PM to appoint Tory insiders to Senate

[ReeferMadness]

But change for the sake of democracy is change for the sake of change. Perhaps we should have a different appointment method (a panel that advises the PM for example), but election brings nothing to and in fact takes away from the purpose of the Senate.

No. Change for the sake of democracy is change for the sake of democracy. Change for the sake of change is change for the sake of change. See the difference?

Why are you so afraid of electing representatives?

[Smallc]

We already elect representatives. The Senate in Canada was never meant to be the type of body that many seem to desire. It functions as a check against the Mob. It functions as a a body of study and thought. Electing it will simply turn it into a circus, especially when you consider the power that it currently has. I see no reason to elect the Senate unless we plan to tear down the entire system and start from scratch, and I don't see a reason to do that either.

Maybe we should elect the GG too?

[Smallc]

starting with the eight year terms.

Yes, lets start by making it a body of fascism. In 8 years, a single government could stack the Senate with their own people. To change the Senate in the way that Harper wants requires Constitutional reform, and it's reform that can't be obtained given the views of some provinces. He's out of luck on reform as he currently desires it.

[waldo]

We already elect representatives. The Senate in Canada was never meant to be the type of body that many seem to desire. It functions as a check against the Mob. It functions as a a body of study and thought. Electing it will simply turn it into a circus, especially when you consider the power that it currently has. I see no reason to elect the Senate unless we plan to tear down the entire system and start from scratch, and I don't see a reason to do that either.

Maybe we should elect the GG too?

an elected senate? That's crazy talk... next thing you know we'll have incessant calls to elect President Harper... with no term limits. Crazy talk!

[g_bambino]

Change for the sake of democracy is change for the sake of democracy.

Depends on your definition of democracy. For those of us who realise we already have a democracy, an elected Senate really is just change for the sake of change.

[madmax]

Wasn't Finley one of the guys who try to bribe Cadman? Is the moral and maybe legal cancer now moving from the PMO to the senate?

Nothing like a good paycheque and the ability to spew out CPC agenda from the Senate floor. Life is good in the Senate.

[g_bambino]

Nothing like a good paycheque and the ability to spew out CPC agenda from the Senate floor. Life is good in the Senate.

Is your spew supposed to be constructive? Or just an eruption of vitriol?

_[copyed.]

Edited August 27, 2009 by g_bambino

[madmax]

What do you think of our chances to change, let alone abolish the Senate under a Liberal government?

When Harper first purposed changing the Senate, the Opposition howled that it couldn't be done! It would mean constitutional change. The carping was so shrill it almost seemed as if they considered it blasphemy to even try.

THeir are Liberal Senators on the record said it was better to abolish the Senate then to change it. But alot of PC Senators don't want to lose their honey pots either.

So What happened to the CPC supporting Abolishing the Senate?

The Conservative government said it will support an NDP motion to abolish the Upper House if two Senate reform bills are again blocked by the opposition.

Harper said he believes there are three approaches that the government can take to the Senate: sticking with the status quo, which he believes is not acceptable; taking the incremental approach that he has adopted; or choosing a once-and-for-all ''comprehensive'' path.

Harper said the latter position would only work if the government wanted to abolish the upper chamber. The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois favour abolishing the Senate.

That's a substantial majority of MPs for abolishing the Senate. And it indicates that any kind of Senate Reform, is going to be opposed because the Province of Quebec will view it as anti Quebec. Senate Reform and Constitutional rangling is going to be BRUTAL. People don't want to be bother with more Charlottetowns and Meeches and that is exactly the path the Senate Reform will take us.

So he backed off and appointed new Senators the old way, with lip service to those provinces wishing to elect their own candidates for the job. Now the Opposition howls that is is mere patronage, JUST LIKE THEY THEMSELVES HAVE ALWAYS PRACTICED!

I mean, Trudeau actually appointed his chauffeur, for Pete's sake!

When you cut through all the crap, what's left is that for the time being Harper has no choice but to play the game by the traditional rules. The Opposition can howl all they want. They know full well that if they can embarrass him into not playing the game by their rules HE WILL LOSE AND THEY WILL WIN! It's as simple as that.

Meanwhile, if and when he can break the Liberal majority hold in the Senate he will have a bit better chance at achieving actual positive change. Maybe he won't be successful, but if he does it the Opposition's way, it won't happen at all.

I think it important to note that the Liberals have never shown any meaningful sign of wanting to actually make the Senate more effective and democratic. They've attacked Harper but I challenge anyone to cite anything more than mere muttering about changing things themselves.

Same old smoke and mirrors, I guess.

Fair enough

However, if you had a referendum with a simple question of Abolishing the Senate, it would pass with flying colours as people would love to kick some people out of their cushy positions and save the country a small sum of money.

