Harper Appoints Nine Senators

[VanIsle]

Below is Frank McKenna's letter of resignation after Harper's first kick at being PM - Seems that there is no letter from Mike Wilson announcing his retirement or resignation. Was Mike Wilson fired? Is Gary Doer's appointment a politically motivated move made to make Harper appear more friendly to the more socialist side of the voter base? Seems so strange how Harper apparently does not have enough smart people in his organization that he is always reaching for brains outside of elected folks. Emerson who he poached from the Libs - Fortier who became cabinet minister through the Senate - his latest communication director from the Canadaian Taxpayers association. Mr Demers who has no political views other than being a proud supporter of Hockey? I am surprised Harper never nominated anyone from the Toronto Humane society as he is a lover of cats!
Maybe the hidden agenda is to make the Senate a farce (Or a bigger farce) and work to abolish it after his majority.

Text of a Letter from Ambassador Frank McKenna
501 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
January 24, 2006

Mr. Stephen Harper
Prime Minister Elect
c/o The Conservative Party of Canada
1720 - 130 Albert Street
Ottawa, ON
CANADA K1P 5G4
Dear Mr. Harper,
I want to extend sincere congratulations on your success in today’s election.
It was a hard-fought campaign and you have received a very significant vote of confidence from the Canadian public. I know the feeling of exhilaration when the people express confidence in your leadership and vision.
It has been a great privilege for me to serve as Canada’s Ambassador to the United States throughout the past year. I was most grateful for your personal support and that of your Party during my Committee Hearing on the Appointment. It has also been a tremendous personal satisfaction to have been able to serve with the outstanding men and women of this Embassy and Consulates across the United States of America. Canadians may not fully appreciate the strength and commitment of these dedicated public servants who serve our country so proudly.
I’ve always placed great value on the importance of the Canada-US relationship, and, in a short period of time, have learned much about how this critical link can be improved and expanded. In that regard, I would be pleased to offer my full cooperation in sharing insights on management of the many significant and crucial issues that we deal with on a daily basis.
However, I believe you would agree that the enormous value of a political appointment to this position is based on the ability to work intimately with the Canadian Government. It is this perception of closeness that provides a strong platform for the Canadian Ambassador to advance Canada’s interest.
While I would have no difficulty working with you or your Government, it would be virtually impossible to establish the appearance of total confidence and support in a jurisdiction where political Ambassadorial appointees traditionally resign immediately after an election.
Consequently, it is in the best interest of our nation that I submit to you my resignation as Canada’s Ambassador to the United States. I would be pleased to continue to serve until such time as a replacement is named or, I could depart more expeditiously if it is your wish.
With warmest personal regards and best wishes for a productive mandate.
Sincerely,
Frank McKenna
Ambassador

mit, as I'm sure you are aware, I am not a big political fan and as such - do not pay as much attention as I should. The underlined words above seem to be indicating that his resignation was the usual thing expected to occur after an election. Is it true that, that is the usual thing or is he being sarcastic? Doesn't this letter specifically state that he is resigning his position? Would anyone expect that he would offer up another letter of resignation?

 

[CDNBear]

With an attitude like that, you should be shipped to Uganda. You don't really seem to appreciate what a democracy is.

That would seem fitting, if in fact Canada wasn't a Constitutional Monarchy.

 

[taxslave]

uoting TenPenny
Doesn't it somewhat depend on where the vacancies are?
It absolutely does.

The fact that the Western provinces were ‘disappointed’ with the appointments because they weren’t for Western representation (as a member suggests) is complete nonsense—the Western provinces had no vacancies, and therefore they received no added senators. Between Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, there are currently twenty-four active senators, out of a maximum of twenty-four. The Senate is not based on proportional representation, as is the House of Commons—the Senate is based on regional representation. The Senate is working on recommendation to boost representation for British Columbia at some future time, but at the moment there is nothing that a prime minister can do to bolster Western representation because it is unnecessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is precisely the problem. B.C. is under represented and always has been. So the latest round of appointments do nothing more than maintain the status quo.
If the commons is going to be occupied on the basis of population, except for Quebec which has a guaranteed minimum number of seats then the senate must be represented by area or the same number from each province.

 

[Niflmir]

That would seem fitting, if in fact Canada wasn't a Constitutional Monarchy.

Sure, and when I was young, I used to get presents from Santa Claus. What is your point? There is a world of difference between a constitutional monarchy (democratic) and an absolute monarchy (dictatorial).

 

[CDNBear]

Sure, and when I was young, I used to get presents from Santa Claus. What is your point? There is a world of difference between a constitutional monarchy (democratic) and an absolute monarchy (dictatorial).

:roll:

Really? Say it isn't so.

My point? His perception of what a democracy is is far better then yours.

