogue and what is not then the GG, whoever it might be, would not find it as difficult to fulfill their ultimate responsibilities to the citizens of Canada. I am beginning to lean toward advocating for the dissolution of the position of GG if what our current GG has done becomes the norm but, this too is moot, as it would involve a change in the Constitution and, in reality, removing ourselves from the Commonwealth and that is NOT going to happen, not for a long time anyway, imo.

The reality is directly electing our 'leader' gives us no more 'say' then our current system as is clear when one looks at the various systems of democratic governance, indeed, I would say it would more likely make such a leader less accountable than the system, as flawed as it is, we currently have.

I, too, enjoy a good debate!

[HeresyLives]

2. Nothing wrong with proroguing.

Every govt does that, but they are usually back to work within a couple of weeks. It just starts a new session of Parliament, with a new throne speech.

It's the REASON Harper is doing it that's caused the uproar. He's avoiding a lawful order of Parliament in not turning over the documents they've demanded. Plus it avoids nasty questions on the torture issue, allows him to appoint new senators, and restarts with the economy being the main question.

The GG could have said no. She didn't. The problem lies with her, not her position.

Conservatives are pushing us to be exactly the same as the Americans, elected head of state, elected senate...everything.

Let's not go there.

The UK has had the same system for centuries, and it's worked just fine.

[CHIMO]

4. Might Be OK

But you would have to come up with a system of government. Who would be the executive and who would be the others.

On the Senate. If we have an elected senate then we can do away with our MP's. The senate has to approve everything. That is how England wrested away control from the monarchy. If the senate is a provincially controlled institution then we would really have a federation.

[HeresyLives]

5. We would have both houses still.

Same as the Americans do. Both houses would have to approve.

And we already have too much decentralization.

[CHIMO]

10. For

Awhile there might be two houses.

If one has the power to approve a budget then they have all the power.

The lower house would be a lower house. They would have to give the upper house what they want or it would be kicked back to the lower house. The power comes from the authority.

[HeresyLives]

11. Except that's not how it works.

Our Senate has no say on budget bills....and they can only recommend amendments. They can't stop bills.

[CHIMO]

12. Interesting

Could you please provide a reference.

They can't introduce a money bill but they have to approve it in order for it to pass.

Would appreciate the reference about the senates' lack of authority on the budget. Live and learn.

[HeresyLives]

13. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada

[CHIMO]

15. And Here's Back At You

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/03/12/senate-budget-pass.html
Last Updated: Thursday, March 12, 2009 | 4:02 PM ET

[HeresyLives]

16. Says nothing whatever about the topic,

just that the Senate speeded up passage.

[CHIMO]

17. The Budget Had To

Be passed by the senate in order for it to be further considered. If it does not get passed, it goes no further.

[HeresyLives]

19. The Senate cannot refuse to pass it.

It can amend, delay, talk about it endlessly....but it cannot refuse to pass it.

[CHIMO]

20. As I Asked Previously

Please provide the reference that states that the upper house has to pass the budget!

Or more specifically. Where in the rules does it show that the lower house controls the budget over the upper house.
How much time before the upper house has to pass it?
How much may/can they modify it?
If it talks about it endlessly, then how many lifetimes may they consume?

The senate must pass the budget. If they don't pass it, does not come into effect.

They have the power of NO!

The power of NO rules.
Period.

[HeresyLives]

21. I already did.

You never took Civics? Why do I have to tell you the basics of the Canadian system??

[CHIMO]

25. I

Never took civics because it didn't exist.

I did take a lot of history and english history. The senate has to pass the budget for it to proceed.

If the senate is elected it will control.

It is very simple.

[HeresyLives]

27. Civics has always existed.

Or you could simply have opened a book

The Senate has no power whatever...they are there to provide 'sober second thot'....like an extended committee.

It won't 'control' either way...the American one doesn't.

[CHIMO]

28. After

Dragging this topic all over the place, would you please give me the reference where the senate has to pass the budget.

Where is the beef!

[HeresyLives]

29. Now yer just blatherskyting, boyo.

:rofl:

[CHIMO]

31. Try

Harder. Your not there yet!

[HeresyLives]

32. Yer Google button is broken?

[CHIMO]

34. Go

Vote for Iggy.

