PM to appoint Tory insiders to Senate

madmax · August 29, 2009

The provinces can't be forced to hold senatorial elections. The fact that only one has ever bothered to try speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Provinces support the Abolition of the Senate.

Its the land of patronage and a phoney election to create the illusion of democracy is absurd.

g_bambino · August 29, 2009

Provinces support the Abolition of the Senate.

Proof?

madmax · August 29, 2009

"He's a hypocrite!" "He's a hypocrite!" . Great. So what should he have done with a minority parliament, vacant seats, no elected senators in waiting, and a red chamber vehemently opposed to reform?

Then he could follow through on the next step that he indicated was an option.

Abolish the Senate.

Smallc · August 29, 2009

Then he could follow through on the next step that he indicated was an option.
Abolish the Senate.

No he can't. That's even harder to do than reform. Besides, there's no reason to abolish the Senate.

Riverwind · August 29, 2009

It wouldn't grandfather anything. The age 75 limit is set by the constitution. No 8 year word-of-honour agreement will trump that.

The compensation of a senator is not covered by the consitution. It may be impossible to force them to resign but I don't think many will stick around if after 8 years their compensation drops to $1/year and they lose all office/travel allowances.

g_bambino · August 29, 2009

The compensation of a senator is not covered by the consitution. It may be impossible to force them to resign but I don't think many will stick around if after 8 years their compensation drops to $1/year and they lose all office/travel allowances.

That's a rather unworkable method, relying as it does on unpredictable personal whims.

Keepitsimple · August 29, 2009

No he can't. That's even harder to do than reform. Besides, there's no reason to abolish the Senate.

SmallC.....I've kind of lost track of where you stad on this issue.....what kind of Senate reform do you favour - if any?

jdobbin · August 29, 2009

Keep in mind that term limits would grandfather the current 75 year retirement for sitting Senators and new Senators would be giving their word that they would step down after 8 years. Knowing that, what do you think the public opinion would be if the Senate voted in favour of such term limits followed by this scenario: the Conservative appointees keep their word and start to step down after 8 years, and a Liberal Senator declines to do so? It's not too difficult to imagine the outrage.....and that's why even without a Constitutional ammendment, term limits could be effectively established. And that would be Step 1.

Think of this: What if there is a Liberal prime minister in 8 years and the Tory senators decided that the rule doesn't apply to them? Certainly there is no law to compel them to step down.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard someone say they will run and stay in office for only a short time only to decide they don't really belivev in term limits. Is there outrage? No. Ask the mayor of Winnipeg.

Edited August 29, 2009 by jdobbin

jdobbin · August 29, 2009

Which is why he specifically had to put people in those positions who are party faithful that he can trust. Unless and until senate reform happens, the best he can do right now is appoint people who believe in reform, and agree to conditions that he can't actually force them to uphold.

I don't disagree.

It is just we heard a lot of mouth noises about not appointing party flacks.

Harper was never able to force the provinces to elect Senators.

If the Provinces elect senators, he'll appoint them. He's done it before, and he's made it very clear to the provinces that if they don't elect senators, he will appoint them. Anyone calling these appointments anything other than a pragmatic move is an idiot in my books.

Anyone who doesn't see that Harper is appointing some of the same type of people they used to criticize the Liberals for is deceiving themselves.

"He's a hypocrite!" "He's a hypocrite!" . Great. So what should he have done with a minority parliament, vacant seats, no elected senators in waiting, and a red chamber vehemently opposed to reform?

By all means let him get his majority. Does he think it will force the provinces to give him elections?

What he will have is a rubberstamp in the Senate for regular legislation. He can't unilaterally change the Consitution.

jdobbin · August 29, 2009

The compensation of a senator is not covered by the consitution. It may be impossible to force them to resign but I don't think many will stick around if after 8 years their compensation drops to $1/year and they lose all office/travel allowances.

It may be a violation of the Constitutional amendment on age 75 if is it seen to be enforcing a term limit as not provided for by the Act.

In any event, it would likely be challenged in the Supreme Court.

Smallc · August 29, 2009

SmallC.....I've kind of lost track of where you stad on this issue.....what kind of Senate reform do you favour - if any?

I'm not in favour of any. It isn't necessary. The Senate isn't hurting anyone and is operating pretty much as designed. Any meaningful change will require opening the constitution and I don't think it's worth the effort. I certainly don't think that reform that will only make things worse is a good idea.

Keepitsimple · August 29, 2009

I'm not in favour of any. It isn't necessary. The Senate isn't hurting anyone and is operating pretty much as designed. Any meaningful change will require opening the constitution and I don't think it's worth the effort. I certainly don't think that reform that will only make things worse is a good idea.

I thought so....so what should Harper have done - appoint Liberals to the Senate? The Senate is a political body and needs a good portion of it's members - not everyone - to be capable in drafting and reviewing legislation, among other political skills. Of the 9 appointees, Harper appointed 5 with close ties to the Conservatives. What would you have him do? Leave them unfilled for the Liberals to contune stacking?

