Fixed Election Dates on the Way

[Michael Bluth]

Looks like fixed election dates are coming, about time. Now, if we can do something about the Senate -

Steps are being taken in the right direction. The twice popularly Bert Brown will take an Alberta Senate when Dan Hays steps down.

Hard to find anybody who is more passionate than Brown about Senate reform.

[normanchateau]

Bert Brown, democratically elected...definitely a better choice than the unelected Michael Fortier.

[g_bambino]

Bert Brown, democratically elected...definitely a better choice than the unelected Michael Fortier.

Why?

[normanchateau]

Bert Brown, democratically elected...definitely a better choice than the unelected Michael Fortier.

Why?

(1) He wasn't a personal friend and former campaign manager of the man who appointed him.

(2) The people of Alberta wanted him.

[Michael Bluth]

Why?

Because Brown was democratically elected. While Harper appointed one unelected Senator. So he's 50/50 on that front. Definitely needs to improve the batting average, but he is heading in the right direction.

[normanchateau]

In the decima polls anyway...

[g_bambino]

Bert Brown, democratically elected...definitely a better choice than the unelected Michael Fortier.

Why?

(1) He wasn't a personal friend and former campaign manager of the man who appointed him.

(2) The people of Alberta wanted him.

Firstly, Brown wasn't elected to the Senate. In essence, all Harper did was consult Albertans on whom he should recommend the Governor General appoint to fill a Senate seat.

Secondly, no Senator save for Brown was chosen in this manner. Further, senators have served in Cabinet before; hell, a couple have even been PM. Why then pick only on Fortier here?

[Michael Bluth]

Firstly, Brown wasn't elected to the Senate. In essence, all Harper did was consult Albertans on whom he should recommend the Governor General appoint to fill a Senate seat.

Secondly, no Senator save for Brown was chosen in this manner. Further, senators have served in Cabinet before; hell, a couple have even been PM. Why then pick only on Fortier here?

If you are giong to quibble let's get some facts straight.

Bert Brown was elected before Harper became PM. So no consultation by the PM on that one at all.

Stan Waters was the first elected Senator in Canadian history and that was in the lifetime of most of the posters here. The method in which Stan Waters and Bert Brown were selected was the same.

[normanchateau]

Bert Brown, democratically elected...definitely a better choice than the unelected Michael Fortier.

Why?

(1) He wasn't a personal friend and former campaign manager of the man who appointed him.

(2) The people of Alberta wanted him.

Firstly, Brown wasn't elected to the Senate. In essence, all Harper did was consult Albertans on whom he should recommend the Governor General appoint to fill a Senate seat.

Secondly, no Senator save for Brown was chosen in this manner. Further, senators have served in Cabinet before; hell, a couple have even been PM. Why then pick only on Fortier here?

He wasn't both a personal friend and former campaign manager of the man who appointed him.

[scribblet]

If you are giong to quibble let's get some facts straight.

Bert Brown was elected before Harper became PM. So no consultation by the PM on that one at all.

Stan Waters was the first elected Senator in Canadian history and that was in the lifetime of most of the posters here. The method in which Stan Waters and Bert Brown were selected was the same.

Facts - don't bother them with facts -

[Michael Bluth]

Facts - don't bother them with facts -

I forgot.

Can't stop any thread from devolving in to an attack on the PM.

We are the hateocracy. You must be assimilated.

[normanchateau]

We are the hateocracy. You must be assimilated.

I googled hateocracy and the term came up 17 times though no definitions were ever provided. How do you define it?

If democracy is defined as government by the people, theocracy is defined as government ruled by religious authority, and plutocracy is defined as government by the wealthy, what is hateocracy...government by those who hate? What government are you referring to? The Conservatives? "We are the hateocracy."

What are you talking about? Why are you babbling nonsense? Please explain.

[g_bambino]

Firstly, Brown wasn't elected to the Senate. In essence, all Harper did was consult Albertans on whom he should recommend the Governor General appoint to fill a Senate seat.

Secondly, no Senator save for Brown was chosen in this manner. Further, senators have served in Cabinet before; hell, a couple have even been PM. Why then pick only on Fortier here?

If you are giong to quibble let's get some facts straight.