Your vinegar is surely bringing him and his party a lot!

[HeresyLives]

37. A vote for Layton is a vote for Harper.

Leave your grocery list out of it.

[CHIMO]

39. It's

Not my grocery list. It is yours.

Where is the reference that the senate has to pass the budget.

[Lucy Goosey]

7. I would love to be the one to come up with the system...

...the trick would be getting everyone to listen to me. (I'm not worried about people agreeing - anyone who listens will obviously agree with me ;))

I mostly just think this is a debate worth having, given that the current situation doesn't sit right with so many Canadians.

[Spazito]

9. Well, do I have the system for you (or at least a system in Canada that is different)!

The governance structure of Nunavut is a fascinating structure in that it is not one of parties but, rather, one where the Members of the Legislative Assembly are elected by their communities and there is NO party loyalty to 'side-track' their votes, the Premier is elected by the members of the Legislative Assembly as opposed to the the automatic ascension of the leader of any winning party.

I had a marvelous link that explained the Nunavut form of governance but, unfortunately, I had my hard-drive cleaned and lost the link. I am searching in hopes of finding the site again but no luck so far.

If you notice none of the Cabinet members or ML As have a party affiliation after their name on these Nunavut Government sites:

Cabinet members:

http://www.gov.nu.ca/english/cabinet/

ML As:

http://www.assembly.nu.ca/english/index.html

I did find this in a CBC article that clarifies how their consensus governance system works:

Eva Aariak topples incumbent to become Nunavut's 2nd premier


Aariak, the MLA for Iqaluit East and Nunavut's former languages commissioner, won more votes than Okalik and veteran politician Tagak Curley in a secret ballot conducted late Friday afternoon among Nunavut's 17 sitting MLAs in the Nunavut leadership forum.

The forum, a characteristic of the territory's consensus style of government, has been a pivotal part of its politics since Nunavut was created in 1999.

The MLAs, who were voted into office in the Oct. 27 territorial election, took part in the forum Friday to choose a premier, speaker and six cabinet members from among their peers.

http://www.cbc.ca/nunavutvotes2008/story/2008/11/14/nunavut-forum.html

[CHIMO]

14. Agree

But unfortunately we all must pass away eventually and then it falls on rules.

The current situation may not sit right with so many Canadians, but they haven't thought through the significance of an elected political senate.

Quebec was brought into the confederation as an equal partner in Canada. How many Canadians accept this concept of Canada? Just because the reform bunch have been pounding on an equal and elected senate for the past twenty years doesn't make it a workable system for the country!

Yes. It would be worthy of a discussion. But before the discussion is started, it should undergo several years of discussion and debates in groups not directly connected to political parties.

[HeresyLives]

18. What is this 'sit right' business?

This is the system. Period.

The one every province signed on to when they joined the original federation...which started with Ontario and Quebec, the original Canada.

[CHIMO]

22. If

You would care to read the post that I was responding to you would see the relationship.
No reason to get excited.

[HeresyLives]

23. If there is something you're trying to say,

I wish you'd do it in English. I can never figure out what you're talking about, and most days I'm not sure you know either.

[CHIMO]

24. Then

Perhaps you shouldn't try responding to something that you don't understand.

[HeresyLives]

26. Or perhaps you could speak English,

and have some knowledge of your history and system of govt.

[CHIMO]

30. Try

Again. You need a lot more bite than that!

[HeresyLives]

33. Nah...yer just talking smak

I gave you an url...you didn't read it.

And the Senate is online too...learn to use yer Google button.

[CHIMO]

35. Parliament of England

Following Edward's escape from captivity, Montfort was defeated and killed at the Battle of Evesham in 1265. Henry's authority was restored and the Provisions of Oxford were forgotten, but this was nonetheless a turning point in the history of the Parliament of England. Although he was not obliged by statute to do so, Henry summoned the Commons to parliament three times between September 1268 and April 1270. However, this was not a significant turning point in the history of parliamentary democracy. It is worth remembering that being sent to parliament to be coerced into granting taxes for the government and then returning to explain this to one's constituents was by no means an enviable task. Subsequently, very little is known about how representatives were selected because, at this time, being sent to parliament was not a prestigious undertaking. However Montfort's decision to summon knights and burgesses to his parliament did mark the irreversible emergence of the gentry class as a force in politics. From then on, monarchs could not ignore them, which explains Henry's decision to summon the Commons to several of his post-1265 parliaments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England

Where is the reference that the Senate has to pass the budget?

