Harper Appoints Nine Senators

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

Alley, so you want elected Supreme Court justices? So we have Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc Supreme Court justices? If there is a 5 to 4 conservative majority on the court, then life begins at conception and fetus is a human being. If next election one of them loses to a Liberal, NDP etc. then all of a sudden a fetus is only a blob of tissues and does not deserve any protection.

Same way if there is a 5 to 4 Conservative majority on Supreme Court, homosexuality is a felony punishable by 10 years imprisonment. If one of them loses the next election, all of a sudden not only homosexuality is not a felony, but gay marriage becomes legal.

That is no way to interpret the constitution. Constitution does not change according to one’s political or religious beliefs. There isn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell of elected Supreme Court justices; I think that would be a terrible idea. Supreme Court needs justices who are beholden to no one, least of all to their political masters. Justices must be appointed.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Reform of the Senate

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.

That wouldn’t quite be true.

Senator the Honourable Marjory LeBreton P.C. (Ontario), the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister of State (Seniors), has already tabled legislation before the Senate to enact non-renewable eight-year terms for senators. We can only hope that our honourable senators, upon careful consideration, decide to reject the legislation (because it is clearly unconstitutional, without having sought the consent of the provinces per my discussion above).

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.

I prefer an appointed Senate, because it has advantages that we currently enjoy that we be completely thrown out under a system with an elected Senate. At the moment we enjoy the advantages of both the elected House of Commons (the core of our democracy), and the appointed Senate (which revises the work of the House of Commons and tempers its powers to respect the democratic weight of the Lower House). Even though the Senate was created with theoretical equal powers, our system was not constructed to withstand long-term stalemates between the Senate and Commons; the most that a prime minister could do to attempt to override the Senate is an expansion of membership, which is restricted to eight senators. Changing this fundamental characteristic of the Senate would cause our honourable senators to be more eager to exercise the Senate’s powers, and therefore would threaten the supremacy of the House of Commons.

(SirJosephPorter, my above arguments are also why I’ve suggested that the changes you’ve proposed would need a constitutional amendment—the change would, in essense, expand the powers of the Senate because an elected chamber would be more eager to exercise the powers that it has always had, therefore majorly changing the dynamic of the Parliament of Canada. I would strongly recommend that Canadians stop the knee-jerk reaction of “senators are unelected and therefore useless”, and adopt the perception of “they’re appointed to review legislation, and not to govern, and that’s okay.” Let’s remember here that the House of Commons almost never rejects Senate recommendations, and the Senate almost never blocks the agenda of the House of Commons.)

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.

Our honourable justices on the Supreme Court of Canada should never be elected—these justices are responsible for deciding questions of law, and not on what the people want a decision to be. It would make no sense to take a vote on whether or not a popular law should be deemed ‘constitutional’, because the answer would always be ‘yes’, and vice versa. We must always ensure that the Supreme Court is as non-partisan and independent of the operations of government as possible, and this would be completely defeated by an elected judicial system. The House of Commons is our elected chamber, and it is enough—its powers overwhelm both the Supreme Court and the Senate, and it almost always has the constitutional right to the last word. Contrary to conservative hype, our system is not broken—these “issues” are work for the sake of work.

Thank you, everyone, our conversation has been fabulous so far!

 

[Kreskin]

There is no reason to complain about it. Harper is only playing by the rules the opposition insists on.

 

[VanIsle]

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.

Discussed it on can.com? Is it Nicky you are talking to? Think he lived in Coquitlam tho.

 

[VanIsle]

There is no reason to complain about it. Harper is only playing by the rules the opposition insists on.

You always have so much common sense. Good on you.:smile:

 

[Tonington]

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.

Then he probably shouldn't have said he would never do what he is doing now. Pragmatism is no excuse. What good are principles that you cast aside when it's convenient to do so?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

There is no reason to complain about it. Harper is only playing by the rules the opposition insists on.

But then why run on the platform of Senate reform? Why the hypocrisy?