Bert Brown was elected before Harper became PM. So no consultation by the PM on that one at all.

Stan Waters was the first elected Senator in Canadian history and that was in the lifetime of most of the posters here. The method in which Stan Waters and Bert Brown were selected was the same.

Perhaps I should simply change my wording: Harper heeded the previous consultation of Albertans when putting forward a name to the Governor General for appointment to the Senate. Still doesn't change the fact that Brown wasn't elected to the Senate.

Mea culpa on Waters.

[normanchateau]

Firstly, Brown wasn't elected to the Senate. In essence, all Harper did was consult Albertans on whom he should recommend the Governor General appoint to fill a Senate seat.

Secondly, no Senator save for Brown was chosen in this manner. Further, senators have served in Cabinet before; hell, a couple have even been PM. Why then pick only on Fortier here?

If you are giong to quibble let's get some facts straight.

Bert Brown was elected before Harper became PM. So no consultation by the PM on that one at all.

Stan Waters was the first elected Senator in Canadian history and that was in the lifetime of most of the posters here. The method in which Stan Waters and Bert Brown were selected was the same.

Perhaps I should simply change my wording: Harper heeded the previous consultation of Albertans when putting forward a name to the Governor General for appointment to the Senate. Still doesn't change the fact that Brown wasn't elected to the Senate.

And if the Harper's going to pick someone who wasn't elected, he may as well go full-sleaze and pick his friend and former campaign manager and make him a cabinet minister from Quebec as he did with Fortier.

[g_bambino]

Perhaps I should simply change my wording: Harper heeded the previous consultation of Albertans when putting forward a name to the Governor General for appointment to the Senate. Still doesn't change the fact that Brown wasn't elected to the Senate.

And if the Harper's going to pick someone who wasn't elected, he may as well go full-sleaze and pick his friend and former campaign manager and make him a cabinet minister from Quebec as he did with Fortier.

You may disagree with his choice, but Harper exercised his constitutional right as prime minister to put forward Fortier's name both for the Senate and a position in Cabinet. He did this, and continues to maintain the confidence of our political representatives in the House. Thus, he technically did nothing wrong, and his decision must have had some merit as it didn't bring the government down.

Besides, Fortier has said he will resign his Senate seat after this parliament is prorogued. Shouldn't you reserve much of your vehement criticism until after we see if this promise is fulfilled or not?

[Michael Bluth]

You may disagree with his choice, but Harper exercised his constitutional right as prime minister to put forward Fortier's name both for the Senate and a position in Cabinet. He did this, and continues to maintain the confidence of our political representatives in the House. Thus, he technically did nothing wrong, and his decision must have had some merit as it didn't bring the government down.

Besides, Fortier has said he will resign his Senate seat after this parliament is prorogued. Shouldn't you reserve much of your vehement criticism until after we see if this promise is fulfilled or not?

You make perfectly valid arguments to defend Stephen Harper's decision.

Alas Normie will attack Harper any time anywhere. Validity be damned.

[scribblet]

You make perfectly valid arguments to defend Stephen Harper's decision.

Alas Normie will attack Harper any time anywhere. Validity be damned.

Facts, don't let facts get in the way of spin LOL

Its passed the Senate !!!

[Fortunata]

You may disagree with his choice, but Harper exercised his constitutional right as prime minister to put forward Fortier's name both for the Senate and a position in Cabinet. He did this, and continues to maintain the confidence of our political representatives in the House. Thus, he technically did nothing wrong, and his decision must have had some merit as it didn't bring the government down.

Besides, Fortier has said he will resign his Senate seat after this parliament is prorogued. Shouldn't you reserve much of your vehement criticism until after we see if this promise is fulfilled or not?

Steve does have that constitutional right to appoint Senators. All Prime Ministers do. What's different here is that Steve campaigned on only appointing elected Senators. That was one of his first strikes, the first promise broken - just one of the lies he told to get elected.

Under our system Fortier doesn't have to step down from his senate seat until his zillion years are up. We'll see if he does.

[normanchateau]

Steve does have that constitutional right to appoint Senators. All Prime Ministers do. What's different here is that Steve campaigned on only appointing elected Senators. That was one of his first strikes, the first promise broken - just one of the lies he told to get elected.