 

[Niflmir]

:roll:

Really? Say it isn't so.

My point? His perception of what a democracy is is far better then yours.

Looks like there is one more person to ship to Uganda then. There you can enjoy having no choice and maybe your claim that Canadians don't have a choice will keep your spirits up.

 

[CDNBear]

Looks like there is one more person to ship to Uganda then. There you can enjoy having no choice and maybe your claim that Canadians don't have a choice will keep your spirits up.

:roll:

 

[Cannuck]

With an attitude like that, you should be shipped to Uganda. You don't really seem to appreciate what a democracy is.

I appreciate what a democracy is. I just don't hold any illusions that we are terribly democratic. I mean, next to Uganda...sure...but that isn't saying much.

 

[Tonington]

But the lie, lies in the biased reaction. There is an imbalance to it all. You certainly aren't alone though. And though this is a personal type of conversational direction we're taking here, I don't mind the chatter, you're bright enough to keep it mature.

That said Ton, I have to say that all I see is Conservative bashing, for the sake of your ideology. For when the transgressions of the Liberals filled the air. The sounds of "well the Cons did this", was the resounding reply.

Ton, politicians are scumbags, end of story.

Again Bear, what ideology are you talking about? You're making a lot of claims here, and they're entirely without merit. I don't belong to any party and I would say the same thing, no matter the politician who said it, from any party, under the same conditions.

I have never said "yeah well the Cons did this" or any other party for that matter because that is a bull **** excuse by partisans to deflect criticisms of their own hypocrisies. In fact I've often said it's very lame, when the parties and their sycophantic supporters pretend to be so holier than thou, that they do the same crap they complained about. It's juvenile.

I know you enjoy playing Devil's advocate, but you really have nothing in this case to argue.

 

[Tonington]

As has already been pointed out, a minority government does not have the ability to do as it wishes. If you are unable to grasp such a simple concept, perhaps you should refrain from engaging in this discussion.

Yes I realize that Captain Obvious. I'm pretty sure most of us here realize that and do not need your nuggets of clarity to realize such is true. :roll: Now try to pay close attention this time.

As I already said, he hasn't even tried, except for term limits for Senators. You don't need a majority to present the platform you were elected on... Additionally, the Liberals haven't exactly been much of an opposition, with Harper making all votes Confidence votes, and their horrible electioneering/fund raising abilities.

If you are unable to grasp how Harper's history on this subject, and his failure to even try to pass reform legislation, and now doing what he said he'd never do is not a red herring, then perhaps you need to do some reading on what a red herring is.

He doesn't.

Yes, I was asking a rhetorical question.:roll: This nonsense is but one example of why.

That's not called a red herring. That's called making fun of Lieberals because of their incredible hypocrisy and double standard.

Of course it is. It's diverting attention away from the present issue. Who cares what the Liberals said about GST? That has nothing to do with this thread topic.

 

[Cannuck]

Who cares what the Liberals said about GST? That has nothing to do with this thread topic.

Of course it does. This thread topic is "Harpo bad". It's dressed up to look like a senate reform issue but it is what it is. That said, Senate reform is not realistic under a minority government. Period. The best he could hope for is a province or two to elect somebody.

 

[CDNBear]

Again Bear, what ideology are you talking about? You're making a lot of claims here, and they're entirely without merit. I don't belong to any party and I would say the same thing, no matter the politician who said it, from any party, under the same conditions.

I have never said "yeah well the Cons did this" or any other party for that matter because that is a bull **** excuse by partisans to deflect criticisms of their own hypocrisies. In fact I've often said it's very lame, when the parties and their sycophantic supporters pretend to be so holier than thou, that they do the same crap they complained about. It's juvenile.

I know you enjoy playing Devil's advocate, but you really have nothing in this case to argue.

What he said...

Of course it does. This thread topic is "Harpo bad". It's dressed up to look like a senate reform issue but it is what it is. That said, Senate reform is not realistic under a minority government. Period. The best he could hope for is a province or two to elect somebody.

 

[Niflmir]

I appreciate what a democracy is. I just don't hold any illusions that we are terribly democratic. I mean, next to Uganda...sure...but that isn't saying much.

True enough, but the big failings in our democracy are really the partisanship of some people (Liberals and Conservatives both) which causes them to overlook the fact that the politicians are not doing what they were put there to do. In a better democracy people would be involved more, certainly.

However, this is what we have and nobody seems to want it changed (electoral reform always fails) so we should fire people who lie to get hired. At the very least we should be wary of trusting them again. And being indifferent to the lies (or worse) of our politicians is a bad sign for our democracy.

 

[CDNBear]

True enough, but the big failings in our democracy are really the partisanship of some people (Liberals and Conservatives both) which causes them to overlook the fact that the politicians are not doing what they were put there to do. In a better democracy people would be involved more, certainly.

