As we all know, every senator before this point has been elected and non partisan...

So, how much for a senate seat in Canada?

/just askin

Poor optics. Bad politics. Sometimes you have to stand on principle. This reeks of Manning and Stornaway.

What choice does he have? The daily grung and threats coming from the "grung party" makes this an act of preservation for democracy. Temporarily, of course.

I think it is better to fill them. Elected Senate has it's good points but so does appointment if done properly. The thought of Ms. May even dreaming about a Senate seat...

What was that big news story about the Governor of Illinois today? SENATE Seat Sale!

eehHaw - must be holiday season!

This is very much a question of functionality. Having 20 Tories in the Senate makes the committee system unworkable and will only get worse. Hopefully this brings further attention to the Senate reform cause though.

What do you expect him to do Jon? Based on the rhetoric coming out of King Iggy today, do you really expect Harper to leave them for the coalition to fill because some may view it as bad politics? We elected him, he has the right to fill the senate positions.

You know what is bad politics, the NDP/Libbers creating a constitutional crises because they couldn't stand losing $30M out of $216M (less than 10%)in election entitlements.

That is exactly what I would do in his position. He has tried being Mr. "Nice Guy" and constantly gets slagged by the MSM.

The Axis of Weasels would not support an elected senate so he has no choice.

Trudeau had 2500 patronage appointments in his tenure as PM. 18 seats, is hardly partisan given that the Libs still have 63 seats that were, hmmm, appointed to the Senate by Liberals. The reforms can include their election at a different time, but Canada needs Loyalist Conservatives rather than Liberal socialist, commies, and Separatists to fill those seats.

I am so happy that he decided to fill those vacancies. I wrote him last week begging him to do just that. If the Liberals should get back into government they will fill them with more Libs then we will get nothing passed.

There is alot of talk over at CTV about Iggy's interview with Duffy. Seems he is threatening the PM about bringing him down if that budget is not in tune with the Libs. Looks like that coalition is still alive. Don't think Iggy has even taken up the PM's offer of input. All about power and entitlements.

Pick me, pick me.
I'll make every liberano in the red chamber hate me in no time.

[ .. at the hands of the Liberal-NDP coalition.

Make that - the Separatists-Liberals-NDP coupalition.

If nobodys electing them , what can you do ? The liberals would fill it with their cronies in a week. Craig Oliver and Mansbridge are probably pissed off , but who cares?

At the end of the CTV article -

"Harper would ask anyone he appoints to agree to step down and run in a Senate election if new legislation is ever implemented."

A far cry from what the Liberals have ever done or proposed. Does anyone think that the Liberals would do likewise? Uh, yeah right.

Prudent move to fill senate seats, because of the current coalition / Iggy threat.

If Harper has the option open, he should also fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court as well as any lower courts,lest the troika coalition becomes the government, and who knows,in that case Louise Arbour might resurface in an ermine fringed robe.

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. What do they expect - he's going to appoint a bunch of Liberals to an already unbalanced lot?

As soon as the inevitable uproar comes he ought to just stand up and say - "This is the system that is in place and what I have to work with. No, it's not a 'fair' system just as it wasn't fair when the Liberals appointed all their cronies. It needs to be changed but every time the issue of change gets raised you all go crazy about that too...well it is time to put up and shut up or let the process of revamping the senate move forward."

VanIslander nails it...

Thank God we still have the SCOC with Elected Judges, I'd hate to think that Chretien had the power to Appoint Judges that agreed with him and the Liberal doctrine.

I also wrote the Prime Minister last week pleading, please, please fill the senate.
I am secretly hoping he puts Don Cherry in the Senate.He is a very deserving Canadian and it would drive Quebec crazy.

I think he should put the most radical rigth wingers he can find:

Yvon Cornoyer

Gordie Howe

Mike Bossy

Maurice Richard

Guy Lafleur

Bernie Geoffrion

Mickey Redmond

Glenn Anderson

Wayne Babych

Dino Ciccarelli

Real Cloutier

Russ Courtnall

Kevin Dineen

Theoren Fleury

Reggie Leach

Dave Lumley

Rick Middleton

Cam Neely

Jim Peplinski

Stephane Richer

Bobby Schmautz

Duane Sutter

Dave Taylor

Pat Verbeek

My God, do you people have no shame? How on earth is Elizabeth May supposed to get HER promised senate seat now? Huh? Have you no feelings?