 

[Colpy]

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.

Ed Broadbent is not a bad guy, don't get me wrong.....but his appointment to the Senate by a Conservative gov't would be counter-productive for them.....I mean, Ed never met a lefty cause he didn't love......your example, at least, makes no sense.

As well, isn't Ed like....older than dirt????? (Edited to say: On March 21, 2010 Ed will be 74.......)

Until there is an elected Senate, or at the very least some balance in the Upper House, partisan appointment is the only rational option for a Conservative gov't.

 

[Colpy]

But then why run on the platform of Senate reform? Why the hypocrisy?

Harper did say, and has always said, that he would appoint elected Senators......but the election of same is a provincial matter, and only one province has bothered to elect a senator....Alberta.

You can't appoint elected Senators when none have been elected.....

 

[taxslave]

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.

SJP: A senate that is appointed from a selection of party hacks is not a chamber of sober second thought but more like a rubber stamp. Therefore it is a waste of money. I also noticed that ALL of the new appointees are from the east which does not make those of us in B.C. very happy as we are under represented in both houses.
Now if the senate was appointed from a list of candidates provided by the various provinces with a maximum time limit of less than life I might agree with you.

 

[TenPenny]

I also noticed that ALL of the new appointees are from the east which does not make those of us in B.C. very happy as we are under represented in both houses.

Doesn't it somewhat depend on where the vacancies are?

That said, I'm not too thrilled with the choice of a senator from NB - like what does she have to do with NB lately? Demers is as much of a representative of NB than she is, he coached here.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SJP: A senate that is appointed from a selection of party hacks is not a chamber of sober second thought but more like a rubber stamp. Therefore it is a waste of money.

Sometimes Senate can act as more than a rubber stamp, taxslave, especially when there is a free vote.

I don’t know if you remember the abortion debate. After Supreme Court struck down the then existing abortion law as unconstitutional, Mulroney brought another bill to regulate abortion. It was criticized by prolifers (anything less that total ban on abortion will be criticized by them) and by prochoicers (too restrictive).

It passed the House of Commons on a free vote. In the (Conservative majority) Senate, it was a tie vote and the bill was defeated. I remember one Senator, (I think) Pat Carney took great pains to be present for the vote and she voted against the bill (she was subsequently disciplined by Mulroney for doing so). Senate made a major difference in abortion debate. Thanks to the senate, we don’t have any law regulating abortion.

So sometimes Senate can have a significant influence on a piece of legislation.

Now if the senate was appointed from a list of candidates provided by the various provinces with a maximum time limit of less than life I might agree with you.

No doubt one could think of better ways to appoint the Senators. In Britain they appoint Lords in the proportion of the strength of different parties in the Parliament. The PM invites nominations from all the parties and usually nominates the recommended candidates. That is why Liberal Democratic Party has representation in the House of Lords even though it has never formed a government.

And senators do have a maximum time limit, the retirement age is 75.

 

[Niflmir]

Hey, I know one of those names! Kelvin Ogilvie was the president of Acadia University.

 

[Spade]

Hmmmmm
Former hockey coach Jacques Demers, illiterate most of his life, appointed to Canada's Senate - WGN

 

[Cannuck]

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.

"Controversy"? You do understand that this is one of the main reasons you and the rest of the Liberal supporters have zero credibility, don't you? I mean, a politician that says one thing and does another...STOP THE PRESSES!!!

Seem to me I remember not long ago, a Liberal leader saying he was going to "Hax da G Hes T". If this is the best you can do, it would appear that Harpo is doing a pretty good job.

 

[Cannuck]

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.

That would only work if he had a majority and the provinces new that he would be in power for a determined length of time. Why would any province want to go through the expense of an election when Harper could be out of office before the vote is even held (the Liberals, as evidenced by 5P, are not remotely interested in democracy where the Senate is involved).

That seems to be the key issue that people are missing. Minority governments work different than majorities. Harpo can't simply do what he wants.

