Harper Appoints Nine Senators

[FiveParadox]

Today The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister of Canada, announced several appointments to the Honourable the Senate of Canada. For the moment, we can set aside the fact that the news release was completely dishonest and alarmist, and instead move on to the appointments themselves—several of which turned out to be the starkest partisan moves that the Senate has seen during this decade.

• The Honourable Senator Claude Carignan (Québec), an unsuccessful candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada for the Electoral District of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles during the previous general election;
• The Honourable Senator Jacques Demers (Québec, a hockey coach;
• The Honourable Senator Doug Finley (Ontario, the National Campaign Director for the Conservative Party during the previous general election, also accused of attempting to bribe the late Mr. Chuck Cadman;
• The Honourable Senator Linda Sokolowski (Ontario), a former National Post columnist and an award-recipient of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews;
• The Honourabe Senator Kelvin Ogilvie (Nova Scotia), a former president of the Acadia University;
• The Honourable Senator Dennis Patterson (Nunavut), the 5th Government Leader of Nunavut;
• The Honourable Senator Don Plett (Manitoba), the President of the Conservative Party;
• The Honourable Senator Judith Seidman (Québec), the Québec chair of the prime minister’s 2004 leadership campaign; and
• The Honourable Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen (New Brunswick), the former Senior Advisor and Director of Strategic Communication for the Office of the Prime Minister.

Don’t get me wrong, I support an appointed Senate; but the prime minister should have used better judgment when making these appointments. In the news release itself, the prime minister stated that Senate appointments should be as partisan as possible—and the prime minister also lied to Canadians, suggesting that the Senate has been “holding up” ‘tough-on-crime’ legislation. (Some news for you, Prime Minister—the Senate’s been adjourned for two months, so has the House of Commons.)

 

[YukonJack]

SO???

Did not Chretien do the same?
Did not Martin do the same?

And PLEASE refrain using the term "HONOURABLE" to any of the present and future occupiers of Government Seats. (House or Senate). NONE of them deserve it.

 

[justfred]

FiveParadox quotes that the prime minister lied the prime minister stated that Senate appointments should be as partisan as possible—and the prime minister also lied to Canadians, suggesting that the Senate has been “holding up” ‘tough-on-crime’ legislation. I have not noticed that the leader of the Liberal Party getting up and putting a private members bill to reform the senate to say that only elected members be members of the senate. Why does he not do this, Mr. FiveParadox, a self proclaimed liberal? I have a copy of the red book that put in writing by the un-honorable John Chretien saying that he would eliminate the GST. Where do you live, Mr. FiveParadox, that you do not pay GST. I guess the liberals are liars too.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

FP, does this tip the balance of the Senate form Liberal to Conservative?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Did not Chretien do the same?
Did not Martin do the same?

Maybe so, YJ, but they did not proclaim in a mealy mouthed way that they were going to reform the senate. Harper promised to reform the Senate (I think that was an idiotic promise anyway, I am opposed to elected Senate) just to win the election. It was just a cynical ploy to win the election.

Conservatives, who elevate their glorious leader almost to the status of a Messiah, probably don’t see anything wrong with it. If the Messiah wants to conduct business as usual, why make the empty promise of Senate reform?

 

[Polygong]

SO???

Did not Chretien do the same?
Did not Martin do the same?

They did do the same, but they never said they wouldn't nor did they say they would change the system. That's the difference.

 

[Spade]

Wow, nine Ottawa senators. Are these first stringers or simply enforcers.

 

[Colpy]

FP, does this tip the balance of the Senate form Liberal to Conservative?

No.

i don't think it is even close.........

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Appointments to the Senate

And PLEASE refrain using the term "HONOURABLE" to any of the present and future occupiers of Government Seats. (House or Senate). NONE of them deserve it.