Iggy and the Stooges will never be the government of Canada.

Call another election - lets go back to the polls and give harper the majority he needs to finish them off.

I think someone should start a mail-in campaign on behalf of me.

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. What do they expect - he's going to appoint a bunch of Liberals to an already unbalanced lot?

As soon as the inevitable uproar comes he ought to just stand up and say - "This is the system that is in place and what I have to work with. No, it's not a 'fair' system just as it wasn't fair when the Liberals appointed all their cronies. It needs to be changed but every time the issue of change gets raised you all go crazy about that too...well it is time to put up and shut up or let the process of revamping the senate move forward."
Posted by: VanIslander at December 11, 2008 12:23 AM

VanIslander, I couldn't have said it any better myself. My hat is off to you, sir.

It sure as hell ain't like Harper didn't try.

He has no other realistic choice now.

You can bet, given even half a chance, Iggy will pack the joint first chance he gets.

Senator Ralph Klein for Newfoundland sounds like fun, not smart but fun.

Kate! Shameless self promotion!

Can anyone picture a good old Sask girl in the senate, bragging about the bambi and the sweet smell of a polaris two stroke?

VanIslander - Slam Dunk !

I did not mean old like your old I meant it like you know....

Aw crap Foot in mouth

Sorry bout that.

Melvin @ 12:53

Whoo hooo hoo, you are a genius! They would all be put down onto their "keesters"!
Great suggestion as sarcastic as it was...

Someone tell me what the hell he was waiting for up until now please?

I think all Canadians were dismayed that the coupalation was using senate vacancies as bribery. Also, news that the BLOC demanded 6 senate seats !!!!
Not to mention Elizabeth May already bragging about she was going to be "the only senator with 3 million votes."

This all made a further mockery of the Upper House which is already a mockery.

Touche Prime Minister Harper all is fair in politics and sword fighting. Load the senate with conservatives while you have the opportunity,
and make sure the west is well represented. It's
not like they have any real power anyway, the senate should be elected, this fundamental change and shift of power, balanced power on the federal level could go along way to fixing this country's
problems. The senate should be able to over rule
the house of commons in order to balance power among the regions. This is the missing link that would bring fairness and unity to the country.

I suspect she wouldn't accept, but she'd sure keep the senate chamber awake.

Of course, I'm talking about Deb Gray.

Something to be said for naming senators who believe in senate reform.

Senate, present;

Lib 58
Cons 21
PC 3
Indep 6
Vacant 17

[ Currently, there are 58 Liberal Senators and 21 Conservatives with 17 vacancies. By the end of 2009, there will be 13 vacancies, including eight Liberal retirements, two Conservatives, one Progressive Conservative and two Independents.

By 2010, there will be four retirements, including three Liberals and one Conservative. If all of the 17 current vacancies as well as the 17 upcoming vacancies due to retirements are filled with Conservatives, there would be 52 Tories in the Red Chamber, 47 Liberals, two Progressive Conservatives and four Independents by December 2010.] Hill Times

Cons 52
Lib 47
PC 2
Indep 4

I used to enjoy watching seagulls fight over a scrap of food. I figure Harper should leave one seat open ... you know, fairness and all of that.

So much for the Triple E senate...these flip flops keep getting better and better.

Consider:

Vacant seats 18
Newfoundland and Labrador (1),
New Brunswick (2)
Nova Scotia (3),
Prince Edward Island (1)
Quebec (4),
Ontario (2),
Yukon (1)
Saskatchewan (1),
British Columbia (3)

but

Province or Territory Population per Senator (2006 census) ↓
British Columbia 6 685,581
Alberta 6 548,391
Ontario 24 506,678
Quebec 24 314,422
Manitoba 6 191,400
Saskatchewan 6 161,359
Nova Scotia 10 91,346
Newfoundland and Labrador 6 84,244
New Brunswick 10 72,999
Northwest Territories 1 41,464
Prince Edward Island 4 33,962
Yukon Territory 1 30,372
Nunavut 1 29,474
Total/Average 105 301,075

So why not appoint Don Cherry senator of PEI, and Deb Gray senator of Newfieland, what have they done for us lately? Then select the requisite number of senators from the west. Even up the representation by population for the west and kill two birds with one stone.

