Harper Government™ Appoints 7 Senators

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by zuluking

I think AB has elected two senators now and Harper has appointed them both.

Oops, Slava says three, but still doesn't care. Figures...

Yes, it is three. Harper appointed Brown and Unger, who were "voted in" by the 2004 election. Mulrooney appointed Stan Waters, who was voted in the 1989 election. Chretien and Martin didn't care much for democracy.

Sorry, Slava, I had to get that poke in. ; )

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yes, it is three. Harper appointed Brown and Unger, who were "voted in" by the 2004 election. Mulrooney appointed Stan Waters, who was voted in the 1989 election. Chretien and Martin didn't care much for democracy.

Sorry, Slava, I had to get that poke in. ; )

Thankfully we have someone who really respects democracy now though. How many failed CPC candidates have been appointed to the senate now? 5? 6? Its pretty pathetic...

[Russic]

My dad is actually hoping to run in the next election... if all goes as planned I'm hoping for a good old Alberta CP jihad. Of course if he "won" he'd be nothing more than somebody on the sidelines that Harper could or could not pick.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Slava

Thankfully we have someone who really respects democracy now though. How many failed CPC candidates have been appointed to the senate now? 5? 6? Its pretty pathetic...

You do realize that all the successful CPC candidates were busy.

As a matter of fact all the successful Liberal candidates were busy too. That leaves failed candidates and those inexperienced or even less successful in politics.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You do realize that all the successful CPC candidates were busy.

As a matter of fact all the successful Liberal candidates were busy too. That leaves failed candidates and those inexperienced or even less successful in politics.

Sure, and if the test is that you must have been a candidate I guess thats fine. Its not though; there are thousands of fully qualified people who didn't run and weren't rejected by the voters. Its a good try though.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure, and if the test is that you must have been a candidate I guess thats fine. Its not though; there are thousands of fully qualified people who didn't run and weren't rejected by the voters. Its a good try though.

Yes there is but, they are generally less experienced or at least less engaged in politics. By looking to party candidates you've got someone who the party has already put their trust in and who has been vetted by both parties. There isn't much that is missed in an election campaign.

Senators are appointed for life. You want to make sure the pick is right.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes there is but, they are generally less experienced or at least less engaged in politics. By looking to party candidates you've got someone who the party has already put their trust in and who has been vetted by both parties. There isn't much that is missed in an election campaign.

Senators are appointed for life. You want to make sure the pick is right.

Please. When less than 1% of Canadians belong to political parties you can't actually believe that these are the only qualified people?

To your point though, assuming you're right that not much is missed in a campaign, then appointing failed candidates is abhorrent. Conceivably there was a reason the voters rejected them and chose someone else. Its safe to say that reason wasn't because they wanted them to represent the citizens in government until age 75!

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Slava

Please. When less than 1% of Canadians belong to political parties you can't actually believe that these are the only qualified people?

I'm telling you they are the best qualified. I think it is silly to think Harper would chose outside of his party, as well.

Originally Posted by Slava

To your point though, assuming you're right that not much is missed in a campaign, then appointing failed candidates is abhorrent. Conceivably there was a reason the voters rejected them and chose someone else. Its safe to say that reason wasn't because they wanted them to represent the citizens in government until age 75!

They weren't rejected. The other guy got more votes and won the job. In most cases the conservative got a close second in votes. People in an election vote for a candidate and a party. They aren't usually voting against the other guy. If they are voting against the other guy because of something that came out in the election process it will be known to the PM.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I'm telling you they are the best qualified. I think it is silly to think Harper would chose outside of his party, as well.



They weren't rejected. The other guy got more votes and won the job. In most cases the conservative got a close second in votes. People in an election vote for a candidate and a party. They aren't usually voting against the other guy. If they are voting against the other guy because of something that came out in the election process it will be known to the PM.

Bottom line is that these folks ran in an election for a seat in parliament and lost. Some of them a week and a half before being appointed and now some of them 7 months later. It seems lost on you that this is the point of an election. Second olace in this system doesn't mean anything. It means you go back to your day job, not another position in government! He (Harper) did the same thing with Fortier and even gave him a cabinet position! How people can look at this and hold him out today as someone who cares about democracy more than any other PM is stunning.

I'm guessing you've never been a member of a political party before? Seriously you should go buy a membership sometime, see the kinds of people who are putting in years of service. Now go downtown to any major corporation and see the kinds of people putting in years of service there. Come back here after this experiment and tell me with a straight-face that these folks are better qualified.

Harper can appoint whoever he wants, from whatever party he wants. Thats one of his perks as PM. It is not unheard of to have other parties or independents appointed though. Stan Waters is one example, but so were other NDP appointees. I'm not under a delusion that the PMO is going to appoint Liberals at this point; its fairly obvious that he won't under any circumstance. But to suggest for a split second that there are no better qualified people than failed candidates who were rejected to serve by the electorate this past year is just ridiculous.

[Bownesian]

I don't really get why you think it's more "democratic" to appoint someone who didn't lose an election (would it be better if they just lost their party nomination?). An appointment is an appointment and is inherently undemocratic and anachronistic. Like it or not, the Senate is a partisan institution and a required part of our Federal Government.

Until we take the next step of fixing the senate one way or another, this is the system we are stuck with - Conservative-appointed Senators (including failed candidates, party apparatchiks, etc.) opposed by Liberal-appointed Senators (including the same kind of partisan Liberal ex-candidates, party presidents, etc.).

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

I don't really get why you think it's more "democratic" to appoint someone who didn't lose an election (would it be better if they just lost their party nomination?). An appointment is an appointment and is inherently undemocratic and anachronistic. Like it or not, the Senate is a partisan institution and a required part of our Federal Government.

