Senate appointments

[dlkenny]

How do you figure that?

The House and the Opposition are not involved in the Prime Ministers decisions to appoint Senators, if he chooses to do that.

Right, and the irony is that he must appoint conservative senators to get senate reform measures passed because the Liberal majority simply stall out the legislation. The only way for him to acheive senate reform is to appoint like minded senators on the premise that they'll pass any senate reform measures that reach the upper chamber from the legislature.

I have trouble with the notion that Harper is breaking one of his core values in appointing senators, I think the Liberals in this case are bellyaching to the public and trying to tar the PM simply because they don't want to lose what's left of their power - a majority in the senate.

[Mr.Canada]

I know you were joking, don't worry, I wasn't taking offense, I was joking too. I still like the idea of sober second thought, but I don't think political appointments are the way to achieve it. That's why I like the idea of returning all discretion to the Governor General. I like the idea of a chamber of merit.

Yeah...right... and if the GG was a known Tory and the PM a Liberal you would hate that idea and insist that the PM has t he right to appoint whomever they like. You'd quote the Constitution and everything so spare us.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I have trouble with the concept that Canadians belly ache about the Senate only when a PM exercises their power! Pick a partisan sect either one of the only true ruling parties stack the deck whenever they can.

The media doesn't help, and apathy rules in this nation. The greatest demographic by a long shot is the guy that simply doesn't vote. So it isn't really the PM's fault, its our own. Its our fault because we don't get off our butts and do something about it. This nation needs a severe makeover in political terms and we simply won't see things change for the better until the system is reformed, period.

[Smallc]

Yeah...right... and if the GG was a known Tory and the PM a Liberal you would hate that idea and insist that the PM has t he right to appoint whomever they like. You'd quote the Constitution and everything so spare us.

No I wouldn't. You might in a reverse situation, but I certainly wouldn't. The person who is Governor General usually doesn't act in a partisan manner, but no matter who they appointed, I would respect it. I would like all party status to be removed from the Senate Chamber. I would like simply like a group of 105 (well, actually, I would like 103, but that's a different debate) people with the interests of Canada and the provinces in mind.

[Mr.Canada]

No I wouldn't. You might in a reverse situation, but I certainly wouldn't. The person who is Governor General usually doesn't act in a partisan manner, but no matter who they appointed, I would respect it. I would like all party status to be removed from the Senate Chamber. I would like simply like a group of 105 (well, actually, I would like 103, but that's a different debate) people with the interests of Canada and the provinces in mind.

That's impossible, people pick sides, it's natural. Tories love this country too we just see things differently as to what is best for Canada.

[Smallc]

That's impossible, people pick sides, it's natural. Tories love this country too we just see things differently as to what is best for Canada.

Some people are also capable of putting partisanship aside and working for the greater good when called upon to do so.....even Tories.

[LesterDC]

That's impossible, people pick sides, it's natural. Tories love this country too we just see things differently as to what is best for Canada.

That kind of attitude is what usually screws us over..

[Mr.Canada]

That kind of attitude is what usually screws us over..

So Chretien screwed us over with his partisan appointments too right?

[punked]

So Chretien screwed us over with his partisan appointments too right?

YES!!!!! So you want Harper to be more like Chretien now too?

[Mr.Canada]

YES!!!!! So you want Harper to be more like Chretien now too?

Ok, finally we're getting somewhere. So how do you intend to find people who aren't partisan?

[punked]

Ok, finally we're getting somewhere. So how do you intend to find people who aren't partisan?

I intend to let the Senate die it is something the NDP and the CPC agree on I think.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We need the senate, but not the way that it is now. Part of the problems we face are a result of our parliamentary system.

[Mr.Canada]

I intend to let the Senate die it is something the NDP and the CPC agree on I think.

If the Senate is abolished that means that whatever bills are voted in during a house session become law immediately with no recourse. That means if the Tories get a majority they can pass any bills they want and there is nothing anyone can do about it. You're ok with this? I'm surprised.