If the leftards are gonna squawk give them something to squawk about. I mean the great tradition of democratic voting does not exactly seem to work for the lieberals.

About time!

After their crowning of their leader, the Liberals certainly must understand acting out of need for unusual times.

Proof positive that Harper is on the defensive. Without the threat of the coalition hanging over the country, there would be no logical reason to fill the Senate and give Liberals some added ammunition, since even if all the vacant seats went Conservative, the Liberals would still have a Senate majority.

So it's a defensive measure. Problem is I'm not sure if this move provokes the opposition to band together again just when they were starting to fall apart. Not really sure what to make of this...

Eugene@3:33 AM
What you make of this? I think that you indeed know the answer. PMSH is expecting the worst and preparing to save his country FROM THEM, period.
Inexperienced egotists, are about to take over our economy and divide this country. Battten down the hatches....

Please please, don't stack the Senate with 18 more Lawyers...Ezra excepted of course.

Also keep in mind 11 Liberal senators are set to retire in 2009 -- it is why the Liberals are in a fanatical state to regain power, thus instead of 19 seats open by the end of next year 29 would be vacant if he did not fill them now.

If the Liberals seized power in January and the positions were not filled, they would have control over the senate for another generation, thus eliminating the possibility of any senate reform.

My personal belief is that the upper house should be eliminated. Waste of resources and an extra cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

Breaking News...This Just in

"insiders" report CTV Ottawa Bureau News editor substitutes own biased opinion in news copy under the pseudonym of "insiders"....pix at 11

Yes fill them & fill them Now!

Because you can Bet your Bippy that if the liberals get back in the drivers seat they wont hesitate a Nano Second to fill those seats.

About time. I also wrote the PM to fill the Senate seats "yesterday".
The system of appointing Senators is what we have now so we have to work with it that way until it is changed. The Liberals would load it if they got power, it's a tradition with the masters of patronage so they can simply STFU.

Cherry would be great, so would Deb Gray.He'll have no problem choosing good people to fill the seats. Lew McKenzie would be great also, as would broadcaster Lowell Green.

It will give the bozos something to tall about besides taking down the government.

Suggestions:

John Reynolds
Charles Adler
Mike Rutherford
Mike Harris
Preston Manning
Andre Arthur
Lucien Bouchard (Yes the man is now very Conservative minded (Again) and could spark positive Quebec debate)
Mark Steyn
Ralph Klein
Kate "SDA"
Joanne C. (Blue Like You)
Kathy Shaidle (Five feet of Fury)

BTW,

Funny how CTV.ca (See Link above) chooses not to open this particular report for public comments...If the story picks up steam and public opinion is going to be revealed as at least 50% negative, you can bet CTV will open up debate.
Poor MSM/lefties have taken a lot of heat with "polls gone wrong" these past few weeks...Better thread carefully.

Every one of the western vacancies should be filled with those who have "western separatist" leanings!

I'd love to see Ron Maclean on CBC HNIC have to call Don Cherry, Senator Cherry.
And then appoint him as head of the committee to reform the CBC.

17 Tories and Borat Dion. a non partisan appointment.

Game Set Match.

Harper you magnificent bastard.

Harper being Harper,principles? what are those?

But I am sure his loyal backers will rationalize yet another flip-flop.

Oh Sean S. go flip your Iggy over easy

Sean S. care to share your tips? I'm not too well rehearsed on this flip flop thing. As a liberal I'm sure you have LOTS of tips to share. Especially with your vast adscam experience.

Ezra is being sued..again. It seems someone does not like Ezra providing the link between Iggy and Adscam.

http://ezralevant.com/

I also wrote the PM last week and said "Fill those vacancies NOW!"