Until we take the next step of fixing the senate one way or another, this is the system we are stuck with - Conservative-appointed Senators (including failed candidates, party apparatchiks, etc.) opposed by Liberal-appointed Senators (including the same kind of partisan Liberal ex-candidates, party presidents, etc.).

Ya, and fair enough there are problems with the senate. Part of Harpers appeal to his supporters though is that he was going to fix that.

So now we see the grandest disconnect. He wants elected senators, and then appoints people who just lost elections!

[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.

[Slava]

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.

[Bownesian]

Part of debate is to understand where people are coming from and that involves parroting back your understanding of the other person's opinion. That said, I used the rhetorical device of putting words in your mouth to call you out for pretending to be upset on we Conservative supporters' behalf when that's clearly not your goal here.

To sum up, there are a couple of points of view that we share:
- You and most Conservatives are against an undemocratic Senate in general, though I don't really know how you would like it changed.
- You and most Conservatives are against partisan hack appointments in specific

...and one we don't:
- You have have a clear dislike of the Harper government and want to make hay with unpalatable but by your own admission necessary appointments. I don't think your pretending to speak on behalf of Conservative supporters is genuine and if it is, you are probably mistaken about how we feel.

In my opinion, we need to move the debate forward. As I've said before, that involves holding our nose and using the Senate as it always has been used. Then, we pass some reform bills (in the next year or two), waiting for the SCC challenge and see where we are after that. The PM is on record in saying that abolition should be up for discussion if reform is impossible but pretending that the system is different than it is or appealing to impossible solutions like "opening the constitution" are fallacies.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

Part of debate is to understand where people are coming from and that involves parroting back your understanding of the other person's opinion. That said, I used the rhetorical device of putting words in your mouth to call you out for pretending to be upset on we Conservative supporters' behalf when that's clearly not your goal here.

To sum up, there are a couple of points of view that we share:
- You and most Conservatives are against an undemocratic Senate in general, though I don't really know how you would like it changed.
- You and most Conservatives are against partisan hack appointments in specific

...and one we don't:
- You have have a clear dislike of the Harper government and want to make hay with unpalatable but by your own admission necessary appointments. I don't think your pretending to speak on behalf of Conservative supporters is genuine and if it is, you are probably mistaken about how we feel.

In my opinion, we need to move the debate forward. As I've said before, that involves holding our nose and using the Senate as it always has been used. Then, we pass some reform bills (in the next year or two), waiting for the SCC challenge and see where we are after that. The PM is on record in saying that abolition should be up for discussion if reform is impossible but pretending that the system is different than it is or appealing to impossible solutions like "opening the constitution" are fallacies.

Sure and thats fair. Is it really asking too much though to have the tiniest bit of ethics when making these patronage appointments though? Its one thing to hold your nose and go forward but its another to say that the senate is undemocratic and then undermine that statement completely along the way.

[Bownesian]

I agree, it would be better if they could avoid the really crass appointments.

The trouble is, we live in a real world where excellent appointees like Gwyn Morgan are dragged through the mud as badly or worse than hacks and losers like Fabian Manning and Josee Verner.

Most Gwyn Morgan's of the world are not interested so after you appoint all the Bert Browns, Mike Duffies, Linda Frums and Pamela Wallins you're left with appointing relative unknowns (people with no public profile), unknown friendlies (party volunteers) and well known friendlies (former riding presidents, former PMO workers, former candidates, former election committee members). It's crappy but that's the system and the sooner it can be changed, the better.

[evman150]

I believe senate appointments should go to the people the senate was designed for.

This group certainly doesn't include failed election candidates or partisan hacks.

What does it include? People such as foreign ambassadors, premiers, provincial cabinet ministers, distinguished mayors, other public officials with broad appeal. There is also a need for successful business people, noted environmentalists, academics, lawyers, doctors, etc.

The point of the senate is to balance the democratic camera with an aristocratic one. More democracy defeats the purpose of the senate. Appointing failed democratic candidates is doubly bad - these people are neither democratically elected nor aristocratically qualified.

The senate should be the "ivory tower" of parliament - it is no place for democracy (in the broad sense) and certainly no place for failed democracy.

[Bownesian]

Sounds good but how would you enforce that?

An idea I had a while back was that the Senate appointments could be drawn from Order of Canada recipients. Several major problems include:
- diluting the pool significantly for possible appointees (especially for the 4 Senators from PEI, and the 1 from each of the territories) and many of the appointees wouldn't be interested (those who got the medal for science, for instance)
- it might politicize the OOC appointment process
- it would still face the same constitutional hurdles as direct elections and term limit legislation

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by evman150

I believe senate appointments should go to the people the senate was designed for.

This group certainly doesn't include failed election candidates or partisan hacks.

What does it include? People such as foreign ambassadors, premiers, provincial cabinet ministers, distinguished mayors, other public officials with broad appeal. There is also a need for successful business people, noted environmentalists, academics, lawyers, doctors, etc.

The point of the senate is to balance the democratic camera with an aristocratic one. More democracy defeats the purpose of the senate. Appointing failed democratic candidates is doubly bad - these people are neither democratically elected nor aristocratically qualified.

The senate should be the "ivory tower" of parliament - it is no place for democracy (in the broad sense) and certainly no place for failed democracy.

I absolutely agree with this.

Honestly, an elected senate would defeat the whole point of having a senate. I favour total abolishment ahead of an elected senate.

[Bownesian]

Good article in the Post on this today. It makes the case well that the proposed reforms may be more trouble than they are worth.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ally-bad-idea/