Canada Prime Minister Harper gives self Presidential powers

Post Reply New Topic

PM Harper leads a minority government meaning that the more left-wing majority can propose and pass bills into law. Recently, as he has been PM for four years, he has been able to stack the Senate with his people and achieve for the first time a majority there. Since that has happened, the Senate has struck down every single bill proposed by someone other than the ruling Conservatives with a party-line vote by the Conservatives. As far as I know, this is unprecedented. The unelected Senate very rarely kills legislation and certainly not in this manner. The whole thing resembles a presidential veto wielded by Stephen Harper.

By the way, one of the most recent vetoes is a bill that would have allowed former Nortel workers who are disabled to continue recieving benefits. It was an amendment to bankruptcy law. The rule usually is that the richest and most powerful are paid off first in bankruptcy proceedings usually leaving company pensions and disability coffers empty. It was noted that despite Nortel's problems its executives voted itself gigantic bonuses which naturally were allowed to pass despite Nortel's financial problems.

He was always credited with running a ... tight ship.

If we are going to accuse the Prime Minister of accumulating power within his office, I am not persuaded that this is the issue on which to hang him. The Senate has a constitutional function, and he has exercised his legitimate authority in advising the Governor General to summon Senators.

This does, however, put the question of Senate reform very squarely on the radar. And with it comes the question of whether the Prime Minister's efforts in this regard are appropriate, or wise.

Its hardly the first time someones stacked a majority in the senate.

Appointments need to end though.

I don't disagree, Fuzzy, but I think there are some very fundamental questions that must be answered.

1) Ought a Senate to exist? New Zealand is really our only model for a national, unicameral parliamentary democracy in the Westminster model, and I am aware of none in federal parliamentary democracies. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't go in that direction, but we should have a discussion about what that means for federal-provincial relationships.

2) An elected Senate will have an electoral mandate, and the legitimacy to use its constitutional power.
Should that power include the power to deny supply?
Should the Senate have the power to withdraw confidence in the Government of the Day, generally?
What should the power of an elected Senate be to defeat legislation (other than supply) passed as a confidence measure in the House?

3) What should the composition of the Senate be?
If composition is changed to some form of equality, will that affect PEI's membership in the House of Commons?

4) What is the method of election?
First past the post in some sub-provincial district? (Québec is already divided into districts for Senate purposes)
STV or PR for some or all of a province's Senators on a fixed schedule? If so, what of the territories?

All of these are matters that require the development of some level of national consensus. It's not enough to say, "appointments must end," unless we have a discussion about what replaces them.

I agree with your points visagrunt. Just the other day I was wondering if maybe we just shouldnt have a senate at all. We probably have enough push-pull on the provincial-federal level, and I wouldnt mind a federal government that sort of looks to see whats working best for the provinces and modelling off of that. Not that they are ever likely to play such a passive role, but there is a precedence In the Tommy Douglas Government starting up universal Health Care. It was good for Saskatchewan, and it turned out well enough for the rest of us.

In such a situation the opt-out clause in the constitution would probably get a little exercise(and thus serve a purpose), and at the same time, the provinces wouldnt have to feel put upon by the feds.