The Upcoming Senate Appointments

[William Ashley]

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Harper+Senate+appointments+will+give+edge+Tories/2496130/story.html

Will these appointments be some of the last senate appointments? Harper is stated as having "these senate appointments", giving his senators the majority, an ability to lead to senate reform.

Is the carte blanche for 2 to 3 months if no election is held going to see senate reform introduced? Or is this more.. no really I'm going to do what I said, this isn't just an excuse for you to ignore that I broke my promise not to appoint senators to the senate more times than fingers on my hands.

How many bloc senators are there? -- hold on but wouldn't senate reform require a constitutional change? How are 2/3rds of the provinces and/or a referendum going to occur on this issue?

Is a populist first past the post senate realistic... or is this more "Canamerica bs" with an elected lower and upper house.

Edited January 29, 2010 by William Ashley

[Smallc]

Will these appointments be some of the last senate appointments? Harper is stated as having "these senate appointments", giving his senators the majority, an ability to lead to senate reform.

It gives him a plurality...and for reform, he probably needs the permission of the provinces since this isn't under the exclusive jurisdiction of parliament.

[ToadBrother]

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Harper+Senate+appointments+will+give+edge+Tories/2496130/story.html

Will these appointments be some of the last senate appointments? Harper is stated as having "these senate appointments", giving his senators the majority, an ability to lead to senate reform.

And just what sort of Senate reform can they lead? The meaty stuff, like Triple-E, well that requires changes to the Constitution. I think you can still see Mulroney's blood on that cross.

[waldo]

... two senators from Ontario and one each in Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland/Labrador - bets on the appointees?

who from the CTV team will Harper appoint - Duffy can't do it all himself, don't ya know! After these 5... nothing says "elected Senate reform" quite like a situation where Harper will have appointed almost a full third of the current Senate members.

[EyesWideOpen]

... two senators from Ontario and one each in Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland/Labrador - bets on the appointees?

who from the CTV team will Harper appoint - Duffy can't do it all himself, don't ya know! After these 5... nothing says "elected Senate reform" quite like a situation where Harper will have appointed almost a full third of the current Senate members.

If EVER there was an example of why the Senate needs reformation, it's all there in Duffy. :angry:

He's offensive and totally lacking in class.

[Smallc]

He's offensive and totally lacking in class.

Most definitely. I've never seen such a poor excuse for a Senator.

[g_bambino]

Will these appointments be some of the last senate appointments?

No.

[W]ouldn't senate reform require a constitutional change?

Yes.

[g_bambino]

Most definitely. I've never seen such a poor excuse for a Senator.

I was about to say that perhaps Harper is simply bad at recommending appointees, given his aversion to the practice. But, then I thought of the quite good people he's so far put forward as Lieutenant Governors... So, I guess the quality of Senate appointments is due to something else; no qualifications needed other than they jump when he claps?

[Topaz]

I'm sure there will be a change to the senate but a change for the worse and perhaps that is what Harper wants to get rid of the senate by abusing it with his newly elected senators or robots, that Canadians will scream to get rid of it!! Some of the past people he's put in there are questionable as senators. One of the women, I heard asked two stupid, immature questions of the expert before the committee and she also looked by the expression on her face, felt awkward about her question.The guy that really got me was the guy from Toronto. He must have watched a lot of question period in the Commons because instead of a question to the expert, he started off with personal attacks and insults of the Liberal party. I've watched many senate meetings and I have never heard such things come out of a senators mouth on camera. Most senators are very respective to each other but not this guy. So if Harper is going to turn the senate into another question period Commons style, Canada is doom!! Her's a another view on the appointments. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100129/national/senate_appointments_2

[EyesWideOpen]

I'm sure there will be a change to the senate but a change for the worse and perhaps that is what Harper wants to get rid of the senate by abusing it with his newly elected senators or robots, that Canadians will scream to get rid of it!! Some of the past people he's put in there are questionable as senators. One of the women, I heard asked two stupid, immature questions of the expert before the committee and she also looked by the expression on her face, felt awkward about her question.The guy that really got me was the guy from Toronto. He must have watched a lot of question period in the Commons because instead of a question to the expert, he started off with personal attacks and insults of the Liberal party. I've watched many senate meetings and I have never heard such things come out of a senators mouth on camera. Most senators are very respective to each other but not this guy. So if Harper is going to turn the senate into another question period Commons style, Canada is doom!! Her's a another view on the appointments. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100129/national/senate_appointments_2

Runciman! Jay-sus.....

he wanted to privatize prisons (that works wonderfully South of us! ) and if I recall correctly, he once released the name of a young offender in the Legislature.