I'm furious--but not at all surprised--by the ABUSE our fine PM is taking from the disloyal opposition mob: political and MSM. These people are despicable and would tear the PM and his caucus to shreds if they could.

Priggy is an utter jerk and has openly stated that he will NOT negotiate the budget with the government. Fine, Your Highness . . .

PMSH is damned by these jackals no matter what he does. So, Mr. Harper, it's time to go for the jugular: use the power at your disposal--you didn't set up the system: the Liberals did!--to kick as hard and as far as you can.

The thought of toadies like Oliver, Robertson, Mansbridge, Fife, Boag, and May seeing their Senate sinecure snatched away is "music to my ears". It couldn't happen to a more deserving coven!

Man, when I heard that Dion had "promised" screaming mimi May a senate seat, that is when I wanted PM Harper to fill the vacant seats. If, this keeps her out of government in both houses I am 100% in favor. Opposition parties have been threatening taking over the government, they asked for a fight and that is what PM Harper will give them. Gloves are off!

You have to play by the rules as they are now written. You can work to have them changed for the future, but you play by the rules as they are, now how you wish them to be.

Yet another broken promise. As Coyne can add this to his list of "ever-lengthening list of jaw-dropping about-faces" by Harper and Gerry Nichols can ask again "Are the Tories (and Stephen Harper, with his "I'm not really a conservative" routine) worth defending?".

If there was ever any doubt that the Reform Party and its ideals are dead - and, really, by now there should not be - this is the last shovel full of dirt on the casket of the Reform Party.

Like Social Credit, like the Progressive Party, now just a sentence in the encyclopedia of Canadian history. Harper soon to follow.

Hmmmm... and yet on Conservative blogs I hear only relief over this move. And don't think for a second that this means Harper has changed his plans for the Senate.
Ted's concern for us Reformers is touching though.

with no senate appointments available, the currency of the coalition will not be "1 senate seat" as payment for your support:-))))

The Party that appointed Frank Mahovlich to the Senate cannot claim the moral high ground.

So let me get this straight: The libs appoint Iggy their leader when their constitution says they are supposed to elect the leader, but this is okay because of the circumstances. But Harper follows the country's constitution and appoint senators, because the libs are planning to use senate seats as rewards for their greentard and separatist pro-coalition operatives once the revolution is complete.

And all Ted can find to criticize is Harper's flip-flop?

mmmmkay....

Ted at December 11, 2008 9:36 AM

Hi Ted...Care to expand on your stmt concerning PMSH filling the vacant senate seats? Perhaps you could enlighten me by explaining what you think He should do. Leave them for the coalition to fill perhaps?
RSVP

Actually, ted, Harper isn't breaking his promise. He wants an elected Senate and one with limited terms of office.

He's tried for the limited terms - and the Liberal Senate, heh, turned it down. He's tried for an elected Senate, but the heh, Liberal=NDP=Bloc Opposition won't hear of it. So, he has a choice.

He's also aware that the public agenda of the Coalition, IF they got to power without a democratic election and with their signed agreement with the Bloc to reject any democratic accountability for almost two years - that this public agenda of the Coalition is to fill the Senate with their buddies. Do you support this violation of our democracy and this lack of integrity? Well?

Therefore, Harper has no choice; he has to follow the CURRENT RULES for the Senate. The opposition won't allow elections or limited terms. Therefore, he either leaves the Senate empty until the Liberals et al take over and fill it with their best pals. Or, he follows the RULES and appoints new Senators.

Oh, I'd bet you didn't notice his stricture that IF he got the system changed to elections, that they would stand down for an election. I bet you missed that.

So, what's your solution, ted, to this reality? Your people won't allow any Senate reform. None. Not even accountability. Nothing. They like their perks and patronage. What would you do if you were Harper? Leave the Senate seats unfilled until the Liberals, someday, take over, and fill it with their buddies?