[HeresyLives]

36. That's nice. This is Canada. Hellooooo.

Name one time in the history of Canada the Senate hasn't passed the budget.

[CHIMO]

38. Pleas

Give your reference for the Senate having to pass the budget.

[HeresyLives]

40. If you won't read the references

it's a waste of time talking to you. The Senate can't refuse to pass any bill, and we even have a specific provision for deadlock.

I don't know where you learned your history, but you should demand your money back.

[CHIMO]

41. Where

Is the reference that the senate has to pass the budget?

[IntravenousDemilo]

42. I just read the Wikipedia reference you provided.

It says, "Although the approval of both houses is necessary for legislation, the Senate rarely rejects bills passed by the directly elected Commons." Not "... never rejects bills..."

and then later down the page:

"The Senate at times is more active at reviewing, amending, and even rejecting legislation. The late 1980s and early 1990s was one of those periods. During this period the Senate opposed legislation on issues such as the 1988 free trade bill with the U.S. (forcing the Canadian federal election of 1988), and the Goods and Services Tax (GST).<9><10> In the 1990s, the Senate rejected four pieces of legislation: a bill passed by the Commons restricting abortion (C-43), a proposal to streamline federal agencies (C-93), a bill to redevelop the Lester B. Pearson airport (C-28), and a bill on profiting from authorship as it relates to crime (C-220)."

Now, if you would be so kind as to provide chapter and verse backing your statement that the Senate can't refuse to pass any bill...?

[HeresyLives]

43. They can send it back for amendment,

cuz their job is to find the faults in a bill. They cannot refuse to pass it. When they've tried, we've gone to an election or appointed more senators.

But I'm glad you admitted you hadn't bothered reading the references before commenting.

[IntravenousDemilo]

44. I thought the REFERENCE was the Wikipedia selection you were offering.

So yes, according to what I thought you meant, I did read "bother" to read the references. Were you maybe referring to the footnotes in the Wiki? What about those four bills in the 1990s? I couldn't find anything anywhere saying that each of these rejections precipitated an election or led to the appointment of more senators. One of the bills in fact died because the vote resulted in a 48-48 tie. "During the 1993 federal election the Progressive Conservative government privatized Pearson Airport, agreeing to sell it to a business consortium. When the Liberals won the election they cancelled the deal as they promised they would during the campaign. Once in office the Liberals proposed Bill C-28 to limit the right of the business consortium to sue over compensation for foregone profits and exemplary damages. The Senate, however, was instrumental in the bill’s eventual defeat Bill C-28 even after it was passed by the House of Commons." http://www.cbc.ca/newsinreview/apr98/senate/legisl.htm

For the most part, you're right, and the Senate does act pretty much as a rubber stamp for HofC legislation. Just not all the time. Very infrequently, "sober second thought" means "no". All I'm suggesting is that you ought to consider emending your statement to say that the Senate rarely kills Commons bills (rather than "never").

[HeresyLives]

45. Doesn't matter, you don't read em anyway.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/senate/legisfocus/focus-e.htm

http://www.rhondaparkinson.com/senatestructure.htm

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/Senate/Senatetoday/laws-e.html

You just wanna insist the Senate is secretly running the country.

[IntravenousDemilo]

46. Oh, but I do read 'em.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/senate/legisfocus/focus-e.htm
"In addition to its power to initiate all but financial legislation as well as that of absolute veto, the Senate was dealt a strong hand in 1867 on how Canada's Constitution would be altered in the future, since its concurrence would be required to make any constitutional amendments. The Senate exercised its right to refuse on only two occasions: in 1936 when it failed to pass an amendment to the Constitution that would have widened the provinces' rights to tax, and again in 1960 when it changed a constitutional amendment by freeing district and county court judges from an age 75 retirement requirement, leaving the age limit to apply to superior court judges only. The House of Commons concurred. The requirement of the Senate's concurrence for constitutional amendment was revoked with the patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982, although the Senate maintains a 180 day suspensive veto on such amendment.

