Senate Appointments

[punked]

You must be furios then. Will it change your vote to a party that wants to end the Senate?

Quite right the only party that does not recognize their own Senators? The party which is not a bunch of hypocrites who believe in what they say?

[Riverwind]

Quite right the only party that does not recognize their own Senators? The party which is not a bunch of hypocrites who believe in what they say?

ROTFL. Layton was all huffy about the respecting "rules of parliment" when he thought he could grab a cabinet seat despite the fact that a clear majority of Canadians rejected the idea even if it was constitutionally legal. Now he is whining about the PM using those same rules.

[punked]

ROTFL. Layton was all huffy about the respecting "rules of parliment" when he thought he could grab a cabinet seat despite the fact that a clear majority of Canadians rejected the idea even if it was constitutionally legal. Now he is whining about the PM using those same rules.

The NDP have been "whining?" about the Senate wayyyyyy before the Reform party took it on. They stick their guns unlike Harper at least.

[Shakeyhands]

ROTFL. Layton was all huffy about the respecting "rules of parliment" when he thought he could grab a cabinet seat despite the fact that a clear majority of Canadians rejected the idea even if it was constitutionally legal. Now he is whining about the PM using those same rules.

Hmm... perhaps if you understood how our parliament worked, you may not have made such a silly comment.

[willy]

The NDP have been "whining?" about the Senate wayyyyyy before the Reform party took it on. They stick their guns unlike Harper at least.

It is easy to say just about anything when you have no power to make it come true. For Layton to say abolish is fine, he is not in a position to make it happen. For Harper to do the same thing it would mean entering into constitutional talks with all the provinces etc.

Protest party = pie in the sky. Governing should and is tempered by practicality. For all those who said Harper was an ideologue you should be happy he has shown to be very pragmatic. I.e. auto loans, deficits in recession, appointing without consultation etc. All good Liberal policies. Can the opposition say they would have done different or would they still say more is needed?

[punked]

It is easy to say just about anything when you have no power to make it come true. For Layton to say abolish is fine, he is not in a position to make it happen. For Harper to do the same thing it would mean entering into constitutional talks with all the provinces etc.

Protest party = pie in the sky. Governing should and is tempered by practicality. For all those who said Harper was an ideologue you should be happy he has shown to be very pragmatic. I.e. auto loans, deficits in recession, appointing without consultation etc. All good Liberal policies. Can the opposition say they would have done different or would they still say more is needed?

I agree Harper is looking more and more like a Liberal everyday. Why not just go for the real thing or even better lets get ride of both those parties.

[August1991]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Guess we know what party Mike Duffy has belonged to all this time.

Do we?

And by your logic, I guess we know who Adrienne Clarkson voted for.

Unfortunately, we still don't know how Michaelle Jean (or her husband) voted in 1995.

[kuzadd]

Go PM Harper!

You didn't let me down, no sireee, I said you would do what any opportunistic politician would do, fill the seats ASAP, and you did!

Full of cronies.

So much for much ballyhooed reform, and taking the high road, and being more honourable then the liberals garbage.

It's just more of the same.

Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin?

[Shakeyhands]

Do we?

And by your logic, I guess we know who Adrienne Clarkson voted for.

Unfortunately, we still don't know how Michaelle Jean (or her husband) voted in 1995.

I'd have to say that neither Clarkson or Jean have been the shill that Duffy has been.... therein lies the difference.

[punked]

Do we?

And by your logic, I guess we know who Adrienne Clarkson voted for.

Unfortunately, we still don't know how Michaelle Jean (or her husband) voted in 1995.

I know which side Michel Rivard one Harpers other appointments to the Senate was in 1995. He was for Separation in fact he work on the Yes campaign, giving power to Harper is giving power to the separatist I guess.

[madmax]

The NDP have been "whining?" about the Senate wayyyyyy before the Reform party took it on. They stick their guns unlike Harper at least.

Reformers no longer exist. The folded up their tent to become Blue Lieberals.

[jdobbin]

Do we?

I think we do. I don't believe Harper would have asked Duffy if he thought the man was suddenly going to sit as a Liberal.