The whole concept of Senate Reform is a non starter. Its a dead parrot.

[jdobbin]

Your reputation for dishonesty is reconfirmed every day.

Not noted are the terms under which Harper appoints Senators: they are for 8 year terms, and each appointee agrees to support Senate reform.

Harper gaining control of the Senate itselfis but one step in Senate reform, but it won't happen as long as the Liberals hold a majority and delay change at their capricious worst.

Your reputation for not getting it is confirned every day.

There is no law that states these Senators have to abide by an 8 year term limit. They could tell the government to go fish when their term comes up. Nothing you can do about it.

Suggesting the change can come from simply getting a majority is a lie. The change will require a Constitutional amendment.

[jdobbin]

I don't know what the big fuss is about this latest round of Senate appointments. When the Liberals finally return to government, they'll be doing the very same thing. Ho-hum and a yawn.

Ho hum and yawn but your party promised to do it differently from the very beginning.

[jdobbin]

Accurate quotes.....it should be clear to everyone that he has tried to live up to his priciples and reform the Senate from the outside - it hasn't worked mainly due to the Liberals having a vested and partisan interest in leaving it the way it is....so hopefully, the Senate will eventually have a Conservative majority and it can be reformed from within - starting with the eight year terms. It's been frustrating to watch because I doubt there are too many people that prefer the status quo.

So you think that has nothing to do with a Constitutional amendment? You think a simple majority will get his wishes for a triple E Senate with term limits? That is all it will take?

[capricorn]

Ho hum and yawn but your party promised to do it differently from the very beginning.

Harper's playing within the rules with the cards he's been dealt. It must be frustrating for the Liberals to be on the opposite end of the patronage game.

[jdobbin]

Harper's playing within the rules with the cards he's been dealt. It must be frustrating for the Liberals to be on the opposite end of the patronage game.

Actually, I was wondering if Harper would actually do something different on the Senate.

I haven't been impressed with many Liberal appointments. There have been a few good ones, some downright awful ones.

I don't see how change can be made structurally to the Senate with rules on elections, term limits and effectiveness without Constitutional reform. Harper wanted to do it unilaterally. The provinces didn't comply by giving him elections.

My thinking is he still could have done something different on appointments. He has chosen not to.

It must upset you that Harper acts more like the worst of Liberals every day.

[fellowtraveller]

There will soon be no more sober second thought anywhere if some get their way.

??

Surely you are not imagining that the Senate is some sort of forum for 'sober second thought'?

[capricorn]

Actually, I was wondering if Harper would actually do something different on the Senate.

Like, what? Leave the seats vacant? Because, as it stands, that's about the only thing different he could do. Liberals have not been exactly clamoring for Senate reform that I can recall. I agree with those who say that Senate reform would be best if it was generated from within the Senate itself.

My thinking is he still could have done something different on appointments. He has chosen not to.

Good. The last thing I want is a bunch of new Senators who would willfully continue to hamper the work of the House of Commons (and to some extent the work of the Senate) for no other reason than to satisfy their own petty agendas.

It must upset you that Harper acts more like the worst of Liberals every day.

I haven't reached that point, not by a long shot.

[Smallc]

Surely you are not imagining that the Senate is some sort of forum for 'sober second thought'?

I don't imagine it, it actually happens. Watch a Senate Committee. Their work is not done in a very partisan manner.

[August1991]

What do you think of our chances to change, let alone abolish the Senate under a Liberal government?

When Harper first purposed changing the Senate, the Opposition howled that it couldn't be done! It would mean constitutional change. The carping was so shrill it almost seemed as if they considered it blasphemy to even try.

So he backed off and appointed new Senators the old way, with lip service to those provinces wishing to elect their own candidates for the job. Now the Opposition howls that is is mere patronage, JUST LIKE THEY THEMSELVES HAVE ALWAYS PRACTICED!

The only way that Harper can reform the Senate is to stack it with his appointees, and then get the reform through.

I applaud Harper's courage to fight this one. He's doing it the only feasible way, and he's doing it using his own political skills.

A selections of greatest Harper quotes on the Senate as floating around the Internet today...

These quotes entirely miss thepoint of what's going on - as well as the title of your thread.

Harper is trying to reform the Senate but he can't do that unless he has senators in place.

[August1991]

I don't know what the big fuss is about this latest round of Senate appointments. When the Liberals finally return to government, they'll be doing the very same thing. Ho-hum and a yawn.

On the contrary, look carefully at Harper's nine appointments. They all (in theory) agree on Senate reform.

Liberal appointments were gravy and proponents of the status quo.

-----

Harper is right. He has to stack the Senate by the old rules and then hope the Senators he names will vote for reform. I'm going to trust Harper on this one: just like I trusted him on a GST cut and having an honest PM (and cabinet).

