Harper to fill 18 Senate seats with Tory loyalists

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just wanted to point out that whether you agree or disagree its another one of Harpers broken promises. The legislation to have elected senators died with the end of parliament last time around for the election. That election was Harpers doing...and now of course he is appointing senators. One could assume that actions speak louder than words here!

A Triple E senate is a complete waste of time and energy. We already have an elected house of representatives and all the equality adds to this is more emphasis on regional differences.

The Senate is fine the way it is. It is supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought and that is the main purpose it now serves.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggg!
I take it you're a Liberal from Ontario hoping for an early retirement bonus?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

AAAAAAAAAAAAAaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggg!
I take it you're a Liberal from Ontario hoping for an early retirement bonus?

Calgary born and raised...sorry to disappoint! (I guess my mom always had Cherry Kool-Aid and not so much on the Blue Raspberry front!!)

I'm not a card carrying Liberal either. I have voted for them and worked on a few campaigns (I would work on whatever campaign I support though as I think its very important).

I wouldn't take a senatorial appointment at this point in my life, but if I were about 25 years older I wouldn't pass it up.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just wanted to point out that whether you agree or disagree its another one of Harpers broken promises. The legislation to have elected senators died with the end of parliament last time around for the election. That election was Harpers doing...and now of course he is appointing senators. One could assume that actions speak louder than words here!

A Triple E senate is a complete waste of time and energy. We already have an elected house of representatives and all the equality adds to this is more emphasis on regional differences.

The Senate is fine the way it is. It is supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought and that is the main purpose it now serves.

Bunk, Harper went to the senate hat in hand during his first term to put forward ideas on reforming the senate, and who voted it down? The Liberals who had been placed there by the Liberal party because they don't want to see their plum positions put up for election.

If we do god forbid get the conservatives falling at the budget and we get a coalition by the Liberals, then there's no checks and balances in place as the Senate becomes a rubber stamp organization. For the Conservatives however, the Liberal dominated senate has become a blocking point for the opposition, see the Crime Bill as an example.

The Senate right now, doesn't serve the Canadian people, it serves the Liberal party of Canada.

Its impossible at this point for Harper to keep that promise, he tried to, but it can't be done until there's a more equal balance of senators.

If your going to hand out seats to this thing, then they should designate Liberal seats, conservative seats and NDP seats that make it a fairly even distribution.

Personally I would rather that there was no senate in this current form.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Bunk, Harper went to the senate hat in hand during his first term to put forward ideas on reforming the senate, and who voted it down? The Liberals who had been placed there by the Liberal party because they don't want to see their plum positions put up for election.

If we do god forbid get the conservatives falling at the budget and we get a coalition by the Liberals, then there's no checks and balances in place as the Senate becomes a rubber stamp organization. For the Conservatives however, the Liberal dominated senate has become a blocking point for the opposition, see the Crime Bill as an example.

The Senate right now, doesn't serve the Canadian people, it serves the Liberal party of Canada.

Its impossible at this point for Harper to keep that promise, he tried to, but it can't be done until there's a more equal balance of senators.

If your going to hand out seats to this thing, then they should designate Liberal seats, conservative seats and NDP seats that make it a fairly even distribution.

Personally I would rather that there was no senate in this current form.

True. If we can't reform it, abolish it.

[Slava]

^ Are any of these new senators going to be appointed to the cabinet as well?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

I wouldn't take a senatorial appointment at this point in my life, but if I were about 25 years older I wouldn't pass it up.

Hmmm..... lets see..
Slava loves the senate just the way it is, a sitting senator gets paid approx. $130,000 per year (not counting benefits), the senate only sits approx. 70 days per year, and its not mandatory that Senators show up for those sittings, you get to keep the job til you turn 75, and you can't get fired...

Right!!! <sarcasm>

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ Are any of these new senators going to be appointed to the cabinet as well?

No.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Hmmm..... lets see..
Slava loves the senate just the way it is, a sitting senator gets paid approx. $130,000 per year (not counting benefits), the senate only sits approx. 70 days per year, and its not mandatory that Senators show up for those sittings, you get to keep the job til you turn 75, and you can't get fired...