And by your logic, I guess we know who Adrienne Clarkson voted for.

Unfortunately, we still don't know how Michaelle Jean (or her husband) voted in 1995.

I've seen no indication of either having being supportive of the Liberals or being members of the Liberal party before they were appointed. We certainly know Clarkson has not been a party member following stepping down.

We do know that Duffy is sitting as a Tory member of the Senate.

I compare this to when Jim Munson was appointed to the Senate by the Liberals. Someone in the Liberal party knew he was a Liberal and would sit as a Liberal if asked.

[Keepitsimple]

National Post Editorial:

Editorial: A Senate stacked for reform

National Post

Published: Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Some of the 18 Senate appointments Prime Minister Stephen Harper made on Monday were inspired. Long-time CTV Parliament Hill journalist Mike Duffy is an exceptional selection, as are Patrick Brazeau of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and Nancy Greene Raine, B. C. businesswoman and former Olympic gold-medal skier. Some others are puzzling: Why, for instance, is Mr. Harper appointing the Liberal-friendly former broadcaster Pamela Wallin ... as a Tory? Among the 18, there are also those who are simply Tory faithful-- well-known hacks being rewarded for their years of service.

But to the extent that the dozen-and-a-half new members of Parliament's upper chamber keep the flicker of Senate reform alive, they are all good choices.

It seems counter-intuitive to argue that the ideal of an elected Senate might be well-served by a rash of traditional patronage appointments. But it's true.

Mr. Harper has resisted the temptation to fill Parliament's Red Chamber for nearly three years in hopes that momentum would build among voters and premiers for Senate elections. Senate appointments are the ultimate political reward that prime ministers have for party friends; and no other prime minister since Confederation has shown such restraint in handing them out, even as the pressure must have been intense on him to use the vacancies to reward loyalists.

But neither the opposition nor most of the provinces showed much appetite for Senate elections or other reforms, such as term limits. If opposition politicians complain about yesterday's appointments, if they charge Mr. Harper is a hypocrite -- as some will -- for going back on his pledge to appoint the winners of province-wide Senate elections, then they have no one but themselves to blame.

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1106725

[Shakeyhands]

National Post Editorial:

HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!! The Post is supporting Harper!!!! WOW!

[Argus]

There are a couple of ways he could have gone here, if he felt he had to appoint people to the senate. He could have either appointed very notable Canadians - for example, taken only people who were Companions of the Order of Canada, or he could have really demonstrated his contempt for the place by having someone go down to the Sally Ann shelter and brought over 18 homeless people to take the jobs.

The first decision would have drawn respect. The second howls of laughter. Either would have been better than what he did.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Lets wait and see how this plays out. These appointments were made with the doors to the Commons closed during a Christmas break. That break was early, at the whim of the government. The opposition parties will be silent until after Christmas, but there will be action in the bullpen before New Years Day, bet on it. I am willing to bet that the Coalition was just given the breath of live from Harper, there is no going back now.

Harper has called the game, parliamentary tricks for the fools who would seek to go against him. The rules are not exactly clear, but the fact remains that as long as he retains power these things will continue. Iggy has his work cut out for him, he must outsmart Harper. If he cannot do this very quickly he will loose a vast opportunity. The public is willing to wait and see what happens. If Iggy can make Harper look bad, Harper is done like dinner.

[Wild Bill]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Guess we know what party Mike Duffy has belonged to all this time.

Is that a crime, to not be a Liberal and get appointed?

I guess we're still wondering about Adrienne Clarkson and Micky-Jean.

[Wild Bill]

I think we do. I don't believe Harper would have asked Duffy if he thought the man was suddenly going to sit as a Liberal.

I've seen no indication of either having being supportive of the Liberals or being members of the Liberal party before they were appointed. We certainly know Clarkson has not been a party member following stepping down.

Jdobbin, be serious! Both your examples had worked for the CBC!

I find it interesting that with this block of appointments all journalists came from the CTV side of the spectrum. The CBC were shut out.

Just some overdue balancing, I guess.