Unfortunately Prime Minister Harper cannot change the Canadian Senate system today. Even though the majority of Western Canadians are sickened by the existence of this institution it cannot be unilaterally fixed. One must play within the rules, and the rules are that Senate appointments are made by the Prime Minister of Canada. The liebral shills will,of course, bemoan the fact that this is not Senate reform. Alberta has one elected Senator but also is saddled with Cretin appointed liebral flunkies with no mandate to speak for Albertans. These so called Senators do not voice concerns of Albertans but rather parrot whatever their morally bankrupt Liebral masters tell them. Yes please, fill the Senate vacancies and change from this system from within. That doing this denies Dion and Lizzy May a permanent spot at the Public TROUGH is a side effect that can be endured. Watch for MSM to attack the Prime Minister over this as they now perceive that the GG and Senate appointments are theirs for the many years of propaganda services provided to the Central Government at the deterement and expense of ordinary Canadians.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/07/harper-senate.html

The optics are great...keep it up Steve.

CTV headline 'Quebec willing to go to court over Senate reform.'

The Boat Anchor province strikes again.

How long did it take them to allow women to vote?

At least they are consistent - consistently behind the times.

tephen Harper, Vancouver, December 14, 2006: "A senate chair should be occupied by someone with a democratic mandate, and Canadians should be able to mark their ballot for their Senator, as well as for their MP. We need a ballot with senators’ names, and seats with senators that have been elected. Under a Conservative government, Canadians will choose who sits in this chair. In the 21st century, those who want to sit in the parliament of a democratic state should have a mandate from the people. The Prime Minister currently holds a virtually free hand in the selection of Senators. As Prime Minister I will use that power to establish a federal process for electing senators. Alberta has already held provincial elections for individuals aspiring to the Senate. A national Conservative government will establish a national process for senatorial elections in each province and territory on an interim basis."

On the Conservative website, now wiped clean of the 2006 platform and even the 2008 "platform", Harper said "A Conservative government will not appoint to the Senate a person who does not have a mandate from the people of Canada."

He broke that one on his first day in office with the appointment of Fortier.

What mandate will these stack-a-deck senators have?
What process has Harper tried to establish?

With all the rationalizing here you would think this was a Mulroney era Progressive Conservative website lashing out at Preston Manning and Stephen Harper and their newly established Reform Party.

Harper has broken more promises in 2 and a half years than Mulroney, Chretien and Martin combined.

ted - you still haven't answered my questions. You are behaving like a Liberal, a member of a Ruling rather than Political Party, someone who acts as a Sovereign rather than an elected representative.

HOW can Harper fulfil his agenda of an elected Senate IF the other elected representatives of the House of Commons refuse to agree to such a change? Please tell me how.

You can't be that naive or partisan that you blame Harper for the unwillingness of the Liberal, NDP, Bloc Members of the House refusing to allow any Senate reform. Or, are you doing just that?

Martin appointed 17 senators:
- 13 Liberals (including some independents who then sat as Liberals) - 75%
- 4 Conservatives (including Hugh Segal) - 24%
- 1 NDP - 1%

Harper, despite promising not to appoint any unelected senator, has made 2 appointments already (one on his very first day as PM!) and looks to be making 18 more appointments of unelected senators:
- 20 Conservatives - 100%
- 0 Liberals - 0%
- 0 NDP - 0%

"HOW can Harper fulfil his agenda of an elected Senate IF the other elected representatives of the House of Commons refuse to agree to such a change?"

ET, ever the kool-aid drinking apologist.

I am not the one who promised to appoint only elected senators. You need to ask Harper why he is breaking his promise and one of his fundamental democratic policy planks, not me.

Can someone please tell me why 'selling' a Senate seat in the US gets you arrested but to a Canadian Liberal it's business as usual?

Ted, if you are so insistent on picking nits, your hair needs some attention.

Kate- sign me up as your premier supporter for a role as senator! What a delicious development it would be to see you smokin' up to parliament on your racing bike whipping off your helmet shaking out your hair and blowing lefty blowhards into their deserved oblivion!

Kate- sign me up as your premier supporter for a role as senator! What a delicious development it would be to see you smokin' up to parliament on your racing bike whipping off your helmet shaking out your hair and blowing lefty blowhards into their deserved oblivion!

Kate and Deb Grey could ride up together... vroom!

