Failed Conservative Candidates Find New Home...

Topaz · May 19, 2011

That's a terrible idea to do first. That means that any PM can completely stack the Senate in 8 years.

The Tories have 55 now and by the end of 2014, Harper will have another 18 giving him 73, do you think he's in any hurry to reform?

Topaz · May 19, 2011

If Harper wants to know what the Premiers think of his appointment to the senate Premier Wall has voiced his and he doesn't think too much of it among other appointments either. http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/decision-canada/Wall+criticizes+Senate+appointments/4808124/story.html

Dave_ON · May 19, 2011

Canadians elected the man who gets to appoint Senators. Canadians elected to give Harper the power to appoint these senators, hence they were elected. It's only an undemocratic process when a conservative PM gets to do it. Try to keep up.

Thought the CPC was supposed to hold a higher standard than the LPC, not emulate them precisely. Do you not grow tired of the excuse "The liberals did it too!" It's wearing somewhat thin. Is how the LPC ran things really going to be the job standard that the CPC lives up to? The more things change the more they stay the same, why are the CPC doing everything they claimed they wouldn't in office and why are their supporters so quick to forgive these lapses in memory now that they are in power. The difference between the CPC and LPC is a single letter.

Keepitsimple · May 19, 2011

The Tories have 55 now and by the end of 2014, Harper will have another 18 giving him 73, do you think he's in any hurry to reform?

You are missing the point of what he is trying to do. Remove your partisan (or sheer anti-Harper) glasses,face the facts and look at the long term benefit to Canada:

1) Appoint those people who will guarantee they will support Senate Reform.

2) Gain a strong majority

3) Introduce term limits of 8 years - that can now pass in the house and presumable, can now pass in the Senate.

4) Encourage provincial senate elections and the PM will appoint the winner. That requires no constitutional changes.

If the provinces come on board, that will at least make the Senate more accountable. Given our Constitutional limitations, this is a good way of achieving some positive results. If carried out successfully, these Harper "patronage" appointments will not be "jobs for life" and in the longer view of Canada, will better reflect the will of the people.

g_bambino · May 19, 2011

That's a terrible idea to do first. That means that any PM can completely stack the Senate in 8 years.

Yea. I'm not at all comfortable with that particular plan.

g_bambino · May 19, 2011

Wall said the point of Senate reform is to have a more democratic institution. The latest appointments, he said, will likely fuel longstanding questions about whether the Senate is even necessary."

Well, if it gets people asking questions, that's good. More will come to understand that, in a federated country like Canada, the Senate is absolutely necessary.

Smallc · May 19, 2011

Yea. I'm not at all comfortable with that particular plan.

Yep. Of the three things that they want done, that should be the very last thing. One of the other two things should come first, if they're intent on doing it.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Smallc

g_bambino · May 19, 2011

Encourage provincial senate elections and the PM will appoint the winner. That requires no constitutional changes.

It will if the practice is to hold past Harper's time as prime minister. Otherwise, a succeeding prime minister can just do as is constitutionally valid, which is recommend his own choices to the governor general.

bloodyminded · May 19, 2011

Thought the CPC was supposed to hold a higher standard than the LPC, not emulate them precisely. Do you not grow tired of the excuse "The liberals did it too!" It's wearing somewhat thin. Is how the LPC ran things really going to be the job standard that the CPC lives up to? The more things change the more they stay the same, why are the CPC doing everything they claimed they wouldn't in office and why are their supporters so quick to forgive these lapses in memory now that they are in power. The difference between the CPC and LPC is a single letter.

"Two buttocks on the same fat gentleman."

Keepitsimple · May 19, 2011

It will if the practice is to hold past Harper's time as prime minister. Otherwise, a succeeding prime minister can just do as is constitutionally valid, which is recommend his own choices to the governor general.

At their own peril.....I don't even think they would contemplate trying. Imagine a province going through the process of holding a Senate election and then the PM ignores the people's choice. I'd think that party would lose just about every vote in that province.

g_bambino · May 19, 2011

Imagine a province going through the process of holding a Senate election and then the PM ignores the people's choice.