Under our system Fortier doesn't have to step down from his senate seat until his zillion years are up. We'll see if he does.

Well said. That's precisely my point. I never said Harper did anything illegal.

[Michael Bluth]

Steve does have that constitutional right to appoint Senators. All Prime Ministers do. What's different here is that Steve campaigned on only appointing elected Senators. That was one of his first strikes, the first promise broken - just one of the lies he told to get elected.

Harper has done more as Prime Minister to reform the Senate than any Prime Minister in the past 30 years.

Anybody who may have based their voting choice on Harper's policy on Senate reform will be pleased.

It's only those who don't like Harper, didn't vote for him and never would, who have an issue with the appointment of Fortier.

[scribblet]

Steve does have that constitutional right to appoint Senators. All Prime Ministers do. What's different here is that Steve campaigned on only appointing elected Senators. That was one of his first strikes, the first promise broken - just one of the lies he told to get elected.

Harper has done more as Prime Minister to reform the Senate than any Prime Minister in the past 30 years.

Anybody who may have based their voting choice on Harper's policy on Senate reform will be pleased.

It's only those who don't like Harper, didn't vote for him and never would, who have an issue with the appointment of Fortier.

They've delayed the Senate bill – Again!

A whole year to pass a bill with only three clauses - not heard to figure why the old dust collectors in the Upper House have pulled out every trick in the book to delay it.

This is nothing more than stalling tactics and waste more taxpayer dollars.

[Fortunata]

It's only those who don't like Harper, didn't vote for him and never would, who have an issue with the appointment of Fortier.

I have no problem with PMs appointing Senators .... except that was Steve's thing... he was only going to appoint elected Senators. He lied. He went back on a campaign promise because it was politically opportune. Who'd a thought Steve would ever do something like that?

[g_bambino]

Steve does have that constitutional right to appoint Senators. All Prime Ministers do. What's different here is that Steve campaigned on only appointing elected Senators. That was one of his first strikes, the first promise broken - just one of the lies he told to get elected.

Harper has done more as Prime Minister to reform the Senate than any Prime Minister in the past 30 years.

Anybody who may have based their voting choice on Harper's policy on Senate reform will be pleased.

It's only those who don't like Harper, didn't vote for him and never would, who have an issue with the appointment of Fortier.

This was the direction I was heading in. The Conservative Party came to power on the premise that there would be Senate reform, not that only people "elected" in some fashion would be appointed to the Senate. (1 2) So, Harper nominated Fortier as a senator, I imagine to give him at least some position in Parliament now that he was in Cabinet to represent Montreal, and did so on the promise that Fortier would resign this seat at the prorogation of this Parliament. Where else was Fortier to go? Was Harper, within the first fifteen minutes of his taking his Oath of Allegiance at Rideau Hall, supposed to demand Charest hold a Quebec senatorial election, and just hope the victor was Conservative?

Since that time, as you point out, Michael, more effort has been made towards Senate reform in the past year than, one could argue, at any time since Confederation, thus fulfilling the promises actually laid out in the Conservative Party platform. Of course, fervent anti-Conservatives will ignore the actual efforts made, and concentrate on one decision made at a point when the man making the decision had little room for alternative.

[g_bambino]

They've delayed the Senate bill – Again!

A whole year to pass a bill with only three clauses - not heard to figure why the old dust collectors in the Upper House have pulled out every trick in the book to delay it.

This is nothing more than stalling tactics and waste more taxpayer dollars.

Wouldn't opposition party senators in an "effective" Senate view it as their duty as elected representatives to delay even more of the sitting government's bills?

[scribblet]

They've delayed the Senate bill – Again!

A whole year to pass a bill with only three clauses - not heard to figure why the old dust collectors in the Upper House have pulled out every trick in the book to delay it.

This is nothing more than stalling tactics and waste more taxpayer dollars.

Wouldn't opposition party senators in an "effective" Senate view it as their duty as elected representatives to delay even more of the sitting government's bills?

Not to deliberatly stall and delay in order to keep their jobs longer, I think a year or so is plenty of time to give to a 3 clause bill. These old fogeys have the most to lose here.

Considering this is a minority gov't the CPC has made some strides towards democratic reform, we know doesn't want these reforms don't we.