Ted, do you have a point or are you just whining for the heck of it? Until the Senate actually becomes more balanced, any meaningful senate reform or legislation in general will be stopped, hacked or delayed for simply partisan reasons. Even with 18 more senators of conservative persuasion (and not necessarily party members) the Lieberals still have more seats so there should be a more balanced approach to it's function. It would be a win for Canada and Canadians in general to have a functioning senate.

Canoe poll on the Senate:

http://tinyurl.com/6fako4

7 questions but currently a Deathmatch between:
-Senators are elected like MPs are
&
-Abolish it completely

As an Albertan, I voted for "Elected like MPs" are because we need a bicameral system despite Gerry from Toronto's wish that Alberta should separate in order to have a say in their own future.

Just imagine !!

Some long time Liberal Hack Senator going - make that TRYING to go toe-to-toe with Don Cherry !!??

You thought a HNIC interview was lively ??

Cherry and Oliver !? Or Newman ? Or Galloway ?

They fact that there are currently 17 vacancies and the Senate is still "functioning" just shows how useless it is. How will they ever get all that terribly urgent and important work done with 17 Senators missing? It should be scrapped or failing that, reform it so that it serves some useful purpose.

Quick, anyone know how many CBC/CTV people are in line for a Senate seat?

>> Quick, anyone know how many CBC/CTV people are in line for a Senate seat?

Off the top of my head, I'd say... TOO MANY!

CBC senate seats?

no these golddiggers only want the GG office.

SomeGuyinOttawa,
Ottawankers like you should know that Albertans have been pushing to Reform the Senate for 20 years now.

We need a functioning bicameral system in Canada to reduce the corruption that is hardwired into the Canadian governmental system.

Lib/NDP/Bloc: **…we want our public political party funding…**

Lib/NDP/Bloc: **…appoint Lizzy May to senate…**

CTV: **Quebec willing to go to court over Senate reform**

Lib/NDP/Bloc: **…Bloc members to be appointed to senate seats…**

ulianov: **The optics are great...keep it up Steve.**
You’re correct ulianov, the optics couldn’t be better. Election please!

OZ: Maybe you should learn how to read? I said if it can't be scrapped all together (my preference), then REFORM it so that it serves a useful purpose.

And don't confuse my place of residence with the idiocy of the Federal politics.

Ottawanker,
You mean if Ontario's Green Chamber numerical supremacy can't be entrenched for all time by scrapping the bicameral system, then reform is OK with you?

What a swell guy.

Pushing for scrapping the Red Chamber really shows you care about reform./sarc

"Ted, do you have a point"

Yes, Texas Canuck. The point is this: Harper was elected in 2006 on the promise that he would "never" appoint an unelected senator. With this massively partisan patronage appointment, Harper has not just broken another important promise but shattered one of his fundamental cornerstone principles.

In other words, you just cannot trust this guy. As Ignatieff said last night, Harper has a difficult time with "truthfulness".

- promises no elected senators will be appointed => 20 unelected senators appointed

- tells us there will be no recession => a month later we are in recession

- tells us that a Conservative government will never allow a deficit => a month later he goes from no deficit, to possibly a deficit, to a deficit is a good thing (while his own Budget Officer says the deficit was avoidable and is a result of Harper's record-breaking spending)

- promises not to tax income trusts => taxes income trusts

- promises to make only budgets a matter of confidence => makes pretty much every matter before the House a matter of confidence

- promises to only have elections on fixed dates or if the government loses the confidence of the House => calls an election without losing the confidence of the House and then when he does lose the confidence of the House he cancels an opposition day, doesn't hold a promised vote on his Fiscal Update and then cancels Parliament altogether to avoid a confidence vote

- promises to deliver on wait times, the most important of The Five Priorities (TM) (remember them?) => nothing, wait times are worse

We all know that within 5 minutes of a Lib-NDP coalition gov't taking over, the first thing they would have done was appoint senators. Libs have no moral high ground on this one, baby. They were frothing at the mouth in anticipation of filling those vacancies. (and so were Don Newman and Lizzie May.)

Harper has tried to get reform done; provinces are slow to change, everyone else is dragging their feet. Why on earth would he leave those seats open much longer. Good on you Mr. Harper. Well done. Stack it fast and stack it good.

