Harpers Conservative Senate Appointment

[Wilber]

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.

Senator's biases will also outlast that person that appointed them. They were appointed because of their beliefs as much or more than any personal loyalty. If the senate's powers don't change, how would an elected senate be any more able to bring down a government than an appointed one? Aside from how the Senate is composed regionally, my biggest problem with our senate is that it is chosen by the same people who are responsible for the legislation it is supposed to watch over. If you must have appointed senators to watch over legislation, those are the last people you want appointing them. Kind of like having the chief of police appoint judges. Let the provinces chose their own senators by whatever means they see fit and let all the provinces be equal.

[Wilber]

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.

There you go, a Liberal senator who may not be able to swallow something from a Conservative government. A partisan statement in itself that might be OK if he wasn't a political appointee of a Liberal PM and who's actions may be contrary to the wishes of the peoples elected representative. You may truly see it as not being in the best interests of the country but what legitimacy do you have other than being a political appointee of a partisan politician.

[Smallc]

what legitimacy do you have other than being a political appointee of a partisan politician.

replace the word appointed with elected...we're at the same place....only difference is when you're elected you're going to act even more partisan...and the Senate will become a chamber or endless posturing. I also still believe that we shouldn't try to fix what isn't really broken.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Smallc

[g_bambino]

Senator's biases will also outlast that person that appointed them. They were appointed because of their beliefs as much or more than any personal loyalty. If the senate's powers don't change, how would an elected senate be any more able to bring down a government than an appointed one? Aside from how the Senate is composed regionally, my biggest problem with our senate is that it is chosen by the same people who are responsible for the legislation it is supposed to watch over. If you must have appointed senators to watch over legislation, those are the last people you want appointing them. Kind of like having the chief of police appoint judges. Let the provinces chose their own senators by whatever means they see fit and let all the provinces be equal.

Yes, of course a senator's bias will direct his or her actions; is that not the case for all of us? As I imagine it is, that, therefore, isn't really the crux of this discussion. Rather, the point is that what motivates a senator is different to what motivates an MP, purely because of the nature of how each is selected and what is expected of them. A senator may feel "loyal" to the person who recommended them for appointment; however, as already mentioned, senators outlast ministries, so how many senators could ever be "loyal" to the sitting PM? And if senators don't face re-election, why would they feel a need to tout whatever policy of the day their party has adopted? What you worry about could only happen in a system where the prime minister never left office and has himself chosen the entire population of the Senate; which, of course, is not the case in Canada.

That's not to say, though, that both the appointment process and distribution of senators can't be looked at.

_[copyedited]

Edited February 4, 2009 by g_bambino

[Molly]

To Wilbur, in the way-back machine.... you are proposing less representation for BC than I am... (1/13 vs 1/6).

????????????

[Wilber]

replace the word appointed with elected...we're at the same place....only difference is when you're elected you're going to act even more partisan...and the Senate will become a chamber or endless posturing. I also still believe that we shouldn't try to fix what isn't really broken.

The why elect anyone then, lets go back to kings. Without partisanship and posturing we could all stop wasting our time on forums like this. You say that the system isn't broken yet decry the poor voter turnout at elections. A big reason people don't vote is because they feel they have little influence when it comes to the way the system operates or to changing it. When it comes to the composition of the upper house of their parliament and the selection of its members, they are 100% correct. They have zero influence. Instead of comforting yourself with maintaining the status quo on grounds that people don't care, perhaps you should start asking yourself why? What is it that makes you afraid of democratic principles?

[Wilber]

Yes, of course a senator's bias will direct his or her actions; is that not the case for all of us? As I imagine it is, that, therefore, isn't really the crux of this discussion. Rather, the point is that what motivates a senator is different to what motivates an MP, purely because of the nature of how each is selected and what is expected of them. A senator may feel "loyal" to the person who recommended them for appointment; however, as already mentioned, senators outlast ministries, so how many senators could ever be "loyal" to the sitting PM? And if senators don't face re-election, why would they feel a need to tout whatever policy of the day their party has adopted? What you worry about could only happen in a system where the prime minister never left office and has himself chosen the entire population of the Senate; which, of course, is not the case in Canada.

That's not to say, though, that both the appointment process and distribution of senators can't be looked at.