Right!!! <sarcasm>

There are also huge amounts of committee work and other duties involved. The number of sitting days is only a portion of the job (same applies to the House of Commons and Provincial Legislatures). In all honesty Harper has made the Conservative senators who are already there work an incredible amount by not appointing or getting these 18 there sooner!


The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Sure you can work to age 75...but how many people really want to do that to begin with?

Originally Posted by Rerun

No.

I don't know...how can we really know. Based on past history maybe another Michael Fortier is in the offing!

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Slava

There are also huge amounts of committee work and other duties involved. The number of sitting days is only a portion of the job (same applies to the House of Commons and Provincial Legislatures). In all honesty Harper has made the Conservative senators who are already there work an incredible amount by not appointing or getting these 18 there sooner!


The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Sure you can work to age 75...but how many people really want to do that to begin with?


I don't know...how can we really know. Based on past history maybe another Michael Fortier is in the offing!

Dude, sometimes reading your posts in these threads is like having a TV show I'm watching get interrupted by a Liberal commercial claiming Harper's real first name is actually Osama. Do you honestly believe the stuff you type, or are you just trying to scare fence-sitters into joining the Liberal coffers?

Edit: Sorry, I just wanted to add that I'm not trying to be a prick. It's an honest question... You seem like a decent guy in all your other posts, but when it comes to something about Stephen Harper, it's like he ate your dog or something.

Edit: Mind you... I'm just as biased on the other side of things, so I guess I can't really complain too much.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

A Majority government is essentially a dictatorship with just about zero recourse aside from public pressure until the next election comes up? There are almost zero checks and balances in a majority.

That enough of an answer?

EEE senate probably isn't the best answer, but perhaps some regional skewing (I.E. Quebec/Ontario have 10 senators to AB's 5 or w/e) - but they need to be elected with fixed terms.

As I've been saying in this thread. Federalism is a pretty good check. Yes a majority government has alot of power, but look at their powers, the only real power that affects all Canadians is their criminal law power.

The rest of the powers health, resources, property, education are all delegated to the provinces. yet I dont' see anyone in here proclaiming that we need provincial senates to curb the majority governments in Provincial legislatures.

The point is still standing. Prove to me that the legislative process is broken. Heck prove to me that the legislative process is hurting one region more than another. Then prove to me that that region being hurt by the legislative process is democratically under-represented. Then prove to me that an empowered Senate is the way to fix this without causing other problems to our legislative process.

As it stands, that's a tall order.

Ask yourself whether an empowered Senate with real legitimacy would be a good thing. All it would do would politicize and stall our legislative processes even further.

I also find it funny that people have bemoaned a minority government because it can't get things done then they propose an empowered Senate. Talk about hypocritical.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Dude, sometimes reading your posts in these threads is like having a TV show I'm watching get interrupted by a Liberal commercial claiming Harper's real first name is actually Osama. Do you honestly believe the stuff you type, or are you just trying to scare fence-sitters into joining the Liberal coffers?

Edit: Sorry, I just wanted to add that I'm not trying to be a prick. It's an honest question... You seem like a decent guy in all your other posts, but when it comes to something about Stephen Harper, it's like he ate your dog or something.

Edit: Mind you... I'm just as biased on the other side of things, so I guess I can't really complain too much.

I'm not trying to be difficult (you should see me when I try I guess!). Its just the honest truth though...there is a huge amount of work accomplished by the senate, from all parties. Its got nothing to do with partisanship here.

I do dislike Harper (based on his policies, not as an individual) and clearly that comes through. Like I said before I'm not a card carrying Liberal to begin with, so people can take my posts as they see fit. Many CPC supporters are inclined to cut breaks to the CPC that they would never give to the Liberals.

Can you imagine the outrage if a Liberal PM appointed someone to the senate so that they could be in cabinet? Don't forget that this guy was from Quebec, which only serves to heighten the blow! Can you imagine the outrage if a Liberal PM were to send no money to Alberta for a carbon capture project during an economic crisis? My point here is that if Harper were a Liberal PM the boards here would be completely different.