I might also add: Harper would have looked like a fool if the gov't had been defeated and the seats were still vacant. Liberals would have been laughing their heads off while naming names.

He's doing absolutely the right thing.

OZ: If you think a reformed Senate will make a difference, then go for it.

"OZ: If you think a reformed Senate will make a difference, then go for it."
~SomeGuyinOttawa

Thank you, Ottawanker.
I was just waiting for your permission./

PM Harper is not "stacking" the Senate.
Read here:
"26. If at any Time on the Recommendation of the Governor General the Queen thinks fit to direct that Four or Eight Members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by Summons to Four or Eight qualified Persons (as the Case may be), representing equally the Four Divisions of Canada, add to the Senate accordingly.”"

"A Stacked Senate

October 15, 2008 by The Trusty Tory

See, sometimes there are unelected Liberal Senators, who like to stall legislation passed by democratically elected Conservative governments.

That’s where this comes in handy:

26. If at any Time on the Recommendation of the Governor General the Queen thinks fit to direct that Four or Eight Members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by Summons to Four or Eight qualified Persons (as the Case may be), representing equally the Four Divisions of Canada, add to the Senate accordingly.”

This is what happened the last time these unelected Senators tried to overrule democracy."
http://returnofthetory.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/a-stacked-senate/

No, ted, Harper was elected on the AGENDA of an elected Senate. Please try to understand the difference between a 'promise' and an 'agenda'.

A 'promise' is made by someone with the expectation that it can be fulfilled. You can't make a promise about something over which you, alone, have no control. Harper, alone, has no control over the vote of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc. Or the Liberal Senate.

An 'agenda' is a commitment to doing something, in this case, reforming the Senate. Harper tried to make the Senate accountable; it refused. He tried to limit their terms; they refused. He's tried to get an elected Senate; the Liberals, NDP and Bloc refuse.

So, stop with the semantics, ted. Harper didn't promise anything. You can't promise what is not in your control.

Now, again, ted, how about answering my question. What should Harper do about the Senate, when your Liberals, NDP and BLoc all refuse to allow it to be reformed? Well?

We've been through all your other assertions of 'broken promises' (income trusts, etc) and have found your assertions to be lacking both content, facticity and realism.

You know, a politician who provides an agenda and then, when the situation (economic, safety etc) changes, reacts to that situation and must change his agenda is what is called a LEADER. Someone who can't adjust and follows through only with the original program is called a ROBOT.

Now, since you obviously support the Coalition, with your anger that Harper didn't allow that Coalition to grab power from us, the electorate, this week, could you also tell us why you support such a vicious attack on our democracy?

By the way, Ignatieff's signature on the coalition means that he is now aligned, operationally, with the NDP and BLOC. So, despite the polls against the coalition, despite its being an outrageous attack on our democracy, I am sure that you will insist that Ignatieff fulfill his PROMISE to 'coalesce' with these two parties.

About the myth that Ignatieff was "the last one" to sign the coersion-allition pact here is the truth - Ignatieff's name is THIRD of the Liberals.
THIRD!!!! Amongst 77.
Got that media. He was not a reluctant aw chucks gotta think about this with my big brain and finally gave tepid approval by signing.

He signed THIRD!!! That's being pretty eager don't you think???

Especially considering he probably had his own coup to take over the Liberal party without a vote already in place.

Ted my dear friend, quit trying to look at the world through rose coloured glasses. There are things in this world that mere PMs cannot control like the global economy.

If mommy can't get you your new Playstation for Christmas because she can't afford it, it isn't lying even if she promised. It's life and there is no Santa for the Canadian economy.

Adapting to changing circumstances is not lying. Promising to abolish the GST and then denying he ever said that is lying, unless you are Jean Crouton.

As far as wait times, I have some personal experience in that field: I know of at least one province that received millions a while back to reduce wait times but have yet to spend a cent, except for "consultants" and committees. Can't fault the feds for that.

There has also been more than a few changes and reforms that have died or been religated to limbo in the senate by partisan politics.

I think the minimum age to be appointed to the senate is something like 35. I suggest appointing young conservatives as the leftards wouldn't be able to replace them with other leftards for 4 decades. Stack the senate so it will be conservative forever or until they're elected - whichever comes first.

