Failed Conservative Candidates Find New Home...

[Tilter]

I didn't see any Liberal senators appointed by Jean (spend millions on a fountain) Chretien refusing their "entitlements".

That's because they were (quoting the Liberal government at the time & the political appointee that said)

"they are entitled to their entitlements"

[Dave_ON]

That's because they were (quoting the Liberal government at the time & the political appointee that said)

"they are entitled to their entitlements"

Ergo "But the Liberals did it too" is an acceptable reason to maintain the status quo? LPC set the political bar and the CPC need not exceed that expectation? Why bother electing the CPC at all, would have been simpler just to keep the LPC in power if we end up with the same government regardless.

[madmax]

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.

Theres a line of Toro Kaka...

He HAD to APPOINT 3 LOSERS in order to get an Absolute Majority... and obviously there were no other Qualified Candidates for appointment.

Just 3 Proven Losers and some of those losers were rejected more then once..

Truly sounds in the best interest of democracy.

[madmax]

But the Liberals have always done it, they appointed a number of failed candidates, some who failed more than once. Two wrongs don't make a right, but was there the same feeding frenzy then?

I guess you never heard of Brian "YOU HAD A CHOICE SIR" Mulroney in what is regarded as the first and last knockout punch in Federal Debates..

Scribblet, why so lame?

Truly, .... your but the liberals ... is a sad broken track record...

Much like the Conservatives of today..

Sorry lot they are..

[g_bambino]

For the Prime Minster to turn around and give the person that lost an election their Senate seat back is a slap in the face to the people that didn't want that person as an MP.

MPs and senators are not the same. So, it's still unclear as to how these appointments are of any consequence, let alone a "slap in the face", to the voters in the ridings where the new and returning senators lost in the election.

[g_bambino]

That's exactly the problem. Voter input is not relevant.

There are many unelected positions in our institutions of governance, and the fact that they are unelected helps the system function - the sovereign, the governor general, judges on the bench, for example. A post being unelected isn't in itself a problem.

[ToadBrother]

Theres a line of Toro Kaka...

He HAD to APPOINT 3 LOSERS in order to get an Absolute Majority... and obviously there were no other Qualified Candidates for appointment.

Just 3 Proven Losers and some of those losers were rejected more then once..

Truly sounds in the best interest of democracy.

I'm not going to speak to whether these three are going to be good Senators or not, but the fact is that the Constitution requires the Prime Minister to advise the Governor General on who to name to vacant Senate seats. Until the much-vaunted Senate reform happens (if ever) the reality is that Stephen Harper has no choice but keep going with the status quo, and he's doing no different than pretty much every PM before him.

[ToadBrother]

There are many unelected positions in our institutions of governance, and the fact that they are unelected helps the system function - the sovereign, the governor general, judges on the bench, for example. A post being unelected isn't in itself a problem.

I think there can be legitimate arguments made for an elected Senate. I'm not too sure that I agree with them, but I think the argument can be made.

Britain, having just thrown AV out the door, now seems poised to start asking the same question about the House of Lords. The one thing that constitutional experts are stating is to approach an elected upper house with very great care. The Westminster system is not built like the American system, with a strong executive and two elected houses that have some overlapping and some distinct powers. In most bicameral Westminster parliaments, the upper house, by and large, has the same powers as the lower house, save for where money bills must originate (as well, the Lords in the UK only have the power to stall such bills, not to outright veto them).

If you create an elected upper house without limiting in some crucial way its powers, you risk undermining the dominance of the House of Commons, which, and let's be perfect clear here, is the chief victory of the last couple of hundred years of Parliamentary history. The Australian constitutional crisis in 1975 was born directly out of that conflict between the two Australian houses.