However, this is what we have and nobody seems to want it changed (electoral reform always fails) so we should fire people who lie to get hired. At the very least we should be wary of trusting them again. And being indifferent to the lies (or worse) of our politicians is a bad sign for our democracy.

You're preaching to the choir.

 

[Niflmir]

Of course it does. This thread topic is "Harpo bad". It's dressed up to look like a senate reform issue but it is what it is. That said, Senate reform is not realistic under a minority government. Period. The best he could hope for is a province or two to elect somebody.

I think you are falling into a false dichotomy here. This thread is most certainly aimed at discussing Harper's failings on senate reform. Sure, it is intended to make him look bad, but that in no way implies that the liberals automatically look good. And implying it does makes you fallacious.

Most ridings have usually something like five names on the ballot; although most people are unwilling to consider them due to our electoral system and a nebulous presumed difference between voting for the party, the candidate and the prime minister. There are almost certainly going to be 2-3 names on your ballot that you cannot say have any history, and if these minorities keep up, these people might be the best options in the end.

 

[Niflmir]

You're preaching to the choir.

Sometimes the choir forgets what they are singing. Sometimes the preacher does too.

As an aside, I will most likely not be voting next election. If I have the money at the time I will likely take out an add in the provincial news paper explaining why I think our electoral system needs to be reformed and why thinking that way makes me not vote.

In fact, I was one person who did vote for Harper the first time around for the senate reforms. I watched the bill go through the house and into the senate, and I saw the Right Honourable Stephen Harper prorogue said bill and never resurrect it. I knew it was a long shot anyways.

For me, none of the issues are as important as electoral reform, for a very simple reason: statistically, because of the electoral system, I have no say. I can explain elsewhere, but I am getting longwinded already.

I would like my vote to be more than simply a 'yea' for one oligarchy for a period of time. Currently a vote doesn't even act as a 'nea' despite what these ``strategic voters'' may believe.

 

[CDNBear]

Sometimes the choir forgets what they are singing. Sometimes the preacher does too.

Agreed, although I think this choir boy is up to speed.

As an aside, I will most likely not be voting next election. If I have the money at the time I will likely take out an add in the provincial news paper explaining why I think our electoral system needs to be reformed and why thinking that way makes me not vote.

I'ld contribute that venture.

In fact, I was one person who did vote for Harper the first time around for the senate reforms. I watched the bill go through the house and into the senate, and I saw the Right Honourable Stephen Harper prorogue said bill and never resurrect it. I knew it was a long shot anyways.

Me too. That, compounded by other glaring BS actions on his part, has won him a place in my heart, along side the Liberals.

For me, none of the issues are as important as electoral reform, for a very simple reason: statistically, because of the electoral system, I have no say. I can explain elsewhere, but I am getting longwinded already.

Not at all, you speak volumes of truth. Sometimes wind is a good thing, it blows the garbage into one spot, where it is easily removed.

I would like my vote to be more than simply a 'yea' for one oligarchy for a period of time. Currently a vote doesn't even act as a 'nea' despite what these ``strategic voters'' may believe.

Agreed.

 

[Cannuck]

True enough, but the big failings in our democracy are really the partisanship of some people (Liberals and Conservatives both) which causes them to overlook the fact that the politicians are not doing what they were put there to do. In a better democracy people would be involved more, certainly.

However, this is what we have and nobody seems to want it changed (electoral reform always fails) so we should fire people who lie to get hired. At the very least we should be wary of trusting them again. And being indifferent to the lies (or worse) of our politicians is a bad sign for our democracy.

Couldn't agree more with one exception. I think the biggest failing of our democracy is the takeover of the system by special interest groups. They have the ear of our politicians 24/7 while we get it once during the election.

 

[CDNBear]

Couldn't agree more with one exception. I think the biggest failing of our democracy is the takeover of the system by special interest groups. They have the ear of our politicians 24/7 while we get it once during the election.

Hear, hear...

I seriously need to find my pom poms and cheer leading outfit...:lol:

 

[mit]

mit, as I'm sure you are aware, I am not a big political fan and as such - do not pay as much attention as I should. The underlined words above seem to be indicating that his resignation was the usual thing expected to occur after an election. Is it true that, that is the usual thing or is he being sarcastic? Doesn't this letter specifically state that he is resigning his position? Would anyone expect that he would offer up another letter of resignation?

VanIsle - Reading between the lines it was a diplomatic way for Frank McKenna to say - Mr Harper we are polar opposites and really could not work together so I am resigning instead of getting fired. I am curious if Mike Wilson got the boot or if maybe some other issue in his health or personal life caused the change. Mr Doer may be good for us as if we have a snap election he may be palatable enough for each party to keep on board.