It's very easy to make promises knowing full well one will never be in the position where he's obligated to fulfill them.
Abolish the Senate
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
It's very easy to make promises knowing full well one will never be in the position where he's obligated to fulfill them.
Preston Manning was an Idealist, a visionary if you will, but Trudeau's constitution is almost impossible to change unless the majority of the provinces aggree, which Harper being a realist knows full well....
are these the same provinces that refused to elect a senator for PM Harper to appoint? Harper made that offer to all provinces, only Alberta took him up on the offer, and PM Harper followed through with that promise.
Harper didn't know how the constitution works before he made that whopper of an election promise?
I have a lingering feeling that the Reform Party didn't quite "get it" and they found that the reality of governing a sophisticated country like this one was way beyond their cornpone philosophy.
Bible Bill Ehberhart and the Mannings, father and son, really had no idea what they were babbling on about and regrettably, Canada is still saddled with their nonsense.
Well, Bill Aberhart's philosophy did survive for 35 years and Peter Lougheed's regime continued for another 35, virtually unchanged from Aberhart.
As I have told you repeatedly, you really should STFU about things you know nothing about........
The Conservative Party of Canada is NOT the Reform Party, far from it. I only wish it was. Then we would have recall, sensible gun control, an end to the idiotic policy of multiculturalism, sensible immigration policy, much less gov't, empowered MPs, most votes in the House would be free votes.......etc etc.
Manning and Reform were determined to reverse the damage Trudeau Sr did to this country............it is a shame they failed.
Harper, et al, are much more the politician, less the ideologue and reformer.
If nothing else Harper is keeping disruptive influences out of power for the past decade. That alone is good for the country.
I'm not so sure about that. We did well in B.C. being saddled with W.A.C. for 20 years, who was of the same ilk. No one liked him of course but he knew business and he knew how to make money and the province prospered. He was only defeated after the hippy movement got entrenched in the early 70s. Bennett didn't subscribe to the philosophy of paying out a dog allowance.
I agree but I'm thinking now he has passed the break even point. I think he's quit listening to the people!
If not abolishing the Senate then the very least it should be a position that is elected and expense rules be the same as MP's have to abide by.
As a result of the testimony from the Duffy trial I am starting to think he, along with all the others are innocent.
I have come to that conclusion based on the simple fact that there are no rules regarding their expenses and as Duffs lawyer has said, "you can't be guilty if there is no guidelines".
Yes they are tacky sleazy bunch but let's not forget they attained the position of Senator by being b** lickers in the first place so that's just the type of people they are.........
Senators' refusal to walk an extra block to temporary offices could cost $24.5M
Finding temporary offices for the Senate could cost taxpayers an extra $24.5 million — even more than the latest big-ticket audit of expenses in the upper chamber.
And it's all because of one city block.
The cost of temporary Senate offices in downtown Ottawa could surpass the $23.6-million audit by the auditor general by nearly a million dollars if the Senate doesn't agree to extend its search boundaries by a single block, an internal government document shows.
Senators' refusal to walk an extra block to temporary offices could cost $24.5M - Politics - CBC News
As a result of the testimony from the Duffy trial I am starting to think he, along with all the others are innocent.
I have come to that conclusion based on the simple fact that there are no rules regarding their expenses and as Duffs lawyer has said, "you can't be guilty if there is no guidelines".
Yes they are tacky sleazy bunch but let's not forget they attained the position of Senator by being b** lickers in the first place so that's just the type of people they are.........
Senators' refusal to walk an extra block to temporary offices could cost $24.5M
Finding temporary offices for the Senate could cost taxpayers an extra $24.5 million — even more than the latest big-ticket audit of expenses in the upper chamber.
And it's all because of one city block.
The cost of temporary Senate offices in downtown Ottawa could surpass the $23.6-million audit by the auditor general by nearly a million dollars if the Senate doesn't agree to extend its search boundaries by a single block, an internal government document shows.
Senators' refusal to walk an extra block to temporary offices could cost $24.5M - Politics - CBC News
At the very least, Senators should not belong to any political party.
