Harpers Conservative Senate Appointment

Wilber · February 4, 2009

And yet, neither the Charter nor Supreme Court justices were selected via the mob rule process you espouse for choosing senators. I must say that's what seems odd to me.

Ah, our MP's are now selected by mob rule. Do you yearn for the days of absolute monarchs?

Smallc · February 4, 2009

According to what you have heard from whom?

It was on Politics around the time of Harper's Senate Appointments.

who does the Senate then represent that the Charter and Supreme Court does not?

They represent the constitution and the good of the country at the time of that actual law making. More importantly perhaps, they represent though and consideration.

Like I have already said, just because you'd like something, it isn't necessarily bad or useless.

Wilber · February 4, 2009

It was on Politics around the time of Harper's Senate Appointments.
They represent the constitution and the good of the country at the time of that actual law making. More importantly perhaps, they represent though and consideration.

Like I have already said, just because you'd like something, it isn't necessarily bad or useless.

I didn't ask what they represent, I asked who they represent.

Smallc · February 4, 2009

I didn't ask what they represent, I asked who they represent.

They represent all Canadians in that they work to come to consensus on issues. Why does it matter? Maybe we should elect civil servants too?

g_bambino · February 4, 2009

I agree with that. They should be working above politics and in the best interests of the country.

Well, the process of debating legislation is inherently political, is it not? Hence, the Crown nearly always stays out of it; publicly, anyway. It would just seem that choosing a senator via a non-electoral process negates any drive in that individual to appeal to the wealthiest or merely the largest bunch of voters.

I always consider Australia's Senate when this debate comes up about Canada's; it seems to work okay as an elected body. But, then, ours seems to as well, and has certainly never played a part in effecting a constitutional crisis as happened with the Australian upper chamber in 1975.

Alta4ever · February 4, 2009

They represent all Canadians in that they work to come to consensus on issues. Why does it matter? Maybe we should elect civil servants too?

They don't represent all Canadians because I can tell you that the appointments made in Alberta prior to Burt brown did not represent us.

They represented the interests of the Liberals party. If you go even further back mulrooneys changes represented hi interests. So these aren't unbiased people they will always put the interests of themselves and the party first. We may as well elect them so they are least accountable to somebody.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Alta4ever

Smallc · February 4, 2009

Well, the process of debating legislation is inherently political, is it not?

Very true. Overall, I think the Senate works as designed. There are always bumps of course, but I really have nothing to complain about.

Oleg Bach · February 4, 2009

Elected verses appointed is the crux. Those appointed are controled by those that do the appointing. Those with the power to appoint also make agreements and instruct the appointee. Just like a judge who is appointed must always swear to keep the policy and agenda in tact that is given them by their masters. A man who is about to appoint a judge will say thing to the fledgling..."I am appointing you and you will do as I instruct" _ after a while we forget who the appointers are and they operate eventually in secret - This system in effect causes a secondary shadow government to form ---for instance all decisions made by the Supreme Court are in line with the will of the ones that appointed these judges - none of them actually judge - they are just hench persons - as the senate is also...They are not some wise and kind overseers - they are lackys.

Wilber · February 4, 2009

They represent all Canadians in that they work to come to consensus on issues. Why does it matter? Maybe we should elect civil servants too?

The let Canadians choose who represents them. Maybe we should just let the Queen appoint the GG and the GG appoint MP's. Why does it matter?

Edited February 4, 2009 by Wilber

Smallc · February 4, 2009

Maybe we should just let the Queen appoint the GG and the GG appoint MP's. Why does it matter?

The Queen does appoint the Governor General. As for MPs, well, they're the people's representatives within parliament. It would make no sense for them to be appointed.

Oleg Bach · February 4, 2009

The let Canadians choose who represents them. Maybe we should just let the Queen appoint the GG and the GG appoint MP's. Why does it matter?

Does the Queen not appoint her own personal representative to the colony of Canada? Does the GG not appoint the MPs? If they do not, then we should abolish this foolishness - but I suspect that the steely eyed old lady still has a lot of power - after all she owns our money...I mean that is her picture on there? Funny how we as a nation of children actually believe that we are all grown up and living on our own...like adults....we may be like kids living in a tent in the back yard and the Queen (mummy) is actually in control as she cooks supper. :rolleyes:

g_bambino · February 4, 2009

Ah, our MP's are now selected by mob rule. Do you yearn for the days of absolute monarchs?

Of course they are. That is democracy. But even the framers of the US constitution were aware of the problems that can arise from "too much democracy"; they too toyed with the idea of a monarch to counter that force. I've no issue with the mob rule that picks our MPs, as long as it is tempered by individuals chosen in as opposite a manner as possible. Senators seem to lie somewhere between the partisanship of the elected commons and the neutrality of the unelected crown; electing those individuals would alter the balance between elected and unelected in our parliamentary system, even if only slightly, and I'm unconvinced on what benefits such a change would bring.

g_bambino · February 4, 2009

Does the Queen not appoint her own personal representative to the colony of Canada? Does the GG not appoint the MPs? Funny how we as a nation of children actually believe that we are all grown up and living on our own...like adults....we may be like kids living in a tent in the back yard and the Queen (mummy) is actually in control as she cooks supper.

Oleg, get out of the 19th century.