I have a very good friend who is in government, and have had the pleasure to know a number of MP's and MLA's on both sides of the house. It is a thankless job, and while we are all jaded to some extent about politicians I think that has to be considered. I'm sure that there are good points to being a senator. There are good points to my job as well, and some perks just as there are in most jobs. Its easy to look and say these guys do nothing and have it so easy, but public service is no picnic. I've been out on the town with my good friend and he gets approached EVERYWHERE about policies and issues. He put his name up for that role and doesn't mind...but nonetheless these guys are always working. They may sit in the house for a mere 70 days a year, but that is not the whole story.

There is no question that another elected house makes no sense

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

I
Can you imagine the outrage if a Liberal PM appointed someone to the senate so that they could be in cabinet?

You mean... like Dion's supposed plan to put Liz May in the Senate so she could be Environment Minister?

While I didn't like Harper putting Fortier in the senate, I could see the rationale - get a voice from an area of the country where he had very little representation. If it had been appointing someone from Alberta to the Senate just they could also be in cabinet, then it'd be pure patronage and there would be no justification.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

As I've been saying in this thread. Federalism is a pretty good check. Yes a majority government has alot of power, but look at their powers, the only real power that affects all Canadians is their criminal law power.

The rest of the powers health, resources, property, education are all delegated to the provinces. yet I dont' see anyone in here proclaiming that we need provincial senates to curb the majority governments in Provincial legislatures.

The point is still standing. Prove to me that the legislative process is broken. Heck prove to me that the legislative process is hurting one region more than another. Then prove to me that that region being hurt by the legislative process is democratically under-represented. Then prove to me that an empowered Senate is the way to fix this without causing other problems to our legislative process.

As it stands, that's a tall order.

Ask yourself whether an empowered Senate with real legitimacy would be a good thing. All it would do would politicize and stall our legislative processes even further.

I also find it funny that people have bemoaned a minority government because it can't get things done then they propose an empowered Senate. Talk about hypocritical.

Well, the Federal Government also holds the power of the purse, which severely affects Provincial Powers. A majority federal government can easily impose its will on the provinces, by saying "enact Policy Y or you don't get the X Billion you are entitled to."

This has a benefit of being a provincial policy check too... but one can easily argue that a central government has a difficult time understanding regional concerns. Especially if good provincial policy for Alberta/Quebec has a bad ripple effect for Ontario/Atlantic Canada.

As far as the Senate goes, any empowered Senate has to be elected and equal. Otherwise, its simply an extension of the party who has been in power long enough to stack the Senate with their cronies, as it is today.

I would say, if it can't be an equal, American-style Senate, I would scrap it altogether.

As for your question... is the legislative process broken? I would say its not broken, but definitely defective. There's too much unchecked power in a majority government's PMO (regardless of party stripe), and there's no point having a bicameral system when the other is a bunch of appointed, lazy lifers.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by calculoso

You mean... like Dion's supposed plan to put Liz May in the Senate so she could be Environment Minister?

While I didn't like Harper putting Fortier in the senate, I could see the rationale - get a voice from an area of the country where he had very little representation. If it had been appointing someone from Alberta to the Senate just they could also be in cabinet, then it'd be pure patronage and there would be no justification.

Yes, exactly like that. The outrage to do something like that should come from all sides, not just the Conservative supporters. Strangely when it comes to Stronach crossing the floor there was huge outcry in the west...but when Emerson went from being "Harpers worst nightmare" to Harpers minister there was nothing but support. Fortier was met with "I can see the point here" instead of the indignation that should've accompanied that appointment.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yes, exactly like that. The outrage to do something like that should come from all sides, not just the Conservative supporters. Strangely when it comes to Stronach crossing the floor there was huge outcry in the west...but when Emerson went from being "Harpers worst nightmare" to Harpers minister there was nothing but support. Fortier was met with "I can see the point here" instead of the indignation that should've accompanied that appointment.

While you're right the outrage should be universal... I think its a little worse for May and Stronach than Emerson and Fortier.

May is the leader of another political party, and would be betraying her rank and file for a plum position. That's really low.

Stronach came in second place to lead the Conservative Party. She went from trying to lead one party, to slipping out the back door for another. As far as I know, neither Emerson or Fortier tried to lead another party and then switch. She could not use the excuse that her region was not represented in government. Again, pretty low.

