Mighty AC Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Actually, it's not without precedent. Chretien elected a total of 75 Senators during his 10 years as PM, 72 Liberals and 3 Independents. Harper has elected 59 Conservative Senators to date.I believe the 19 member mass stacking stunt that included the Duff man is the unprecedented part. Another unique aspect of Harper's appointment ritual is his demand for specific votes as the pre-condition for their appointment. So not only did Harper go against his vow not to appoint unelected senators in a massive way, he did it with the intent of killing bills passed by the elected members of the HOC who represented a majority of Canadians. 'Our benign dictatorship' as our Fuhrer used to put it, is not so benign. They had to first pledge allegiance to Conservative policies on Senate reform in the future while promising to oppose any coalition of opposition parties that included the Bloc Quebecois. Mr. Harper's demand goes beyond the standard expectation of senators being generally loyal to their patronage saint. It demands their specific votes as the pre-condition for their appointment. http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=7db1d777-5489-4e65-8887-8e9eb37280ee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Also removes accountability to anyone. They have no mandate of any kind to be there. imagine - being accountable to one's own self... one's own personal position/conscience! What a concept for hyper partisan Harper Conservative supporters! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 imagine - being accountable to one's own self... one's own personal position/conscience! What a concept for hyper partisan Harper Conservative supporters! Then what makes someone worthy of the important position of "Senator" then? If not patronage or an actual mandate then what? I'd like to be a Senator, what can I do under JT's new algorithm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 The thought of unelected members running off half-cocked - without the guidance the the House of Commons - the house that reflects the will of the people - is insane. stop the unwhipped insanity! Guidance? Guidance? That's a most interesting choice of words there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 So interesting Senators under a party banner are partisan hacks. The exact same Senators kicked out of caucus are great instruments of the Confederation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Then what makes someone worthy of the important position of "Senator" then? If not patronage or an actual mandate then what? look, I get it... you clearly don't handle change well! You feel threatened... you feel Harper's penchant for appointing hockey players, journalists, personal aides, friends, bagmen, cronies, etc., will be scrutinized even more! "but the Libs", "but the Libs"... in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 look, I get it... you clearly don't handle change well! You feel threatened... you feel Harper's penchant for appointing hockey players, journalists, personal aides, friends, bagmen, cronies, etc., will be scrutinized even more! "but the Libs", "but the Libs"... in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....... You didn't answer my question. Now that party politics aren't part of the Senate in JT's world how are these people appointed in the future? Could they, you know, be elected? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 You didn't answer my question. Now that party politics aren't part of the Senate in JT's world how are these people appointed in the future? Could they, you know, be elected? after all this time, only 2 provinces (Alberta & Saskatchewan) have 'paved that road'. Why so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 after all this time, only 2 provinces (Alberta & Saskatchewan) have 'paved that road'. Why so? Dunno, gotta ask the other provinces. Both Conservative provinces though. I must admit I'm unsure how electing the Senate would work, I think the whole make up of the Senate should be re-vamped first, If we're keeping it at all. But as I've said earlier in the thread. Some sort of Order of Canadaish consultation seems like a half-measure. No way the governing party (Not matter which party) would allow someone critical of the government appointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 But as I've said earlier in the thread. Some sort of Order of Canadaish consultation seems like a half-measure. No way the governing party (Not matter which party) would allow someone critical of the government appointed. cause looking to (independently) appoint the best of candidates... the qualified best... that's crazy talk! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) cause looking to (independently) appoint the best of candidates... the qualified best... that's crazy talk! So what, some independent, well-paid I'm sure, committee to find people that are worthy senators? Who decides what the standards are? You can't compare getting a Order of Canada medal to having the final say one what laws get passed. Edited January 30, 2014 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 So what some independent, well-paid I'm sure, committee to find people that are worthy senators. Who decides what the standards are? You can't compare getting a Order of Canada medal to having the final say one what laws get passed. geezas! You're really struggling to find anything/everything to avoid "some manner" of legitimate independent appointment of the best candidates (those willing to serve). Your throwing it back into the 'election cycle format' would gain what?... other than another chamber directly lining up and following the party lines... lining up around party funding troughs... party lobbyists, etc.. If you want just another "one of those" chambers, then just abolish it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 then just abolish it. Kay let's do that then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Kay let's do that then. then why posture through these last posts of yours? If you feel the Senate performs no useful purpose (when it works, when its shown to have worked), then just say so. Don't hide behind your false protests/concerns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 then why posture through these last posts of yours? If you feel the Senate performs no useful purpose (when it works, when its shown to have worked), then just say so. Don't hide behind your false protests/concerns. I've said that before on this board, I wouldn't shed a solitary tear if the