[Mr.Canada]

Harper is a brilliant strategist and knows that these appointments would draw the ire of the opposition. He wants the Coalition to vote him down over a sensible budget and go to an election. He sticking it in and twisting, twisting, twisting...He's playing the Coalition like marionettes. First it was the party funding, now the Senate and judicial appointments.

If they were ready to vote no confidence over a few million dollars what do you think the Coalition will do with Harper taking away their bribes?

Harper is the master of politic and playing with the oppositions emotions. He did it so close to Christmas as they'd have to stew in their own juices infuriating them even more. We're going to an election with the Coalition! Bring it on!

[madmax]

The first decision would have drawn respect. The second howls of laughter. Either would have been better than what he did.

Thats a pretty dramatic statement. How so? You will have to read your original post incase I haven't cropped enough to comment on.

I take it you are not completely happy with the Senate Choices?

[madmax]

Lets wait and see how this plays out. These appointments were made with the doors to the Commons closed during a Christmas break. That break was early, at the whim of the government. The opposition parties will be silent until after Christmas, but there will be action in the bullpen before New Years Day, bet on it. I am willing to bet that the Coalition was just given the breath of live from Harper, there is no going back now.

Harper has called the game, parliamentary tricks for the fools who would seek to go against him. The rules are not exactly clear, but the fact remains that as long as he retains power these things will continue. Iggy has his work cut out for him, he must outsmart Harper. If he cannot do this very quickly he will loose a vast opportunity. The public is willing to wait and see what happens. If Iggy can make Harper look bad, Harper is done like dinner.

No one in the General Pubic cares what Harper Did. Nor will they give a rats ass if the opposition partys make a whine in January.

Iggy SMiggy.

[Argus]

Thats a pretty dramatic statement. How so? You will have to read your original post incase I haven't cropped enough to comment on.

I take it you are not completely happy with the Senate Choices?

Should I be? If we must have an unelected Senate it should, at the least, be made up of distinguished people, not a bunch of hacks and flacks and third-rate politicians and hangers on.

There is an old joke which I can adapt somewhat to Canada. In it an important man goes to the PM looking for a job for his son. "No problem," says the PM. "I can appoint him to the Senate!"

"No, no, no," says the man. "He's just a young lad, and he knows nothing of politics".

"No problem," says the PM. "I'll appoint him as a judge".

"No, no, no," says the man. "He wouldn't know anything about that. He hasn't even gone to college yet."

"Ahh," says the PM. "Perhaps he'd like to be president of the CBC!"

"For God's sakes!" the man says. "I was just looking for him to get a job as a junior clerk in the public service."

"A clerk?!" says the PM. "Are you crazy! He'd have to pass all kinds of tests and go before selection boards for that!"

[Smallc]

Should I be? If we must have an unelected Senate it should, at the least, be made up of distinguished people, not a bunch of hacks and flacks and third-rate politicians and hangers on.

God it's scary how often we agree. I really don't understand why successive Prime Ministers can't appoint people on the basis of their contribution to Canada rather than their patronage. The Red Chamber is supposed to be one of sober second thought. Now, it might just end up being as big of a boxing match as the commons.

[Moonbox]

You must be furious then. Will it change your vote to a party that wants to end the Senate?

I'm a little late replying here sorry. I would strongly consider voting for someone who's pushing Senate reform. I don't like the appointed Senate. It doesn't make sense. The Senate is ultimately our check and balance for parliament. If parliament isn't looking out for us, then the Senate is there to block bad legislation.

It defeats the whole purpose of the Senate to have the senators appointed. That's like having your brother or sister audit your business. It doesn't make sense. Why would you have a political safeguard appointed by the people that the senate is designed to safeguard against??

[Smallc]

Why would you have a political safeguard appointed by the people that the senate is designed to safeguard against??

Which is why the advice of the Prime Minister should be again taken out of consideration. Senators should be picked in a similar way to Order of Canada recipients. It could then go for review by an all party committee or something. Electing them will only make it a more political place. Just look at the US Senate. I've been watching it through the auto bailout talks and such. The partisan posturing is something that we don't need in the upper chamber.