Emerson was still a little sleazy. He would not have won as a CPC. However, Vancouver proper had no CPC representation, and Emerson could say he was trying to serve his constituents best, since technically in Canada (wrongly, IMO) they elect the MP, not the party. Devious, but understandable.

Fortier was not a bad idea, and he did have to run as an MP. There was no Montreal representation, and a bunch of open Senate positions. Even though the CPC is opposed to appointed Senators, the system is what it is for now, and they may as well use it. Understandable, but annoying that our system allows it.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

While you're right the outrage should be universal... I think its a little worse for May and Stronach than Emerson and Fortier.

May is the leader of another political party, and would be betraying her rank and file for a plum position. That's really low.

Stronach came in second place to lead the Conservative Party. She went from trying to lead one party, to slipping out the back door for another. As far as I know, neither Emerson or Fortier tried to lead another party and then switch. She could not use the excuse that her region was not represented in government. Again, pretty low.

Emerson was still a little sleazy. He would not have won as a CPC. However, Vancouver proper had no CPC representation, and Emerson could say he was trying to serve his constituents best, since technically in Canada (wrongly, IMO) they elect the MP, not the party. Devious, but understandable.

Fortier was not a bad idea, and he did have to run as an MP. There was no Montreal representation, and a bunch of open Senate positions. Even though the CPC is opposed to appointed Senators, the system is what it is for now, and they may as well use it. Understandable, but annoying that our system allows it.

See, now you are just coming up with justifications. And you are letting Emerson off the hook "since technically in Canada (wrongly, IMO) they elect the MP, not the party. Devious, but understandable." Understandable? Really?

I have to laugh when I look back at when Stronach crossed.

She also said Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is not sensitive to the needs of all parts of the country, and is jeopardizing national unity by allying himself with the Bloc Québécois.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/...als050517.html

And how many dirty terms was she called on CP? How many was Emerson called?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

See, now you are just coming up with justifications. And you are letting Emerson off the hook "since technically in Canada (wrongly, IMO) they elect the MP, not the party. Devious, but understandable." Understandable? Really?

I have to laugh when I look back at when Stronach crossed.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/...als050517.html

And how many dirty terms was she called on CP? How many was Emerson called?

I'm not really letting Emerson off the hook. The words sleazy and devious don't exactly convey sympathy or understanding. The only one that isn't as bad is Fortier. The others are power whores... all three of them.

What makes May and Stronach worse is that they ascended to the top of their parties, and would gleefully betray that. Emerson was devious and underhanded too. Difference is, his excuses were/are a little stronger than Stronach's and May's.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I'm not really letting Emerson off the hook. The words sleazy and devious don't exactly convey sympathy or understanding. The only one that isn't as bad is Fortier. The others are power whores... all three of them.

What makes May and Stronach worse is that they ascended to the top of their parties, and would gleefully betray that. Emerson was devious and underhanded too. Difference is, his excuses were/are a little stronger than Stronach's and May's.

Emerson was in a riding that had only ever elected a PC MP once, in 1958. It was an NDP riding before Emerson won it. And Emerson may not have run for leader, but he was in Martin's cabinet.

While perhaps some of these are more egregious than others. But the responses to the scenarios should have been similar, not opposite like we have seen them.

[Ronald Pagan]

This board by-in-large views politics through a Conservative lens. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't pretend that you're unbiased observers or paint other posters who don't see the world through that lens as Liberals or idiots because they disagree with your perception.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Emerson was in a riding that had only ever elected a PC MP once, in 1958. It was an NDP riding before Emerson won it. And Emerson may not have run for leader, but he was in Martin's cabinet.

IMO, Emerson was only targeted because of the Softwood Lumber deal that he was overseeing for Martin and the Liberals, and Harper wanted it to continue. I don't think it had anything to do with the riding/area that Emerson was in.

I think continuity for that negotiation was good for Canada as a whole. Perhaps Emerson should have remained a Liberal while he was doing it, but I can't see an opposition member sitting in with cabinet and sharing all of those internal discussions.

If I didn't disagree with May and her environmental policy, I could probably stomach it in the same way...