[jdobbin]

You're ok with this? I'm surprised.

It works in all the provinces. Ate you suggesting they need an upper house?

[jdobbin]

We need the senate, but not the way that it is now. Part of the problems we face are a result of our parliamentary system.

Do they need an upper house in the provinces?

[gordiecanuk]

Where do I apply to be a senator??? If I don't get one of those jobs maybe I can get elected the next time we vote...should only be another month or two, then another month or two after that. What does Canada lead the world in the production of??? POLITICIANS!!! I can thump a desk with the best of them.

[scribblet]

So Chretien screwed us over with his partisan appointments too right?

Of course not, everything is just hunky dory when the Liberals do it.

I'm rootin' for Preston Manning and Deborah Grey... Hope Harper 'gits er done'

[punked]

Of course not, everything is just hunky dory when the Liberals do it.

I'm rootin' for Preston Manning and Deborah Grey... Hope Harper 'gits er done'

Again so you want the CPC to act more like the Liberals is that what you are saying? I think we can all agree with that statement.

[Mr.Canada]

Again so you want the CPC to act more like the Liberals is that what you are saying? I think we can all agree with that statement.

Well the Liberals had their way for 13 years. It was a good run but now it's the Tories turn. If the socialists want to make some appointments stop losing elections. Time to stack the Senate with people who have Canada's best interests at heart and not just looking for votes.

[punked]

Well the Liberals had their way for 13 years. It was a good run but now it's the Tories turn. If the socialists want to make some appointments stop losing elections. Time to stack the Senate with people who have Canada's best interests at heart and not just looking for votes.

So you are saying that you would like Harper to be more like the Liberals and forget all those promises he made?

[Mr.Canada]

So you are saying that you would like Harper to be more like the Liberals and forget all those promises he made?

Do unto others.

[gordiecanuk]

So you are saying that you would like Harper to be more like the Liberals and forget all those promises he made?

Harper is no stranger to breaking promises, just ask seniors who invested heavily in income trusts, naively believing the Conservative pledge to leave their tax free status alone. And let's not forget fixed election dates, don't recall seeing a caveat saying: 'unless the conditions are good for us to win a majority. Then there was that bit about eliminating GST on gasoline over 80 (or was it 85) cents per litre.

That's a pretty good track record in just 2 years, the Liberals are probably jealous.

[scribblet]

Again so you want the CPC to act more like the Liberals is that what you are saying? I think we can all agree with that statement.

The difference is that Harper is requiring appointees to agree to resigning should elections and Senate reform become law.

Better Harper fill the seats now, under those conditions, than leaving them all open for Liberal patronage appointments, or to be used as bait for the coalition/troika.

[Keepitsimple]

For three years, Harper has tried to reform the Senate through the political process but has met resistance from most provinces, the opposition and of course the Liberal-dominated Senate itself. As a result, he's going to try to position the Senate to reform itself. Filling the 18 vacancies with people who are committed to reform and who will voluntarily step down if and when Senate elections are accepted is a good start. If the Conservatives can maintain power until 2010, there will be other vacancies that can finally shift power away from a Liberal majority....and finally, we can have some proper debate and action on Senate reform from within the Red Chamber. In the meantime, adding Conservative members to the Senate will at least provide some balance to some of the working committees. Lets face it, politics can turn on a dime....if the Coaltion gains power or the Liberals win an election, there is absolutely no doubt that they would fill those senate seats with as soon as possible - and you can bet that none will be Conservative and any hope for Senate reform will be lost forever. As Harper says, "it saddens him to have to do it"...........but he really has no choice......and if people would calmly and objectively step back and view this as Senate Reform, they would also see that he has no choice.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

The difference is that Harper is requiring appointees to agree to resigning should elections and Senate reform become law.

I don't see how that can be enforced.

Better Harper fill the seats now, under those conditions, than leaving them all open for Liberal patronage appointments, or to be used as bait for the coalition/troika.

I know how Conservative supporters are going to try and frame the appointments but it seems likely that people will still regard it as awarding friends.