[g_bambino]

He must have watched a lot of question period in the Commons because instead of a question to the expert, he started off with personal attacks and insults of the Liberal party. I've watched many senate meetings and I have never heard such things come out of a senators mouth on camera.

Something I read yesterday echoed my own thoughts, namely: why? What motive to Senators have to be such party toadies? A Senator is appointed by the Governor General and can only be removed in the most precise circumstances, and failing to adhere to party dogma isn't one of them; a Senator could give the Prime Minister the finger and nothing would happen. What, then, is rousing this partisanship?

[ToadBrother]

Something I read yesterday echoed my own thoughts, namely: why? What motive to Senators have to be such party toadies? A Senator is appointed by the Governor General and can only be removed in the most precise circumstances, and failing to adhere to party dogma isn't one of them; a Senator could give the Prime Minister the finger and nothing would happen. What, then, is rousing this partisanship?

A lot of these guys are life-long party members. Partisanship is kind of like blinking; completely reflexive.

[Smallc]

Michael Ignatieff and I apparently think alike for the most part when it comes to the Senate....hopefully someone is listening to him, because his idea is (IMO) a good one.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100131/ignatieff_senate_100131/20100131?hub=TopStoriesV2

[DrGreenthumb]

Michael Ignatieff and I apparently think alike for the most part when it comes to the Senate....hopefully someone is listening to him, because his idea is (IMO) a good one.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100131/ignatieff_senate_100131/20100131?hub=TopStoriesV2

Yeah Iggy often makes a lot of sense. It's kind of sad though reading what of all the Con morons verbally masterbating to Harper wrote in the comments section.

[Wild Bill]

Something I read yesterday echoed my own thoughts, namely: why? What motive to Senators have to be such party toadies? A Senator is appointed by the Governor General and can only be removed in the most precise circumstances, and failing to adhere to party dogma isn't one of them; a Senator could give the Prime Minister the finger and nothing would happen. What, then, is rousing this partisanship?

IF the GG appoints them that is true only in the most technical sense. For our entire history the sitting PM has chosen who is on the list. The GG appoints only those on the list.

This makes a senator beholden to his PM and his party. Also, usually a senator will have established relationships with other members of a party that may involve business, money or other interests. While if he crosses his party he may not be able to be fired there's nothing to prevent damage to all other relationships.

I find the criticism of Harper for appointing instead of electing senators specious at best, considering that he CAN'T cause senators to be elected! He has to fill those empty positions today. There's no time to get all the provinces on side and have them elect senators. Not all the provinces even WANT to have such elections! Talk about carping at the man with no legs for being a bad dancer! Next the usual partisans on this board will be blaming him for causing the Haitian earthquake.

Only Alberta has elected people as "senators on tap" so that Harper as PM can recognize their choice. It's clear that his intent is to try to encourage the other provinces to adopt this practice. This would not require any constitutional change. It merely establishes a new precedent and custom. A province would not be forced to start electing its senators but if the idea and example proves popular with Canadians then those provinces that DON'T offer their people the same choice as those that DO will face popular pressure.

This approach might actually work! It's slow, but any senate reform done in any fashion will always be slow. Opening up the Constitution would be the slowest way of all!

3 steps forward and 2 steps back is always the Canadian way with anything to do with our governments. However, if eventually it is accepted that we all elect our senators and that all senators publicly agree to serve only 8 year terms then we will HAVE an elected Senate, with no constitutional fights at all!

Once the first "E" is accomplished then it will be a little easier to work on "effective" and "equal", even if eventually we do have to have a constitutional brawl.