Any person raised to the Senate of Canada is entitled to be styled The Honourable; members of the House of Commons are not, unless they are also a member of Her Majesty The Queen’s Privy Council for Canada. I choose to use whatever styles are accorded these persons, per the Department of Canadian Heritage, so as to ensure [on my part] as much respect and emotional restraint during debate as possible. Members of the Senate most absolutely do deserve the style—I encourage you to review the fabulous reports released by the Upper House, and then say that the work that they do is not of a tremendous advantage to the Canadian people.

FiveParadox quotes that the prime minister lied the prime minister stated that Senate appointments should be as partisan as possible—and the prime minister also lied to Canadians, suggesting that the Senate has been “holding up” ‘tough-on-crime’ legislation. I have not noticed that the leader of the Liberal Party getting up and putting a private members bill to reform the senate to say that only elected members be members of the senate. Why does he not do this, Mr. FiveParadox, a self proclaimed liberal? I have a copy of the red book that put in writing by the un-honorable John Chretien saying that he would eliminate the GST. Where do you live, Mr. FiveParadox, that you do not pay GST. I guess the liberals are liars too.

I should hope that Mr. Michael Ignatieff M.P. (Etobicoke Lakeshore), the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, would do no such thing. I support the present system of appointments to the Senate; I do not oppose the prime minister’s prerogative to make recommendations, but rather I oppose several of the particular appointments that he chose to announce today. If you search for threads and posts under my member name, you can read more comprehensively about my position as it relates to reform of the Senate (or, more appropriately, my preference of the status quo).

FP, does this tip the balance of the Senate form Liberal to Conservative?

No, it doesn’t. Current Senate standings are:

• Her Majesty’s Government for Canada : 46 seats
• Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition : 53 seats
• Progressive Conservative Party of Canada : 2 seats
• Independents : 4 seats (one is an out-of-caucus member of the Liberal Party of Canada)

What makes the prime minister’s appointments controversial is not the fact that they were appointments rather than elections, as appointments are the correct, constitutional and preferable method of selection for members of the Upper House. The controversy is the fact that the prime minister, for so long, campaigned against the role of the Senate, and the role of appointed senators, and then made appointments that were more partisan than any round of appointments that Canada has ever seen.

 

[Spade]

From an article on the appointments in The Montreal Gazette.
Quote:
"Demers revealed in his 2005 biography, written by Mario LeClerc, that he is functionally illiterate, something he managed to hide throughout his life until then. He has since learned to read."

 

[Tonington]

Ahh, ole Steve "Hypocrite" Harper. From deriding the institution's traditions, to now holding the record for most appointments in a single year, with more retirements coming this fall!

He could get the all-time record by the time he's finished.

 

[Colpy]

Ahh, ole Steve "Hypocrite" Harper. From deriding the institution's traditions, to now holding the record for most appointments in a single year, with more retirements coming this fall!

He could get the all-time record by the time he's finished.

ahhh...for Harper to appoint elected Senators, the provinces have to elect them.....

As well, if Harper is going to govern, he needs to load the Upper House as much as possible. That is very unfortunate, but a political reality.

 

[Polygong]

If Harper wanted to avoid appearing the hypocrite he had other options despite the fact that no provinces held elections.

He could in the very least appoint people with no party affiliation or people from other parties (except the Liberals for obvious reasons) who are held in high esteem by the general public (eg Ed Broadbent).

It wouldn't be a direction in Senate reform, but it would at least back up his claim that he was above using the Senate for partisan patronage.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Polygong, I remember we discussed the issue of Senate reform in Canada.com forum, and it is really very simple. If Harper really wanted Senate reform, he could institute the reform single handed.

As the PM, he has the right to appoint anybody to the Senate that he wants. All he has to do is to tell the provincial assemblies to elect the Senators, and tell them that he will only appoint Senators which are elected by the provincial assemblies.

Harper has the power to do that. While this won’t be exactly elected Senate, it will be halfway towards it, and Harper could do it by himself, without anybody’s help.

And it will be long lasting. When conservatives lose power (and it is a question of ‘when’, not ‘if’), is the new PM going to take the power away from the provinces? That will make all the provincial Premiers mad at him, nobody wants that right at the beginning of the term. Nobody likes to give up the power voluntarily, once the power is granted to provincial assemblies, I don’t think any future PM can take the power away.