"In being able to amend, postpone and veto legislation, the Senate was constitutionally granted the power needed to make it effective. Yet, due to its appointed nature and in the shadow of public criticism, the Senate has often refrained from exercising this power."
...
"... In the first sixty years after Confederation (1867 - 1927), approximately 180 bills were passed by the House of Commons and sent to the Senate that subsequently did not receive Royal Assent either because they were rejected by the Senate or were passed by the Senate with amendments that were not accepted by the Commons. In contrast, less than one-quarter that number of bills was lost for similar reasons in the sixty-year period from 1928 to 1987.13. In the 1970s, the practice of pre-study of bills before they reached the Senate virtually eliminated the need for amendments when bills reached the Senate, as the amendments were often taken care of while the bills were still in the Commons. Since the 1980s, pre-study has been rare, and a significant number of direct amendments to some controversial legislation have been recommended by the Senate. This has led to the loss of some Bills when the House has not concurred before the end of a session. Only four bills -- Bill C-43 on abortion, Bill C-93 on the reorganization of certain boards, agencies, commissions and tribunals, Bill C-28 on the L.B. Pearson International Airport, and C-220 on profiting from authorship respecting a crime – have actually been defeated in the past several decades, with all of these defeats occurring in the 1990s."



http://www.rhondaparkinson.com/senatestructure.htm
"Legally, the Canadian Senate has powers nearly parallel to the House of Commons. To become law, a Bill must pass through both Houses of Parliament before receiving Royal Assent. The Senate can amend, delay, or refuse to pass bills introduced in the lower House. Following a 1947 amendment, a House of Commons MP can introduce legislation in the Senate. However, there are two major restrictions on the Senate's powers:
*The Senate cannot introduce financial legislation
*Under the Constitution Act, 1982, the House of Commons has an absolute veto over constitutional amendments, while the Senate has a 180 day suspensive veto. This means the Senate can only delay the legislation for 180 days. The one exception is Section 44, dealing with amending Parliament's powers. Both the House of Commons and the Senate have an absolute veto over amendments to this section."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/Senate/Senatetoday/laws-e.html
"Canada’s Constitution gives both houses of Parliament the power to defeat proposed legislation sent to it by the other house. This is called the veto power. While the Senate does not oppose the will of the Commons very often, senators have rejected bills. Senators have considered this possibility on occasions when they felt the government did not have an electoral mandate for a measure opposed by the public, when the bill was obviously outside the constitutional authority of Parliament, or under other extraordinary circumstances.

"The Senate can defeat government bills without the dramatic political fallout that would occur if the House of Commons did the same thing. If the House of Commons defeats a major piece of legislation, the government usually resigns and an election is called. If a bill is defeated in the Senate, the government can go back to the drawing board and submit a new bill.

"In 1998, after extensive hearings and consultation with a broad range of witnesses, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee opposed the enactment of Bill C-220. The bill, although not a government bill, which was passed by the House of Commons, would have provided the government with the power to censor publications written by persons convicted of crimes where the publication in question was based substantially on the crime for which the conviction was entered. Senators on the Committee believed that the bill was a direct violation of section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees freedom of expression. The Senate agreed with the Committee’s recommendation, and the bill was rejected."

And just how do you know what I "wanna" do? If the Senate were secretly running the country, marijuana would have been legal long ago. They have been reticent to exercise their full powers most, but not all, of the time, simply because they're appointed rather than elected. Senators are not mindless drones whose sole purpose is to rubber-stamp government legislation, nor were they ever intended to be, despite the efforts of both Conservative and Liberal governments to make them so. Your contention that the Senate must pass all legislation from the HoC is incorrect, period. Just admit that and we'll move on.

[HeresyLives]

47. In spite of the attempted cherry-picking, the fact remains

'"The Senate can defeat government bills without the dramatic political fallout that would occur if the House of Commons did the same thing. If the House of Commons defeats a major piece of legislation, the government usually resigns and an election is called. If a bill is defeated in the Senate, the government can go back to the drawing board and submit a new bill.'

In other words the Senate does what it's meant to, provide sober second thought. It does not, and cannot, defeat the govt, or run the country, or flatly refuse to pass a bill.

[IntravenousDemilo]

48. Who's cherry picking? I'm not.

I was using the references you provided and bolding the salient parts.