_[copyedited]

How do you know what motivates a senator? Regardless of what motivates them, senators are chosen according to the political views of the person appointing them. They aren't going to change the way they act any more than a Supreme Court justice is going to change the way they rule, just because the government which appointed them is no longer in power?

As I have pointed out, BC has by far the largest population per senator of any province. The other day I woke up to find that of the paltry six who represent me, a new one had been appointed completely without my knowledge. Nothing against Ms Green, she has been very successful in life and for all I know may make a bang up senator but she was appointed without my knowledge or input, by a process that was unknown to me in consultation with whom I have no idea and by a person who neither lives in or was elected by anyone in BC. For you to imply I should be satisfied with that because I am not capable of knowing what is good for me when it comes to picking my representatives is both condescending and arrogant. What is it that makes you so afraid of democratic principles?

[Wilber]

To Wilbur, in the way-back machine.... you are proposing less representation for BC than I am... (1/13 vs 1/6).

????????????

I am proposing equal representation by provinces regardless of size. Please, get over your provincial bias as to who should have the most clout.

[Smallc]

What is it that makes you afraid of democratic principles?

The idea that they should be applied to everything within government scares the hell out of me. The system really isn't broken. If people don't take the time to educate themselves on it and don't take the time to vote, well...too bad.

[Wilber]

The idea that they should be applied to everything within government scares the hell out of me. The system really isn't broken. If people don't take the time to educate themselves on it and don't take the time to vote, well...too bad.

OK then, when do I get to vote for my senator because all except one of them was chosen by someone from Quebec and the other one was chosen by someone from Alberta.

[Wilber]

The idea that they should be applied to everything within government scares the hell out of me. The system really isn't broken. If people don't take the time to educate themselves on it and don't take the time to vote, well...too bad.

We are not talking about everything within government, we are talking about Parliament. Why does it scare the hell out of you that the peoples representatives should be chosen by the people?

[Smallc]

the peoples representatives should be chosen by the people?

They already are. I don't why its so difficult to understand that the Senate was never intended in the way you want it to be used.

[Smallc]

OK then, when do I get to vote for my senator

I don't know, ask Harper.

[g_bambino]

How do you know what motivates a senator? Regardless of what motivates them, senators are chosen according to the political views of the person appointing them. They aren't going to change the way they act any more than a Supreme Court justice is going to change the way they rule, just because the government which appointed them is no longer in power?

As I have pointed out, BC has by far the largest population per senator of any province. The other day I woke up to find that of the paltry six who represent me, a new one had been appointed completely without my knowledge. Nothing against Ms Green, she has been very successful in life and for all I know may make a bang up senator but she was appointed without my knowledge or input, by a process that was unknown to me in consultation with whom I have no idea and by a person who neither lives in or was elected by anyone in BC. For you to imply I should be satisfied with that because I am not capable of knowing what is good for me when it comes to picking my representatives is both condescending and arrogant. What is it that makes you so afraid of democratic principles?

I don't know what unique motivations each individual senator is guided by, and I don't believe I've tried to pretend that I do. What I'm talking about is how one's motivations are affected by the nature of the position they hold; it would be useless for senators to act in the same manner as MPs precisely because senators are chosen and hold office by different means than MPs are. As a senator outlives the ministry that advised his appointment, he soon becomes one step removed from the deep partisanship of party policy and campaigning that his commons counterpart lives knee-deep in every day. A Liberal senator may hold liberal views far beyond the fall of the Liberal Cabinet that put him in office, but he doesn't, because he doesn't have to, conform to whatever form the Liberal Party platform has taken any particular day.

To see a benefit in that doesn't make me afraid of democratic principals, nor does it imply that you aren't capable of choosing someone to represent you. What I am trying to illustrate, though, is my opinion that a stable society needs balance. As it is inherently divisive and unbalanced, stability cannot ever be maintained through partisan politics alone, and, while the mob needs to be heard and addressed, governance and justice, for the sake of the opposing minority, should not be controlled in totality by the whims of the largest mass around at the time. Individuals who demand elections for absolutely every position relating to government betray a kind of juvenile and selfish attitude towards society on their part, not considering that allowing for the election of everything from a president down to police officers, all in the name of democracy, would actually open wide the door to a dictatorship. Democracy, despite how the definition is sometimes abused, is not synonymous with absolute individual freedom.