Senate was thrown in trash bin today, but I'm not exactly sure how easy that would be. Sup Quebec! I don't think anyone actually knows what the official CPC stance on the Senate is, Hopefully we'll find out when the SC gets back to us. I've heard of something called EEE sounds like a good idea. IMHO much better than what JT is proposing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 I don't think anyone actually knows what the official CPC stance on the Senate is, Hopefully we'll find out when the SC gets back to us. I've heard of something called EEE sounds like a good idea. IMHO much better than what JT is proposing. nobody knows what the official CPC stance on the Senate is? If you're correct, why would the self-proclaimed party of transparency/accountability be so hesitant in revealing that stance? tripleE... elected? Yes, more of the same? If a truly independent process to appoint the best candidates (without regard to party affiliation) could be arrived at, why would you favour a process that returns the likes of a "Rob Anders"... or a "Peter Goldring"... or a dozen like hacks from across all-party lines? Does that flavour of "democracy" trump appointing the best of the best (those willing to serve)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Does that flavour of "democracy" trump appointing the best of the best (those willing to serve)? Short answer . . . Yes. Who are these people? And what are they basing their opinions on? Is it some sort of Meritocracy? Will it be possible to find people that can't be tied to ANY party affiliation? These guys that got kicked out of the caucus are still Liberals, you know. As for Harpers's wishy washy stances. He's asked 6 questions to the Supreme Court. I'm sure the answers to those questions will allow him to attempt to fulfill his pre PM promises. Edited January 30, 2014 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
na85 Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Will it be possible to find people that can't be tied to ANY party affiliation?Easily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Will it be possible to find people that can't be tied to ANY party affiliation? and if, within the independent selection process, you don't include party affiliation in the decision criteria? If you're looking for the 'best of the best' without factoring party affiliation... what a concept! As a staunch Harper Conservative supporter, why is this concept so foreign to you? riddle me this: how does business manage to fill top management positions... how does academia... how does industry, etc.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 and if, within the independent selection process, you don't include party affiliation in the decision criteria? If you're looking for the 'best of the best' without factoring party affiliation... what a concept! As a staunch Harper Conservative supporter, why is this concept so foreign to you? riddle me this: how does business manage to fill top management positions... how does academia... how does industry, etc.? So Senators will be hired then. The Upper House will have their own HR Department taking in resumes, conducting interviews and checking references (none from politicians accepted though). "Best of the Best" is a nebulous trope when we're talking about people who pass laws though. Is there and "objective" way to determine someone's worthiness here? I would assume the first and foremost thing one would look at is previous experience. I'm pretty sure that experience would expose the person's political bias as the best experience would likely be in the political realm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 "Best of the Best" is a nebulous trope when we're talking about people who pass laws though. Is there and "objective" way to determine someone's worthiness here? sure... the number of hockey goals scored! Or whether one has been a prolific fund raiser for the party! Or if you were a personal aide to the Prime Minister! How about those? like I said, you're so set against the concept you'll pose whatever strawman it takes. Look up the 'head-hunter' concept... no HR, no resume submissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) sure... the number of hockey goals scored! Or whether one has been a prolific fund raiser for the party! Or if you were a personal aide to the Prime Minister! How about those? like I said, you're so set against the concept you'll pose whatever strawman it takes. Look up the 'head-hunter' concept... no HR, no resume submissions. I just would like to know the plan. It appears there'll be a panel. Who appoints the panel? JT I'd assume. And if the panel's job is to find people who will objectively look at laws and pass or reject them, I ask this: how is it much different than the Supreme Court? Again we have redundancy. I always thought the Senate was supposed to represent people of a region (should be individual provinces) instead of the House where they represent a certain numerical population figure. Edited January 30, 2014 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Harper has been making moves to try and "reform" the Senate. But he wants to do it the proper way so it can't get challenged in court. It's just that this Senate scandal has brought the issue front and centre so JT can make hay by doing something like this. Even better, he had pre-excavated a hidey hole if(is it even possible?) if it turns out that the upcoming audit reveals some more Liberal Senators have been naughty with public money. Sorry, I didn't mean Liberal Senators, I meant Those Bad Men Who Sit In The Senate As Independents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 I just would like to know the plan. It appears there'll be a panel. Who appoints the panel? JT I'd assume. your assumption; aka another of your strawman And if the panel's job is to find people who will objectively look at laws and pass or reject them, I ask this: how is it much different than the Supreme Court? strawman; or... if that's truly what you're thinking... then do away with Parliament in its entirety! Hey now, who appoints those judges, anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Even better, he had pre-excavated a hidey hole if(is it even possible?) if it turns out that the upcoming audit reveals some more Liberal Senators have been naughty with public money. Sorry, I didn't mean Liberal Senators, I meant Those Bad Men Who Sit In The Senate As Independents. if if... the audit! Your wishful thinking, hey? but really... why label them... "Bad Men"??? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.