Jerry J. Fortin · August 29, 2009

What political reality is that?

The same one that escapes you my friend.

Jerry J. Fortin · August 29, 2009

I'm not in favour of any. It isn't necessary. The Senate isn't hurting anyone and is operating pretty much as designed. Any meaningful change will require opening the constitution and I don't think it's worth the effort. I certainly don't think that reform that will only make things worse is a good idea.

The effort is not one which you are worthy of my friend. That effort should be reserved for those of us who have lived and worked in this nation for many years. It would take much life experience to know what is needed and what is required for this nation, not merely surmise and opinion. The harsh reality is that this nation has rested upon its own flawed laurels for far too long. There is an anticipation of entitlement and an attitude of nearly religious belief in the government's perceived duty to the citizenry which has lead us down the path of creating the ultimate nanny state with all the craddle to grave benefits that goes with it.

The Senate should be a place of regional representation where all provinces are equal and none has any more say or influence than the other. The Constitution should have an amending formula to be utilized in ONLY the Senate, where all provinces are equal. To do this requires an elected Senate, which itself requires the Constitution to be opened and "FIXED".

g_bambino · August 29, 2009

The same one that escapes you my friend.

That's your answer? It reads as a rough translation of: "I don't know."

Jerry J. Fortin · August 29, 2009

That's your answer? It reads as a rough translation of: "I don't know."

Smallc and I have a long standing dispute about government reforms. He contends that our government is functioning well enough to be left alone, I emphatically disagree. Hence the requirement for changes escape him.

g_bambino · August 29, 2009

Smallc and I have a long standing dispute about government reforms. He contends that our government is functioning well enough to be left alone, I emphatically disagree. Hence the requirement for changes escape him.

Perhaps you two do have such a relationship, but it isn't really the point. You offered an assertion that the absence of provincial senatorial elections was evidence of nation-wide ignorance of some "political reality." Smallc asked what that supposed reality is; I too awaited your response, not knowing what you were referring to. Your reply, however, clarified nothing. Just what political reality is the populace too stupid to see?

Jerry J. Fortin · August 29, 2009

Perhaps you two do have such a relationship, but it isn't really the point. You offered an assertion that the absence of provincial senatorial elections was evidence of nation-wide ignorance of some "political reality." Smallc asked what that supposed reality is; I too awaited your response, not knowing what you were referring to. Your reply, however, clarified nothing. Just what political reality is the populace too stupid to see?

The flaws of having any form of appointed government. I favour democracy at the hands of the citizens not at the hands of the politicians.

g_bambino · August 29, 2009

The flaws of having any form of appointed government. I favour democracy at the hands of the citizens not at the hands of the politicians.

Perhaps people aren't too ignorant to see the flaws, but, instead, there are no real flaws for people to see. That's not to say there aren't some issues with our form of parliamentary law-making. However, the unelected elements temper the divisive partisanship inherent in those that are elected. Replace those figures with just more highly prejudiced contestants and the entire construct tips over under the weight of the tyrannical majority.

Jerry J. Fortin · August 29, 2009

Perhaps people aren't too ignorant to see the flaws, but, instead, there are no real flaws for people to see. That's not to say there aren't some issues with our form of parliamentary law-making. However, the unelected elements temper the divisive partisanship inherent in those that are elected. Replace those figures with just more highly prejudiced contestants and the entire construct tips over under the weight of the tyrannical majority.

That would be smallc's argument all right.

Smallc · August 29, 2009

I thought so....so what should Harper have done - appoint Liberals to the Senate?

I think you miss my point. I would have him appoint expert who can make a difference, who can live up to what the Senate is supposed to be, not partisan hacks. There are a few such people in the Senate...then there are the partisan hacks.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Smallc

Smallc · August 29, 2009

I have a question for you Jerry. Would you actually trust the government if it were built more like the one in the US?

g_bambino · August 30, 2009

That would be smallc's argument all right.

And, aside from being a sound one, it is at least an argument; which is more than has been offered by yourself.

Molly · August 30, 2009

If the concern was a lack of senators (which it wasn't), or that they should more validly represent regional interests instead of partisan hackdom, then it would have been more in keeping with the spirit of reform to ask the provinces to propose apropriate candidates.

The fact that no deference to the provinces was chosen means that 'the spirit of reform' is as insubstantial as a ghost, compared to the partisan knife-fight.

madmax · August 30, 2009

No he can't. That's even harder to do than reform. Besides, there's no reason to abolish the Senate.

1) yes he can

2) No abolishing the Senate easier to accomplish then changing the Senate role. Provinces abolished their Senates and continued to function.

3) The reason to abolish the Senate is because Status quo is not acceptable. Senate Reform will prove to be as enjoyable an experience as Meech Lake and Charlottetown. It will create more internal wrangling, and likely lead to a constitutional crises. Short of Senators, few would miss the Senate.

Edited August 30, 2009 by madmax