Quote:
Originally Posted by Bownesian
I'm pretty sure you're not a disappointed supporter so is the thrust of your argument that:
1) Senators should not be appointed at all?
2) PMs of any variety should only appoint qualified partisans who have never unsuccessfully ran for public office?
3) Conservative PMs alone should be held to a higher standard because they have made promises to change the system?
4) Harper bad, not Harper good?
Having read your contributions, I suspect #4 is closer to your heart but let's assume for the sake of generosity that you are arguing some combination of #2 and #3.
If it's #2, did you rail against similar appointments by Chretien and Martin?
- I bet that you probably didn't care for the idea of appointing party hacks (as many Canadians do) or didn't think about them at all for more than a day or two after the appointments (as most Canadians do)
If it's #3 and the issue has to do with a PM promising one thing (an attempt at Senate reform) and delivering another, it's a pretty weak argument. We have a partisan upper house that is staffed with partisan Liberals and partisan Conservatives. Until changes can be implemented and survive the inevitable Supreme Court challenge, that's what we have. If Harper hadn't made any appointments, the Senate would be down to 41 Liberals, 19 conservatives and a handful of independents. The Senate would be unable to do its constitutionally mandated business because there wouldn't be enough senators for all the committees required.
Neither of us like it but there are only two parties with policies to change that system - the NDP or the CPC. I can live with either solution but I think that there is a purpose for having an upper house and prefer the CPC solution if it's workable. What I can't abide is the Liberal solution of crying when the PM appoints his party hacks and keeping quiet when Liberal PMs appoint theirs while opposing discussion on any solution.
The Senate had a fairly weak Conservative majority before the appointments and if you look at the mandatory retirement dates, before the fall, 1 Liberal and 3 Conservative senators will retire so their majority was at stake. The appointments are a result of realpolitik and probably more distasteful to real Conservative supporters than they are to those who pretend to be offended by some kind betrayal of those supporters. The difference is, we Conservative supporters have been consistent in our opposition to these kinds of appointments and we understand that they are a required step backwards before we can take a step towards real reform.
The PC position is that nobody should be appointed, regardless of their quality but to make that change, we need to make appointments to keep the government running. Just like the opposition would do.
|
Well if I was forced to select between the four choices I would have a hard time. I think that despite your efforts to try to put words into my mouth I've laid out my thoughts pretty clearly; any PM appointing senators has the authority and option choosing whoever they want but I just hope there is at least an ethical guideline.
I didn't like it when the Liberals did it either for the record. While I might not love Harper I can still call a spade a spade: some of the things the Liberals did when they were in power were atrocious! That doesn't mean that everything Harper does is better though and it certainly shouldn't absolve him of common decency and ethics just because the "last guys were bad". Is that really too much to ask as a citizen?
So here we have a PM who says he wants elected senators. It makes no difference whether I personally want them, its his decision and he is in a position to make that decision. I respect that. He puts zero dollars forward to hold the elections and can't seem to see why the provinces aren't paying for his pet project. Despite that, he still needs to fill the vacancies, there is work to be done and the senate should not run short-handed. So what to do?
We know were going to get a bunch of party hacks. Its indecent, but its the way the system works and most people accept that somewhat begrudgingly. So here's where I have an issue. We had a federal election about 7 months ago. Members of all stripes lost that day in various ridings across the country; for one reason or another they were not selected by the people to represent them. Now within that period some of those same people are given jobs as senators, despite people voting for someone else. How can you not see the obvious contradiction here? He wants an elected senate because its democratic and then appoints senators who were just defeated. Its ridiculous.