An added advantage would be that it will make the Senate more representative, Senate will have senators from Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Bloc, currently it only has Senators from the two major parties.


So if Harper was serious about Senate reform, he could do it single handedly. But I don’t think he was ever serious about senate reform, it was just the ploy to win elections, it was meant as a sop to Alberta conservatives, nothing more.

 

[taxslave]

So the readers digest version of your post is that the conservatives are doing exactly what the liberals have done every time they were in power. Proving that it does not matter which party we vote for the senate will still be a waste of tax money.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don’t think Senate is a waste of money, taxslave. I think it serves a useful purpose; it is a chamber for the sober second thought.

And I have no problem with senate reform, if done properly. What I have problem with is politicians exploiting the issue for election purposes, making a promise of Senate reform just in order to get elected.

 

[In Between Man]

The controversy is the fact that the prime minister, for so long, campaigned against the role of the Senate, and the role of appointed senators, and then made appointments that were more partisan than any round of appointments that Canada has ever seen.

So what?!! Nobody, either appointed or elected, from either end of the political compass ever has the nuts do anything drastic anywayz. The only drastic that should be done is create an elected senate, and all we have is talk about it and no action.

What makes the prime minister’s appointments controversial is not the fact that they were appointments rather than elections, as appointments are the correct, constitutional and preferable method of selection for members of the Upper House.

Exactly, the guys trying to do the best possible job he can, and I think he does a pretty reasonable job considering the inherited way this country is operated. Overall I think progress is slow, and people need to get behind ideas and just take the risk sometimes. Appointed senate or an elected one? Which sounds better? An elected one right? So Canada, lets stop thinking about it and just do it.

At while your at it, the real power in this nation is the Supreme Court of Canada. These people decide if a fetus is human or not, they decide whether Sharia Law is valid and implemented. They have the nation by the balls and its those individuals that should be elected if you ask me.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Reform of the Senate

I concur with a number of Senate discussions that conclude that change brought about exclusively by the prime minister (for example, the appointment of senators based on provincial elections) is unconstitutional. It should be done as a comprehensive constitutional amendment because it changes one of the fundamental characteristics of the Senate chamber (which requires the consent of the provinces and a formal amendment). It is probable that the Government would come up against the Supreme Court of Canada and the provincial governments, were he to attempt to do so outside of proper constitutional channels.

One might suggest that such a change would not need a constitutional amendment, because it does not change the legal method whereby the senators are appointed (as the formal summons would continue to be made by the Governor General of Canada). However, the nature of the Senate would be changed, because “elected” senators would have much less hesitation to exercise the powers that the Senate tends to reserve (for example, the power to reject budgets passed by the House of Commons). Such a change to the characteristics of the Senate most absolutely does necessitate a constitutional amendment per s. 42(1)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982, as so many of our honourable senators have concluded (and we need not worry about senators making such a conclusion to ‘save themselves’, because proposals for Senate reform have never sought to revoke current senators’ seats).

 

[YukonJack]

Hopefully, the pillsbury doughboy, Mike what's his name, the so called "reporter" will come to his better senses.

Or probably he is too fat to think straight.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I concur with a number of Senate discussions that conclude that change brought about exclusively by the prime minister (for example, the appointment of senators based on provincial elections) is unconstitutional.

And just why is that unconstitutional, FP? PM has the power to appoint anybody he wants; he is perfectly within his rights to say that he will appoint only Senators elected by provincial assemblies.

The only thing is that since he does not amend the constitution, the change is not binding on subsequent PMs. And if Harper insists on appointing only the Senators who are elected in a general election, that is precisely what will happen, a future PM will simply ignore it and go back to appointing the Senators. But as I said, nobody likes to give up the power. If PM gives the provincial Premiers the power to elect the Senators, it will be almost impossible for the next PM to take the power away.

Harper can bring about the change on his own if he wants to; it is just that he doesn’t want to.