It would be the majority's choice, not the people's. Regardless, Alberta held elections for Senate candidates and those elected persons were summarily ignored by the prime minster at the time. Nothing happened.

Machjo · May 19, 2011

Follow the KISS principle and just scrap the Senate.

g_bambino · May 19, 2011

...[J]ust scrap the Senate.

So long as Canada is a federation, it will require regional representation in the federal parliamnet. If you want to "just scrap the Senate", then you're going to also have to just drastically reshape the arrangements of this country. I doubt, though, that you considered Canada's federal nature at all before making your blunt assertion.

Remiel · May 19, 2011

1) Appoint those people who will guarantee they will support Senate Reform.

What business exactly does the Prime Minister have dictating to senators how they must vote? There is literally no point to having a Senate at all if it is going to be whipped to make the same decisions as the House of Commons.

Scotty · May 19, 2011

He has become a dictator and as the power grows so will his evil ways will

You are become satire. I can't top that.

Scotty · May 19, 2011

Do you have a straight face when you type this kind of overdramatised hyperbole?

I know you can't read it with a straight face... :rolleyes:

Scotty · May 19, 2011

What I would like to see Stephen Harper do, is appoint a socialist to the Senate. It would show, at least politically, the ability to compromise and respect the work of an individual regardless of political affiliation.

Should have appoint Nazis, Communists and Anarchists to the Senate for the same reason?

Scotty · May 19, 2011

What business exactly does the Prime Minister have dictating to senators how they must vote? There is literally no point to having a Senate at all if it is going to be whipped to make the same decisions as the House of Commons.

That is a fair point, but I see no way around it unless we want to start appointing hereditary lords.

Remiel · May 19, 2011

Should have appoint Nazis, Communists and Anarchists to the Senate for the same reason?

Are you seriously equating socialists with Nazis?

Scotty · May 19, 2011

Are you seriously equating socialists with Nazis?

I am carrying the suggestion to its logical conclusion.

madmax · May 19, 2011

Well, if it gets people asking questions, that's good. More will come to understand that, in a federated country like Canada, the Senate is absolutely necessary.

Um, no its not Absolutely necessary. Infact the Senate has proven its not necessary at all.

madmax · May 19, 2011

So long as Canada is a federation, it will require regional representation in the federal parliamnet.

We don't have "Regional Representation"

We have Party Partisan representation from Regions of the Country that don't reflect the needs or requirements of the Region.

The Senate has not been used in the way it was designed and that is why no one will miss it.

No one.

I understand your idealism for the Senate, but its just not the way it works in Practice. THe CCF figured that out in the 1930s....

Here we are 80 years later and its the same old same old.

Unless you really Believe Manning Represents Newfoundland, he's only be rejected twice and the 2nd time in a Majority Conservative Sweep.

The Senate has been a deceased institution for over a century.

The Public doesn't even like Federal Elections, why would they want the burden of an elected Senate. More willl just tune out as its designed for the elite anyways.

One might think that Manning won the better deal by losing...

In the meantime, I say call the RCMP because there its pretty obvious Harper cut a deal to the 2 Senators that they could keep their jobs if they lost.

Unless you believe Larry Smith finishing a distant 3rd represents Quebec ... in the Senate

Edited May 19, 2011 by madmax

scribblet · May 20, 2011

I know the Senate needs reform and that all the conservative appointees have promised to adhere to the term limits and reforms... however, where you all as upset when the Liberals appointed failed candidates ?

I also agree the optics aren't good, but my understanding is that he had to do this in order to get an absolute majority before June 2nd. This in order get control of chairs and committees... a good political move on his part IMO.

Edited May 20, 2011 by scribblet

cybercoma · May 20, 2011

"The people of Canada" aren't represented by an MP. Each MP represents a majority of voters in a riding.

Each MP is not necessarily elected by a majority of voters in the riding. They're elected by a plurality of votes. You know this, so why you use the word majority is beyond me. More importantly, however, is that once an MP is elected, they represent their constituents, not just the people that elected them. This is an important distinction, as "the people of Canada" most certainly are all represented by an MP.