Senate Appointements

[jdobbin]

As of today, this is what is open:

Ontario: 2

Quebec: 2

New Brunswick: 1

Nova Scotia: 1

Manitoba: 1

Nunavut: 1

By the end of the summer, it will be nine seats.

By the end of October, add two more seats,

I'm sure there are a lot of Conservatives angling for those seats. Many suspect we'll hear an announcement before the Labour Day weekend.

[Molly]

Hey! Bob Fife might get his appointment after all!

[punked]

Rodney MacDonald NS MLA and former Premier and Harper Yes man just gave up his MLA position so one appointment is already known.

[jdobbin]

Hey! Bob Fife might get his appointment after all!

Those Ontario Senate seats are going to well fought over.

Some are saying John Tory simply because some PCs and Conservatives don't want him running for mayor again.

[Keepitsimple]

It'll be good to restore some party balance in the senate. Maybe the best way for it to be effective is to have a similar - not necessarily identical - number of Liberals and Conservatives....because in reality, there will always be a good chunk of either who actually believe that they can do good and will vote with a degree of independence. That means the partisans will line up against each other and these middle-of-the-road senators can do what they feel is good for the country - and we get a more effective Senate that we have today. For too long, the Senate has been a rubber stamp for the Libs and an impediment for the Tories.

[jdobbin]

It'll be good to restore some party balance in the senate. Maybe the best way for it to be effective is to have a similar - not necessarily identical - number of Liberals and Conservatives....because in reality, there will always be a good chunk of either who actually believe that they can do good and will vote with a degree of independence. That means the partisans will line up against each other and these middle-of-the-road senators can do what they feel is good for the country - and we get a more effective Senate that we have today. For too long, the Senate has been a rubber stamp for the Libs and an impediment for the Tories.

And by January, it might be even if they all sit as Tories. After that, it will be more Tories and likely a rubber stamp.

I don't know that Harper really wants an independent Senate. Now, that would be an impediment.

[Wild Bill]

And by January, it might be even if they all sit as Tories. After that, it will be more Tories and likely a rubber stamp.

I don't know that Harper really wants an independent Senate. Now, that would be an impediment.

Are you implying that an independent Senate is the normal status quo?

Perhaps you could cite me something to show me how we've had an independent Senate at any time during the last 30-40 years.

Or ever, for that matter!

Perhaps it depends on your definition of 'independence'. I had thought that our Senate was pretty well always Liberal dominated but I'm willing to be shown some differing history.

[Keepitsimple]

And by January, it might be even if they all sit as Tories. After that, it will be more Tories and likely a rubber stamp.

I don't know that Harper really wants an independent Senate. Now, that would be an impediment.

Rather cynical......whether Conservative or Liberal, I truly belive there are many who want to do the right thing for the country. The Liberals have had a "rubber stamp" in the Senate because they have had such dominating numbers. Having the numbers more or less equal within 5 seats or so makes it very unlikely that any party will simply bow to the wishes of Parliament for partisan reasons.

[madmax]

More reasons to abolish the Senate.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The Senate is a problem for Harper. He has said many things about it, and to not maintain that track will be detrimental in political terms.

[jdobbin]

Are you implying that an independent Senate is the normal status quo?

Perhaps you could cite me something to show me how we've had an independent Senate at any time during the last 30-40 years.

Or ever, for that matter!

I was actually making a point that the Tory plan of having a triple E Senate that is independent is less important than having one with more Tory Senators in it where the senators rubberstamp Harper's legislation.

Perhaps it depends on your definition of 'independence'. I had thought that our Senate was pretty well always Liberal dominated but I'm willing to be shown some differing history.

And if Harper stays on past January, it will be Tory dominated. And that is where I think any change to the Senate will stop.

Edited August 7, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Rather cynical......whether Conservative or Liberal, I truly belive there are many who want to do the right thing for the country. The Liberals have had a "rubber stamp" in the Senate because they have had such dominating numbers. Having the numbers more or less equal within 5 seats or so makes it very unlikely that any party will simply bow to the wishes of Parliament for partisan reasons.

I disagree. As soon as the Tories get their majority in the Senate, all change will come to an end. There is no way that Harper wants what his elected Senator from Alberta wants. It would put roadblocks on his Commons agenda.

Edited August 7, 2009 by jdobbin

[punked]

I disagree. As soon as the Tories get their majority in the Senate, all change will come to an end. There is no way that Harper wants his elected Senator from Alberta wants. It would put roadblocks on his Commons agenda.

I agree totally. Once you fight through the system to become part of it you just fall in love with the system. No way Harper reforms the senate.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I agree totally. Once you fight through the system to become part of it you just fall in love with the system. No way Harper reforms the senate.

Look what it did to Harper and everybody else. You are right.

[Keepitsimple]

I disagree. As soon as the Tories get their majority in the Senate, all change will come to an end. There is no way that Harper wants what his elected Senator from Alberta wants. It would put roadblocks on his Commons agenda.

Once the Conservatives have a majority in the Senate, I don't see any reason why they should not push for term limits instead of lifetime appointments. I don't know if they'll be successful but I expect them to try. Are you saying they will abandon that effort?

Edited August 8, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Smallc]

Term limits on a senate that's appointed by the Prime Minister is a bad idea, as Ignatieff explained. It would mean that Jean Chretien could have stacked the Senate with 105 Liberals.

[jdobbin]

Once the Conservatives have a majority in the Senate, I don't see any reason why they should not push for term limits instead of lifetime appointments. I don't know if they'll be successful but I expect them to try. Are you saying they will abandon that effort?

Yes. I think it wouldn't stand a court challenge.

[Keepitsimple]

Yes. I think it wouldn't stand a court challenge.

But you wouldn't know that unless the Senate is successful in accepting the poposed changes. Then someone would have to issue a court challenge and only then would we find out. I still expect them to try. You don't?

Edited August 8, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

But you wouldn't know that unless the Senate is successful in accepting the poposed changes. Then someone would have to issue a court challenge and only then would we find out. I still expect them to try. You don't?

Actually, I think a challenge could come even before it got through the Commons.

Quebec already indicated they would resist any change they weren't consulted on. And this is a change they have said they don't want.