 

[Cannuck]

Seems Harpo is willing to appoint Dippers to important positions.

Doer named Canada's next U.S. ambassador

 

[jjaycee98]

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.

Just what is your point? This type of comment does more to show your ignorance than that of the person you attack.

 

[jjaycee98]

There is no reason to complain about it. Harper is only playing by the rules the opposition insists on.

Not quite. The previous bunch of appointees had to sign an agreement that should the Triple E senate and elections become the law they will resign and that they will then be elligible to run for election.

I would think that these folks will also have this stipulation imposed on them.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Reform of the Senate of Canada

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.

Sometimes Senate can act as more than a rubber stamp, taxslave, especially when there is a free vote.

Absolutely!

The Senate has the power to delay, block or reject any piece of Government legislation—the Senate can even defeat budgets (though this would only cause the Government to table a new budget for consideration, as the Government is not responsible to honourable senators and therefore would continue to govern). The Senate blocked the GST (before The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney P.C., C.C., G.O.Q., the 19th Prime Minister of Canada recommended an overload to the Senate’s maximum membership to overwhelm opposition numbers). The Senate also blocked the Free Trade Agreement, forcing the same prime minister’s Government to go to a general election to receive a renewed ‘Free Trade Agreement’ democratic mandate to push through the treaty.

The Senate is an effective chamber (as can be seen by the hundreds of reports and amendments made and adopted by the House of Commons), a less partisan one (as can be seen by the defeat of abortion regulations by a Conservative-majority Upper House, amongst other cross-party endeavours and studies), and a more independent one (as can be seen by the number of occasions that the Senate has openly questioned and held-to-account the Government). The Senate performs these invaluable functions, whilst also using the tremendous powers of the Upper House extremely rarely.

These features could not be adequately duplicated under any system of elected senators.

"Controversy"? You do understand that this is one of the main reasons you and the rest of the Liberal supporters have zero credibility, don't you? I mean, a politician that says one thing and does another...STOP THE PRESSES!!!

Seem to me I remember not long ago, a Liberal leader saying he was going to "Hax da G Hes T". If this is the best you can do, it would appear that Harpo is doing a pretty good job.

I ask that you cease attacks against my personal character, and rather attack my arguments.

I don’t quite understand what a broken promise by The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien P.C., O.M., C.C., Q.C., the 20th Prime Minister of Canada, has to do with the topic of Senate reform. The current prime minister’s promise was one that related to Senate reform directly, and that is why it is relevant to the present conversation. It is shocking and brazen partisanship, for the prime minister to appoint the President of the Conservative Party to the Senate. Mr. Harper could, at any time, start negotiations with the provinces to table a proper and comprehensive constitutional amendment on Senate reform; it is unconstitutional for the prime minister to attempt to make these amendments without provincial consent as they change the most basic characteristics of the Senate and the use of its powers.

That would only work if he had a majority and the provinces new that he would be in power for a determined length of time. Why would any province want to go through the expense of an election when Harper could be out of office before the vote is even held (the Liberals, as evidenced by 5P, are not remotely interested in democracy where the Senate is involved).

In that case, the prime minister should table a complete constitutional amendment.

Do not suggest that I care not about democracy—your unsuccesful ‘shame tactics’ are noted.

That seems to be the key issue that people are missing. Minority governments work different than majorities. Harpo can't simply do what he wants.

When it comes to recommendations to summon honourable senators, he absolutely can.

It is entirely within the prime minister’s prerogatives to recommend senators to be summoned, and the status or wishes of the House of Commons have absolutely no relevance here; whether the prime minister commands three hundred seats or twelve, so long as he is not replaced by the Governor General, he has the exclusive right to make those recommendations however he pleases. I support [as has been quite clearly stated] an appointed Senate for the several reasons discussed above and on previous days. My issue is not with the prime minister making Senate appointments; my issue is with the prime minister’s hypocrisy and his disrespect and abuse of the Red Chamber, and other institutions of government.