This is what I consistently remind people of about tinkering with the constitution. Things work the way they do for a reason, and have been arrived at after much trial and error. As it is, the Senate has, since Confederation, largely remained subservient to the will of the House of Commons. If you make Senators elected and give them relatively short terms, they essentially become electorally-driven politicians and will from that want to invoke the Effective in Triple-E, and inevitably the Commons and the Senate will be on separate electoral cycles. What would that mean? Increased likelihood of stalemates? Moving to an American-style system of both houses often producing legislation and than having to smash it together? I'm not saying that these are bad things, but they could substantially alter the very nature of our democracy in obvious and subtle ways.

We caught a glimpse of what could happen in 1990 when the Liberal-dominated Senate attempted to stop the passage of the GST. That's why the Fathers of Confederation inserted Section 26 allowing the adding of four or eight Senators, as a means for the Government and the House of Commons to assert its supremacy over the upper house.

Additional: The number of senators that the Queen could add was changed to three or six in 1915.

Edited May 20, 2011 by ToadBrother

[scribblet]

What are the citations on Liberals re-appointing election losers to the Senate?

Tim Harper seems to think this has not happened since the 19th century:

Here's two, that were appointed after losing an election (not re-appointed) Hervieux-Payette was defeated twice in 1988 and 1993.

from her own website

Mobina Jaffer sought election to the House of Commons at federal general elections for the constituencies of North Vancouver (in 1993) and Burnaby-Douglas (1997).

[madmax]

MPs and senators are not the same. So, it's still unclear as to how these appointments are of any consequence, let alone a "slap in the face", to the voters in the ridings where the new and returning senators lost in the election.

These are Great Senate Appointments.. Long live the Senate. 3 Cheers for 3 Losers..

[g_bambino]

These are Great Senate Appointments.. Long live the Senate. 3 Cheers for 3 Losers..

Non sequitur.

[scribblet]

This too will pass, and why it is a bit strange, it makes political sense. Harper is right to use the current system, such as it is, to ensure he can get legislation through. Now that he has a majority in both houses, I expect to see true senate reform within two years. It won't be Triple-E but I would imagine "elected, with term limits" is likely. Although, once elected, I'm not sure that term limits should apply. Just my opinion mind.

Get over it Harper's no the only one to elect defeated candidates

Cue shocked and outraged voice: "Can you imagine a prime minister appointing political supporters and party hacks to the Senate?"

What PM could look himself in the mirror knowing that he appointed defeated and retired MPs, party fundraisers, strategists and even, in the case of a current Saskatchewan senator, the wife of a longtime party supporter and candidate?

The answer, in my lifetime, is every single prime minister: Diefenbaker, Pearson, Trudeau, Clark, Turner, Mulroney, Chretien and Martin.

Actually there was one who did not make any politically tilted Senate appointments. Kim Campbell, a Progressive Conservative and the only female prime minister in history, was PM for such a short time she didn't get to make any Senate appointments at all.

Now that Harper has appointed more than 40 senators in his five years in office -the latest three throwing the self-righteous chattering classes into a lather -ask what you would do if faced with the combination of indifference and faux outrage that greets virtually every Senate appointment.

Prime ministers personally "recommend" to the Governor General the people appointed senators.

And because the Senate plays an important constitutional role in Canada's structure of government, to not appoint senators at all would be precipitous and naive.

To refuse to appoint senators on-side with the government would be political suicide.

Edited May 20, 2011 by scribblet

[Remiel]

MPs and senators are not the same. So, it's still unclear as to how these appointments are of any consequence, let alone a "slap in the face", to the voters in the ridings where the new and returning senators lost in the election.

That is a weak argument, Bambino. MPs and Senators may not be exactly the same, but neither are they completely different. I should not have to explain to you, of all posters, the similarities.

[ToadBrother]

This too will pass, and why it is a bit strange, it makes political sense. Harper is right to use the current system, such as it is, to ensure he can get legislation through. Now that he has a majority in both houses, I expect to see true senate reform within two years. It won't be Triple-E but I would imagine "elected, with term limits" is likely. Although, once elected, I'm not sure that term limits should apply. Just my opinion mind.

You do understand that to make Senators elected will mean a constitutional amendment which will require 2/3s of the provinces representing half the population, right? You also remember the last time a PM went down this road and what happened, right?