Back to the matter of popular pressure forcing provinces to participate in electing senators, something tells me that Quebec will be the last hold out. I'm not entirely sure myself as to why but it has been my observations for decades that Quebecers LIKE a "godfather" style of rule! They don't seem to favour having more direct input but are happy to just elect one "godfather" as a PM or a ruling party and let that godfather tell them what's good for them!

JMHO, of course!

[madmax]

Most definitely. I've never seen such a poor excuse for a Senator.

Maybe you need to take a good hard look at the rest of the patronage patsies.

Duffy is a blowhard and a buffoon, but there are many incompentent and entitlement driven Senators enjoying their paycheques and priviledges.

Who'd have thunk their could be a time when Senators might be out performing Harpers Conservatives.

Their are Some Senators who like to sit and think.

Their are other Senators who like to sit.

Harper has decided he wants his MPs to neither think nor sit.

Maybe that's why he has been letting Duffy be the CPC mouthpiece and fundraiser.

[Michael Hardner]

If Senate reform requires constitutional change, let's do it just ONE time by abolishing the Senate. I haven't seen anybody submit examples of where it was useful.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would rather reform than abolish the Senate. Some things can be done without changes to the constitution, and that should be done.

[Michael Hardner]

I would rather reform than abolish the Senate. Some things can be done without changes to the constitution, and that should be done.

The only value I see for the senate is as a modifier to the lower house. But since they're appointed by the PM, that value is mitigated, at best. I remember in the 1980s they did effectively filibuster some legislation, and that *could* be a useful function - kind of an 'emergency brake' on parliament - but how much do we need that ?

What value do you see in the Senate ?

[Wild Bill]

If Senate reform requires constitutional change, let's do it just ONE time by abolishing the Senate. I haven't seen anybody submit examples of where it was useful.

Ah Michael, only someone from Toronto could make such a statement!

The whole idea behind having two Houses is to have one set up as "representation by population" and another set up as "representation by regions".

This is a check and balance system used to some degree by almost everyone else who has a parliamentary democracy. It means that a big state like California can't steamroller over the interests of little Rhode Island.

In Canada it would mean that Ontario, or specifically Toronto, could not trample on the interests of smaller, less populous provinces, like PEI. There never would have been a National Energy Policy, or a Crow Rate, or many of the other things that Central Canada forced on other provinces and caused generations of hard feelings.

For some reason we never set up our Senate in Canada as anything more than a nap room for party bag men. Perhaps this was deliberate, to give the appearance of a check on the Commons without actually doing it, allowing Central Canada to call all the shots.

Whatever, just because Toronto likes the present setup doesn't mean all the other provinces will be happy.

[ToadBrother]

For some reason we never set up our Senate in Canada as anything more than a nap room for party bag men. Perhaps this was deliberate, to give the appearance of a check on the Commons without actually doing it, allowing Central Canada to call all the shots.

My understanding was that the purpose was in part to create some regional representation in Parliament, but also as a place where the moneyed and aristocratic interests could have some capacity to curb the actions of the popularly constituted House of Commons (sort of a semi-House of Lords).

The notion of the Triple-E senate was of course to replace that more outmoded view with an actual elected upper chamber that truly did give regional representation and did have some great power to influence legislation, more modeled on the American Senate, and like the American Senate not having certain key powers (in particular the power to raise taxes). It's a damned pity the Triple-E senate died, but its killers at the end of the day were Ontario and Quebec, who still have a decided advantage in the upper chamber built in to the constitution.

[Wilber]

My understanding was that the purpose was in part to create some regional representation in Parliament, but also as a place where the moneyed and aristocratic interests could have some capacity to curb the actions of the popularly constituted House of Commons (sort of a semi-House of Lords).

It was supposedly constructed to provide regional representation. Of course it was Ontario and Quebec which got to decide what a region is.

[Topaz]

I think the following is a good article on the appointments of the senate and for now the Tories don't have the power... the independants do! http://www.hilltimes.com/page/view/plurality-02-22-2010