Wilber · February 4, 2009

Senators seem to lie somewhere between the partisanship of the elected commons and the neutrality of the unelected crown; electing those individuals would alter the balance between elected and unelected in our parliamentary system, even if only slightly, and I'm unconvinced on what benefits such a change would bring.

If they were something other than political appointees perhaps that case could be made but because they are not, they have even less claim to neutrality than a real aristocracy. A Prime Minister of Canada has more political power than just about any elected office on earth yet you want to give him the power to appoint the house that is supposed to watch over his government. And people complain about police investigating each other.

Oleg Bach · February 4, 2009

Any experience that I have regarding what a senator is stays in the fact that most are men that were accomplished in big buisness on a grand scale - all senators are - are moles that big buisnesss has sent in to undermine an elected government on behalf of the money boys...as if it's about wisdom and over sight and the kindly wise guiding old hand - what a joke.

Smallc · February 4, 2009

A Prime Minister of Canada has more political power than just about any elected office on earth yet you want to give him the power to appoint the house that is supposed to watch over his government.

But you forget, the appointees come from successive Prime Ministers. That means that they aren't all being appointed by the same person and are often not at the same end of the spectrum. It is also important to note that not all senatorial appointments are political in nature. Some are more meritorious.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Smallc

Alta4ever · February 4, 2009

Any experience that I have regarding what a senator is stays in the fact that most are men that were accomplished in big buisness on a grand scale - all senators are - are moles that big buisnesss has sent in to undermine an elected government on behalf of the money boys...as if it's about wisdom and over sight and the kindly wise guiding old hand - what a joke.

Save except Burt Brown our elected senator who was an Alberta farmer.

Wilber · February 4, 2009

But you forget, the appointees come from successive Prime Ministers. That means that they aren't all being appointed by the same person and are often not at the same end of the spectrum. It is also important to note that not all senatorial appointments are political in nature. Some are more meritorious.

Some appointees are meritorious and there are some very worthy people in the Senate but is that what it is supposed to be, a reward? If that is so, just give them a medal and the pension and save the cost of running the place. Let me ask you, when was the last time a Liberal dominated Senate held up legislation from a Liberal government? I would ask the same thing about the Conservatives but can't remember when they had a majority in the Senate.

Oleg Bach · February 4, 2009

Save except Burt Brown our elected senator who was an Alberta farmer.

What? How can this be? Elected? A farmer? - this sounds like Mr. Smith goes to Washington to do what is right...one out of dozens...is not that encouraging. It sure would be fine if more people who were service minded entered political life. But now instead of folks going to serve to HELP run the system - their appointments are honourariums, paybacks...and favours ...and - badges of monetary achievement...Reminds me of old Mafia Dons giving a small town to a loyal thug...as a gift...The senate if it is to exist must be elected..so must judges - to much power is conducted in secret...it boarders on occultism..and it stinks.

Alta4ever · February 4, 2009

What? How can this be? Elected? A farmer? - this sounds like Mr. Smith goes to Washington to do what is right...one out of dozens...is not that encouraging.

You've got a second one here when the opportunity arises.

Smallc · February 4, 2009

when was the last time a Liberal dominated Senate held up legislation from a Liberal government?

They may not have held up the legislation, but you can bet that small changes were made to the legislation as they almost always are.

Oleg Bach · February 4, 2009

They may not have held up the legislation, but you can bet that small changes were made to the legislation as they almost always are.

Senators for the most part are not partisan. They make decisions in favour of the status quo. They assist in the perpetuation of the wealthy intergenerational establishement - Those with the money...and those with the money don't give a damn about left and right wing politic..they play both wings...why would they bother playing politics when their game is money which is true power in our world?

Wilber · February 4, 2009

They may not have held up the legislation, but you can bet that small changes were made to the legislation as they almost always are.

Exactly, when legislation is held up it is for partisan reasons.

Smallc · February 4, 2009

Exactly, when legislation is held up it is for partisan reasons.

Sometimes. I don't think that's always true. Things that appear partisan aren't always so. Its also important to realize that your position on the political spectrum is going to shape the way you view things like bills. If you're a Liberal Senator...it might just be too hard for you to swallow something the Conservatives are trying to push. It may be that you truly see it as not being in the best interests of the country. Despite that, the Senators are usually able to get through it and come to some type of agreement even if it doesn't always happen right away.

g_bambino · February 4, 2009

If they were something other than political appointees perhaps that case could be made but because they are not, they have even less claim to neutrality than a real aristocracy. A Prime Minister of Canada has more political power than just about any elected office on earth yet you want to give him the power to appoint the house that is supposed to watch over his government. And people complain about police investigating each other.

The Senate doesn't "watch over" the government; that is the job of the Commons, to whom the ministry is responsible. The Senate "watches over" legislation. It was in Australia, with its elected Senate, that senators played a role in bringing down a government, and that fact guides my opinions on an elected upper house for this country.

If not a house of hereditary lords as the UK used to have, then what can we choose from other than election and appointment? Senatorial appointments may be tinged with partisanship when they are made, but a senator's term is not reliant on, and thus generally outlasts, any vacillations in the public's fickle tastes in politics, meaning that a senator will eventually see the person who recommended his appointment depart from office. Given that, why would a senator then be guided by the same petty politicking that guides the commons? If they had to face re-election, as MPs do, would senators not then be forced to involve themselves more in the day-to-day political fray? Despite the fact that it is a politician who selects senatorial appointees, senators are not themselves politicians. But elect them, and that's what they'll become.