Also, if the senate is to be the place for sober second thoughts, then let's appoint senators who can truly give a sober second thought. For example, a prelingually profoundly deaf senator would bring with him unique life experiences that no MP has, which could shed light on how a proposed piece of legislation could affect the deaf.
Also, why not offer senate positions to prominent scholars? For B.C., I could nominate Mark Fettes from SFU, a leading researcher in the field of education including indigenous education, which would bring a unique perspective to the table when passing legislation pertaining to on-reserve education.
In Quebec, what about Prof. François Vaillancourt from the Université de Montréal, a leading researcher in language economics and leading author of a Fraser Institute report on the cost of official bilingualism.
Though they could certainly turn down the offer, why not offer it to people of such calibre?
Also, if the senate is to be the place for sober second thoughts, then let's appoint senators who can truly give a sober second thought. For example, a prelingually profoundly deaf senator would bring with him unique life experiences that no MP has, which could shed light on how a proposed piece of legislation could affect the deaf.
Also, why not offer senate positions to prominent scholars? For B.C., I could nominate Mark Fettes from SFU, a leading researcher in the field of education including indigenous education, which would bring a unique perspective to the table when passing legislation pertaining to on-reserve education.
In Quebec, what about Prof. François Vaillancourt from the Université de Montréal, a leading researcher in language economics and leading author of a Fraser Institute report on the cost of official bilingualism.
Though they could certainly turn down the offer, why not offer it to people of such calibre?
Because, despite or maybe typically hypocrite, he is a Libertarian yet gets paid by the public purse, thank you very much.
The idea that one would not belong to a party would mean everyone would be an independent is intriguing but at the end of the day NO APPOINTING SENATORS.
First off who gets to appoint them? And why would the appointer appoint any particular appointee?
If PEI, for whatever a**hole reason doesn't want to do away with the Senate then let's at least make them legitimately accountable by electing them.............
Unfortunately, the Conservative Party oif Canada has been hijacked by the Reformers. The difference will be even more noticeable during this upcoming election. With the losses of Peter McKay and Jim Flaherty, there are very few voices of the party that do not come from that Western rump ... Lots of backbenchers from other parts of the country but the core of the party is Alberta and the BC interior. Years ago, the Liberals had the same problem of being controlled by Quebecers. The rest of the country (especially Reform country) resented it deeply and the bad taste still lingers.The apparent homogeneity of what should be a national party works against the Conservatives. They get re-elected because the opposition is divided and carries a label of dubious business skills.
BTW, I am no fan of Trudeau junior or senior and I do not remember Pierre with any fondness.
If the purpose of the senate is to give 'sober' second thought, then obviously members of the senate must be teetotalers!
Truer words were never spoken!
Truer words were never spoken!
Considering the likes of Joe Clark and Lyin' Brian, I like the Mohicans better.
Yep, the old Progressive-Conservative Party, what my late great buddy used to call the Forward-Backward Party.
Former allies mystified by Harper’s inaction on Senate - The Globe and Mail
Home - The Globe and Mail
Ignore it and maybe it will go away.
That appears to be Stephen Harper’s plan for the Senate – at least in the short term.
The prime minister distanced himself from the damning revelations in last week’s audit of senators’ expenses, explaining that “the Senate is an independent body and the Senate is responsible for its own expenses.”
CP Video Jun. 09 2015, 5:47 PM EDT
He threw in the towel on his three-decade campaign for an elected Senate last year after the Supreme Court advised he’d need a constitutional amendment approved by most or all provinces to reform or abolish the upper house – advice Harper paraphrased as “we’re essentially stuck with the status quo for the time being.”
He stopped appointing senators a year earlier, just as the expenses scandal was engulfing his government. There are now 20 vacancies in the 105-seat chamber and there’ll be two more to fill by mid-summer.
And yet, according to the Prime Minister’s Office, “We have no plans to appoint senators. The Senate continues to pass government legislation.”
With an election looming in just four months, former allies in the Senate reform movement are mystified by Harper’s strategy, or lack thereof.
“I’m quite puzzled actually how poorly this file has been managed by the prime minister,” says political scientist Roger Gibbins, former head of the Canada West Foundation.