_[copyedited]

Edited February 4, 2009 by g_bambino

[Mr.Canada]

Alberta votes for the nominees they want why doesn't every province start doing this? Start lobbying your local MPP, don't whine about it be proactive.

[Wilber]

They already are. I don't why its so difficult to understand that the Senate was never intended in the way you want it to be used.

I don't want to change the way it is used. I want to change its structure and how its members are picked. I don't want to change its powers or duties. How are they chosen by the people? I didn't even know I had a new senator until Harper told me so the other day. I have no idea who he consulted to make his decision. Was it just BC members of his own caucus? Was it the provincial government? Was it anyone? Are he and Nancy just good buds? No idea. If we must have appointed senators, at least let us have a transparent process that everyone understands and can follow. The people who make the recommendations should be held responsible for appointments, not just the person who actually makes the appointment. If you want people to stop looking at it as an old boys (and girls) club, stop treating it like one.

[Wilber]

I don't know, ask Harper.

Mr. Canada is right on this one. This is also the fault of my own provincial government. If they had supported elections for senators in waiting, my guess is Harper would have complied.

[g_bambino]

The people who make the recommendations should be held responsible for appointments, not just the person who actually makes the appointment.

This is already the case.

[Smallc]

If they had supported elections for senators in waiting, my guess is Harper would have complied.

They do support it...they are currently working on the way to move forward with it. He just didn't want to wait. All 4 western provinces are working on ways to elect senators, but he just couldn't wait.

[Wilber]

I don't know what unique motivations each individual senator is guided by, and I don't believe I've tried to pretend that I do. What I'm talking about is how one's motivations are affected by the nature of the position they hold; it would be useless for senators to act in the same manner as MPs precisely because senators are chosen and hold office by different means than MPs are. As a senator outlives the ministry that advised his appointment, he soon becomes one step removed from the deep partisanship of party policy and campaigning that his commons counterpart lives knee-deep in every day. A Liberal senator may hold liberal views far beyond the fall of the Liberal Cabinet that put him in office, but he doesn't, because he doesn't have to, conform to whatever form the Liberal Party platform has taken any particular day.

To see a benefit in that doesn't make me afraid of democratic principals, nor does it imply that you aren't capable of choosing someone to represent you. What I am trying to illustrate, though, is my opinion that a stable society needs balance. As it is inherently divisive and unbalanced, stability cannot ever be maintained through partisan politics alone, and, while the mob needs to be heard and addressed, governance and justice, for the sake of the opposing minority, should not be controlled in totality by the whims of the largest mass around at the time. Individuals who demand elections for absolutely every position relating to government betray a kind of juvenile and selfish attitude towards society on their part, not considering that allowing for the election of everything from a president down to police officers, all in the name of democracy, would actually open wide the door to a dictatorship. Democracy, despite how the definition is sometimes abused, is not synonymous with absolute individual freedom.

_[copyedited]

Your reference to the people as "the mob" and their wishes as "whims" says it all. Who is demanding elections for everything, we elect people to govern because we know that isn't possible. Who is talking about absolute individual freedom? We are talking about Parliament, period. Arrogant and condescending is putting it mildly.

[Wilber]

This is already the case.

OK, tell me who Harper consulted with when he made the recent appointments and what each of their recommendations were. I would like to know who else was being considered and why they weren't appointed.

[Wilber]

They do support it...they are currently working on the way to move forward with it. He just didn't want to wait. All 4 western provinces are working on ways to elect senators, but he just couldn't wait.

Understood, Alberta's government was on the ball and ready, mine was dithering and missed the boat. Their fault, our fault, however you like it.

[Smallc]

Their fault, our fault, however you like it.

Or Harper's fault. I prefer that idea.

[Wilber]

Or Harper's fault. I prefer that idea.

I know you do. Hardly Harper's fault if the provinces don't have someone ready to put in place. Alberta managed to do it. How long is he supposed to wait?

[Smallc]

I know you do. Hardly Harper's fault if the provinces don't have someone ready to put in place.

Well, he could have simply appointed Senators from provinces that weren't working on a solution.