[g_bambino]

I should not have to explain to you, of all posters, the similarities.

If it answers the question of how these appointments are of any consequence, let alone a "slap in the face", to the voters in the ridings where the new and returning senators lost in the election, then I'm afraid you will have to explain. Voters can't reject senators; senators don't represent ridings and aren't voted for.

[Remiel]

If it answers the question of how these appointments are of any consequence, let alone a "slap in the face", to the voters in the ridings where the new and returning senators lost in the election, then I'm afraid you will have to explain. Voters can't reject senators; senators don't represent ridings and aren't voted for.

In theory, it should be an honour to be appointed to the Senate. If you cannot see what is wrong with resigning that position, to do anything else, let alone run in an election, and then come crawling back like you are entitled to it because you were there before, then I am afraid that you are just lacking in judgement. This whole debacle just heaps more dishonour on the Senate.

[RNG]

In theory, it should be an honour to be appointed to the Senate. If you cannot see what is wrong with resigning that position, to do anything else, let alone run in an election, and then come crawling back like you are entitled to it because you were there before, then I am afraid that you are just lacking in judgement. This whole debacle just heaps more dishonour on the Senate.

What is the politically correct term for drama queen?

[Remiel]

What is the politically correct term for drama queen?

You tell me. That is, after all, what most people who cry about political correctness are.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Remiel

[RNG]

You tell me. That is, after all, what most people who cry about political correctness are.

Next time I'll be sure to include the [/sarcasm].

[cybercoma]

Let's be clear here. Harper and these Senators did nothing wrong. There are no rules against what they did. It's just in poor taste. In other words, those that support the party are likely to defend it; those against the party are going to be furious; and, everyone else is going to shrug their shoulders in total indifference.

Honestly, it's not as big of a deal as say making access to information harder to get to by cancelling funding to the organization that compiles information between departments, inhibiting research capabilities of our universities and third party organizations through the aforementioned cut and getting rid of the mandatory long-form, or attempting to wipeout Insite in Vancouver contrary to every single piece of research ever done on it stating that it is extremely effective. Those things just scratch the surface on the single issue of the Harper Government doing everything in their power to make policy from the side of ideology rather than informed decisions basic on scientific research and, moreover, try to hide the reality of what their decisions are doing to society. Without saying one way or the other whether the social policy coming out of the Harper Government is sound, we simply cannot know when they ignore research and do what they can to inhibit it.

Anyway, my point being that you don't complain about a headlight being out on a car when the engine is shot. Fixing the headlight is moot at that point.

[Evening Star]

Completely agree, cybercoma.

[g_bambino]

In theory, it should be an honour to be appointed to the Senate. If you cannot see what is wrong with resigning that position, to do anything else, let alone run in an election, and then come crawling back like you are entitled to it because you were there before, then I am afraid that you are just lacking in judgement. This whole debacle just heaps more dishonour on the Senate.

Ah, but I never said the move wasn't in bad taste, or anything like that. I'm merely trying to understand why people think it was some particular offence to the voters of Lac-Saint-Louis, Louis-Saint-Laurent, and Avalon. The former two aren't even in the regional divisions that the failed electoral candidates now represent in the Senate.

[Wilber]

So much for Senate reform. Same old, same old.

[cybercoma]

Ah, but I never said the move wasn't in bad taste, or anything like that. I'm merely trying to understand why people think it was some particular offence to the voters of Lac-Saint-Louis, Louis-Saint-Laurent, and Avalon. The former two aren't even in the regional divisions that the failed electoral candidates now represent in the Senate.

Because the constituents voted in such a way that indicates they didn't want these people in office. Now they are, by appointment. It doesn't matter whether or not they represent them specifically. They were voted out of the lower house and got an appointment to the upper house. I'm not sure why it's difficult to see how that's a sort of middle finger to the constituents.

Edited May 21, 2011 by cybercoma

[Wilber]

I'm not sure why it's difficult to see how that's a sort of middle finger to the constituents.

It's disgusting.