“I mean, this is kind of his issue and yet he’s got himself in a very difficult situation.”
The Supreme Court ruled that the Senate can’t be abolished by stealth, so allowing its membership to dwindle indefinitely is not tenable over the long term. A Vancouver lawyer is already asking the Federal Court to declare that vacancies must be filled within “a reasonable time” and Gibbins suspects that, eventually, some provinces will also go to court to demand their full share of Senate representation.
Hence, as Gibbins sees it, Harper has painted himself into a corner and now faces two unpalatable options: He can make a raft of Senate appointments before the election, a scenario bound to trigger a public backlash at any time but which would amount to political suicide in the current climate.
Or he can wait and risk leaving the vacancies for another prime minister to fill should the Conservatives lose the election. That would be a “gift-wrapped package” for Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, who’s promising to create a blue-chip advisory body to recommend non-partisan nominees for Senate appointment, and a poisoned chalice for NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, who’s vowing to launch constitutional negotiations to abolish the chamber altogether.
But either way, if Harper loses control of the House of Commons, he’d be ceding the Conservatives’ domination of the Senate as well, an outcome for which Gibbins doubts “his party would ever forgive him.”
Political scientist Tom Flanagan, a former Harper campaign manager, doubts the prime minister is giving much, if any thought, to what-if scenarios.
“Knowing him as I do, I don’t think he’s too much concerned about what the situation would be if he was no longer prime minister ... I think he’d be focused on winning the election.”
And on that score, Flanagan says it appears Harper is determined to ride out the Senate storm by keeping the appointment of senators off the table until after the election.
Trouble is, the more the vacancies pile up, the more insistent the questions become about how Harper intends to fill them, whenever that might be.
Both Gibbins and Flanagan think Harper may eventually adopt some variation of Trudeau’s proposal. But having heaped ridicule on Trudeau – calling his proposal a recipe for having Liberal hacks recommend more Liberal hacks for Senate appointments – Flanagan says that would be difficult for Harper to admit to before the votes are counted on Oct. 19.
In any event, in the immediate aftermath of the Senate expenses audit and in the hyper-partisan, pre-election climate, Gibbins reckons it would be well-nigh impossible to persuade non-partisan, pre-eminent people to accept Senate appointments.
Alternatively, Gibbins suggests Harper could promise to hold a national plebiscite on abolishing the Senate, hoping public outrage would put pressure on recalcitrant provinces, including Quebec and Ontario, to go along with the initiative.
With or without a plebiscite, however, abolition is not something that could be accomplished over night, if ever. And Harper would still face the question of what to do in the meantime with the steadily increasing number of empty seats – at least 34 by the end of 2017, fully one-third of the Senate seats – as would Mulcair.
Whatever Harper is contemplating, Flanagan is sure of one thing: “In my experience, he’s always got something in mind. I’ve never known him to not have a strategic position in mind on any important issue ... He sometimes surprises us with what it is.”
Former allies mystified by Harper’s inaction on Senate - The Globe and Mail
Home - The Globe and Mail
Ignore it and maybe it will go away.
That appears to be Stephen Harper’s plan for the Senate – at least in the short term.
The prime minister distanced himself from the damning revelations in last week’s audit of senators’ expenses, explaining that “the Senate is an independent body and the Senate is responsible for its own expenses.”
CP Video Jun. 09 2015, 5:47 PM EDT
He threw in the towel on his three-decade campaign for an elected Senate last year after the Supreme Court advised he’d need a constitutional amendment approved by most or all provinces to reform or abolish the upper house – advice Harper paraphrased as “we’re essentially stuck with the status quo for the time being.”
He stopped appointing senators a year earlier, just as the expenses scandal was engulfing his government. There are now 20 vacancies in the 105-seat chamber and there’ll be two more to fill by mid-summer.
And yet, according to the Prime Minister’s Office, “We have no plans to appoint senators. The Senate continues to pass government legislation.”
With an election looming in just four months, former allies in the Senate reform movement are mystified by Harper’s strategy, or lack thereof.