Edited August 28, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

These quotes entirely miss thepoint of what's going on - as well as the title of your thread.

Harper is trying to reform the Senate but he can't do that unless he has senators in place.

I think you are missing the point. Harper said he wouldn't do what he is doing. Stop making excuses for it.

Reform of the Senate happens when the provinces agree to it. No senator is beholden the Harper's rule on eight years when they get the appointment. It isn't a law.

[jdobbin]

Like, what? Leave the seats vacant? Because, as it stands, that's about the only thing different he could do. Liberals have not been exactly clamoring for Senate reform that I can recall. I agree with those who say that Senate reform would be best if it was generated from within the Senate itself.

Uh, no. Appoint people based on different criteria other than partisanship.

Look, even if the Commons and the Senate agree to elections, it doesn't mean they will happen because the provinces have to agree. The two houses of Parliament can't make an equal amount of Senators. They can't set term limits without an amendment.

A senator appointed by Harper could turn around and tell a future PM to blow it out his wazoo about resigning his seat. There is simply no law for it and the only way to get one is a constitutional amendment.

Harper seems to think he can act unilaterally on this.

Good. The last thing I want is a bunch of new Senators who would willfully continue to hamper the work of the House of Commons (and to some extent the work of the Senate) for no other reason than to satisfy their own petty agendas.

Elected Senators won't do this? Are you kidding me on that?

I haven't reached that point, not by a long shot.

I doubt you ever will be.

[August1991]

I think you are missing the point. Harper said he wouldn't do what he is doing. Stop making excuses for it.

Reform of the Senate happens when the provinces agree to it. No senator is beholden the Harper's rule on eight years when they get the appointment. It isn't a law.

Reform of the Senate depends on sitting senators. As a first step in this reform, Harper had no choice but to appoint people who would vote for Senate reform.

IMV, this is the key point. Liberal PMs (Chretien/Martin - even Trudeau) appointed senators who defended the status quo. Harper is the first PM to appoint senators who state that they will oppose the status quo.

Trudeau managed to get through the 75 year limit to Senators. (Before Trudeau, Senators sat for life, even if they were senile, drooling, wheeled in 97 year olds.) How did Trudeau do this? Well, the Senate is Liberal.

Harper wants to make a similar change and to do it, he needs the support of the Senate. So, in Liberal style, Harper is stacking the Senate. Unlike Trudeau, Harper does not benefit from a "natural governing party" control of the Senate.

Sadly for Canada, too many Senators are Liberal partisan hacks.

-----

This Senate reform is worthy but it reminds me that Harper is playing to his strong suit - insider WASP intricacy. I would prefer a Catholic conservative. I want a populist conservative PM who can explain policies for ordinary people.

Harper is too intricate, too much an insider..

Edited August 28, 2009 by August1991

[g_bambino]

Harper is trying to reform the Senate but he can't do that unless he has senators in place.

Nobody's yet answered my question: Why would a Senator vote to diminish his own job security?

[Riverwind]

Nobody's yet answered my question: Why would a Senator vote to diminish his own job security?

Why do you assume that people would automatically abandon their convictions simply because it is personally inconvenient? That said, I do agree that there is no guarantee that Harper's appointments will be any less venal than their predecessors we won't know the real answer to that question until there is legislation in front of them.

[August1991]

Nobody's yet answered my question: Why would a Senator vote to diminish his own job security?

That's where I trust Harper on the nominations.

First, some people are honest. (Imagine!)

Second, some people will agree to certain deals.

Third, to my knowledge, no one in Harper's cabinet has been accused of any personal rip-off money scandal. Despite what many leftists and gay Torontonians believe, Stephen Harper is the Claude Ryan of English Canada.

-----

Bambino, Trudeau reduced the life-term of Senators to 75. Harper wants to reduce the term to 8 years. Same dif.

Edited August 28, 2009 by August1991

[g_bambino]

Why do you assume that people would automatically abandon their convictions simply because it is personally inconvenient?

Because the loss of 130-odd thousand dollars a year is a rather substantial personal inconvenience.

Trudeau reduced the life-term of Senators to 75. Harper wants to reduce the term to 8 years. Same dif.

Same diff!? Firstly, along the lines of what I mentioned to Riverwind, 8x130,000=a hell of a lot less than 25x130,000. Secondly, as Smallc and others have pointed out, an 8 year term limit creates a vastly different dynamic than does terms that last multiple decades. Even if Harper can get self-sacrificing Senators, people who say this kind of change will require a consititutional amendment are right; the provinces won't let it fly without their consent.

_{[ed. to add]}

Edited August 28, 2009 by g_bambino