Then there's your quote just now, "The Senate can defeat government bills without the dramatic political fallout that would occur if the House of Commons did the same thing. If the House of Commons defeats a major piece of legislation, the government usually resigns and an election is called. If a bill is defeated in the Senate, the government can go back to the drawing board and submit a new bill." How does this square with your post #43? "They can send it back for amendment, cuz their job is to find the faults in a bill. They cannot refuse to pass it. When they've tried, we've gone to an election or appointed more senators." I believe you're getting mixed up here. Do we rush to the polls when major government legislation is defeated in the House of Commons, or in the Senate? One of your posts says one thing, while the other says the other. So which is it?

I never maintained that the Senate can "defeat the government" or run the country (singlehandedly, anyway, although they play a part in doing so). They can, however, flatly refuse to pass a bill. And they have done so, rarely. That's all I said, and please don't presume I'm saying any more or less than exactly that.

[HeresyLives]

49. Oh of course not.

:rofl:

Sorry, my statement stands.

[IntravenousDemilo]

50. No, you're saying two different, contradictory things, as I pointed out.

Your argumentation is thus flawed and your statement does not stand, because it has no legs. Besides which, Chimo and I are quite flatly and factually correct, while you're not. We're not faulting you for being wrong, but why are you being so pigheadedly and obstinately wrong, even in the face of evidence (which you have provided)? I expect that kind of attitude from the likes of Peter MacKay.

[HeresyLives]

51. Actually, I've been quite clear.

As is the constitution.

[IntravenousDemilo]

52. Clearly wrong, yes.

And there is nothing in our constitution that says the Senate is required to pass bills that have arrived from the HoC. If there were, you'd have triumphantly shown us where it says so by now.

You're just talking through your bonnet at this point, and your ego refuses to let you admit that you are mistaken.

[HeresyLives]

53. Well you two argue it between yourselves.

The Senate cannot refuse to pass a bill. Sorry.

[IntravenousDemilo]

54. You're clearly not all there, madame. Good day. n/m

[HeresyLives]

55. LOL whatever makes you happy./nt

[IntravenousDemilo]

56. Well, what DOESN'T make me happy is arguing with a fucking brick wall. Again, good day. n/m

[HeresyLives]

57. Then stop doing it! LOL

[IntravenousDemilo]

58. I shall. I might also suggest that you stop being one if you wish to progress.

[HeresyLives]

59. I progressed way past you years ago.

Now stop with the insults and stick to topics. :rofl:

[IntravenousDemilo]

60. Oh, pull the other leg, lady. It's got bells on it.

You have not pointed out where in the constitution it says that the Senate cannot reject bills from the HoC, despite your stubborn insistence that such is the case.

You have stated, unbelievably, that either a) when the House of Commons defeats a government bill, there is political fallout that is not there when a bill goes down to defeat in the Senate (by which statement you actually admit that the Senate does at least occasionally reject bills from the HoC), or b) that when the Senate rejects a bill there is political fallout (by which statement, again, you actually admit that the Senate does at least occasionally reject bills from the HoC). The two statements are contradictory -- is it the House or the Senate defeating a bill that has historically led us to the polls? Yet stubbornly, you have decided to overlook (and perhaps cherish) your brain fart.

I have demonstrated, using your own sources, that the Senate can reject, and indeed has rejected, bills from the HoC. Still, you stubbornly refuse to accept these facts as evidence against your mere opinion, which makes you clearly delusional.

You have put words in my mouth that were not there before, claiming that I believe the Senate secretly runs everything. When I called you on it, you stubbornly failed to address the point, preferring to, shall we say, prorogue that part of the discussion rather than admit you're wrong. This makes you intellectually dishonest.

In fact, I believe you are one of those insufferably stubborn women who just can't stand it when a man is right and you are wrong (it does happen occasionally, you know). Female ego run rampant.

Until you learn to accept your errors for what they are and move on, you'll never learn anything of any value. And until you have learned to separate fact from opinion, you have no future as a debater. All you've shown yourself capable of is stubbornness.

[HeresyLives]

61. Really? You come with bells?

Unlikely...then you'd be interesting.

[IntravenousDemilo]

62. Yes, it's how you can tell. n/m