“I’m quite puzzled actually how poorly this file has been managed by the prime minister,” says political scientist Roger Gibbins, former head of the Canada West Foundation.
“I mean, this is kind of his issue and yet he’s got himself in a very difficult situation.”
The Supreme Court ruled that the Senate can’t be abolished by stealth, so allowing its membership to dwindle indefinitely is not tenable over the long term. A Vancouver lawyer is already asking the Federal Court to declare that vacancies must be filled within “a reasonable time” and Gibbins suspects that, eventually, some provinces will also go to court to demand their full share of Senate representation.
Hence, as Gibbins sees it, Harper has painted himself into a corner and now faces two unpalatable options: He can make a raft of Senate appointments before the election, a scenario bound to trigger a public backlash at any time but which would amount to political suicide in the current climate.
Or he can wait and risk leaving the vacancies for another prime minister to fill should the Conservatives lose the election. That would be a “gift-wrapped package” for Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, who’s promising to create a blue-chip advisory body to recommend non-partisan nominees for Senate appointment, and a poisoned chalice for NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, who’s vowing to launch constitutional negotiations to abolish the chamber altogether.
But either way, if Harper loses control of the House of Commons, he’d be ceding the Conservatives’ domination of the Senate as well, an outcome for which Gibbins doubts “his party would ever forgive him.”
Political scientist Tom Flanagan, a former Harper campaign manager, doubts the prime minister is giving much, if any thought, to what-if scenarios.
“Knowing him as I do, I don’t think he’s too much concerned about what the situation would be if he was no longer prime minister ... I think he’d be focused on winning the election.”
And on that score, Flanagan says it appears Harper is determined to ride out the Senate storm by keeping the appointment of senators off the table until after the election.
Trouble is, the more the vacancies pile up, the more insistent the questions become about how Harper intends to fill them, whenever that might be.
Both Gibbins and Flanagan think Harper may eventually adopt some variation of Trudeau’s proposal. But having heaped ridicule on Trudeau – calling his proposal a recipe for having Liberal hacks recommend more Liberal hacks for Senate appointments – Flanagan says that would be difficult for Harper to admit to before the votes are counted on Oct. 19.
In any event, in the immediate aftermath of the Senate expenses audit and in the hyper-partisan, pre-election climate, Gibbins reckons it would be well-nigh impossible to persuade non-partisan, pre-eminent people to accept Senate appointments.
Alternatively, Gibbins suggests Harper could promise to hold a national plebiscite on abolishing the Senate, hoping public outrage would put pressure on recalcitrant provinces, including Quebec and Ontario, to go along with the initiative.
With or without a plebiscite, however, abolition is not something that could be accomplished over night, if ever. And Harper would still face the question of what to do in the meantime with the steadily increasing number of empty seats – at least 34 by the end of 2017, fully one-third of the Senate seats – as would Mulcair.
Whatever Harper is contemplating, Flanagan is sure of one thing: “In my experience, he’s always got something in mind. I’ve never known him to not have a strategic position in mind on any important issue ... He sometimes surprises us with what it is.”
Former allies mystified by Harper’s inaction on Senate - The Globe and Mail
Here's a thought; it would take the moral courage and ethical strength of a Hercules but suppose all parties agree in principle to simply NOT appoint any more of the leeches and when a vacancy occurs simply leave the seat empty.
No constitutional reform required just some agreed upon back-bone watched over by the people of Canada to see which azzhat breaks the commitment first.
Then we agree to hire Emeril and Paula to feed the porkers and within a year or two they'll all be getting treatment for acute arthrosclerosis and won't last long enough to bother us any more.
A little humour to brighten the day as we all know these lying boobs we elect say one thing and do another in any case; so reforming the senate is as far over the horizon as it ever was.
No constitutional reform required just some agreed upon back-bone watched over by the people of Canada to see which azzhat breaks the commitment first.
Then we agree to hire Emeril and Paula to feed the porkers and within a year or two they'll all be getting treatment for acute arthrosclerosis and won't last long enough to bother us any more.
A little humour to brighten the day as we all know these lying boobs we elect say one thing and do another in any case; so reforming the senate is as far over the horizon as it ever was.