Seen it on 'CTV' news last night. The spin on PMSH is breaking another promise. No matter what PMSH does it's wrong, so he may as well fill the Senate seats with Conservatives. I personally don't agree with the way Senate is set up, but until he has a majority for 4 years he can not make whole sale changes. They are already spinning the Conservatives as right wing, next it will be 'extremely right wing'.

ET:

Stop playing semantics.

Here is what Harper said: "A conservative government will not appoint to the senate anyone who does not have a mandate directly from Canadians." He has also stated flat out that appointments would have to wait until his election process was in place.

That is a promise. Repeated over and over by Harper. There are no "as long as my legislation gets passed"

They already have appointed to the senate two people who do not have a mandate directly from Canadians and Harper is proposing to appoint to the senate 18 MORE Canadians who do not have a mandate directly from Canadians.

A 'promise' is made by someone with the expectation that it can be fulfilled. You can't make a promise about something over which you, alone, have no control.

That is not correct. Look it up in any dictionary. A promise is a declaration assuring that one will or will not do something.

By contrast, a "reckless promise" is a promise about something over which you, alone, have no control.

A "lie", however, is making a promise about something that you know you cannot or will not deliver on.

"If mommy can't get you your new Playstation for Christmas because she can't afford it, it isn't lying even if she promised."

But it is a broken promise. That is all I've said. It was also a reckless promise just to curry favour with your kid. It is bad parenting to make promises you can't fulfill, that you know you can't fulfill.

Ted,

Squawk, squawk, squawk.

Harper is required by the dictates of reality to play the game the way it was set up for the liberals by the liberals and the media with the rules they wanted which were designed to benefit themselves exclusively. Then you lot, who set the rules, whine that Harper has made use of them for reasons you don't agree with. Boo fricken hoo.

The simple, ugly truth is that Preston (and to a lesser extent Kim Campbell) were destroyed by the liberal system for the unforgivable sin of telling the truth and not lying with the sociopath's believability.

Harper has one choice: appoint senators or risk the liberals doing it. Harper doesn't have the power to keep his promise. If he did, are you suggesting he wouldn't do it? If you concede that Harper didn't keep his promise solely because he couldn't, then your point is moot.

As for lying in elections, truth kills. We, as an electorate, beg and demand that our politicians lie to us. The politicians who lie with the sweetest forked tongues win. We punish those who tell us the truth - especially unpleasant truth. We all know this.

Yet your faux-outrage doesn't seem to carry over to your guys who don't even pepper their lies with remote - if rare - grains of truth. They lie deliberately yet only Harper should be held accountable.

The liberals have made division, skulduggery, manipulations, and thug-politics the central (only?) plank of their existence for decades but only Harper is considered "mean" and "partisan."

This, Ted, is why we hate you (and all the other lawyers, journalists and liberals)

Nope, ted, you are the one who is playing with semantics. Those words by Harper are his agenda. You can't make a promise that can't be fulfilled.

And you still haven't answered my questions; How is Harper to get his AGENDA of an elected and accountable Senate through, when your party in particular, doesn't want such an agenda, and refuses to allow an elected and accountable Senate? How about answering my questions?

You see, ted, you are operating within the Liberal mindset of politics, which sees the government as a Ruling Party rather than a Political Party. A Ruling Party operates by sovereign decree and to hell with opposition. A Political Party acknowledges the MPs who act as MPs, ie, representing the electorate. Harper doesn't operate as a Sovereign, but as a politician bound by rules.

Your Party, the Liberals, operates only as a Ruling Party; it does not acknowledge the electorate. By the way - the electorate want an elected and limited term Senate. Your MPs don't. Hmm.

Your Party, the Liberals, has signed an undemocratic agreement that rejects the electorate and inserts the Bloc as the 'Maxwell's Demon' controller of the government, so that your Party can Rule. Hmm. Oh, and set it up so that your coalition won't go to the electorate for their approval. Hmm. How's that for sovereignty?

Again, ted, what can a leader do to fulfill his stated agenda, when the other parties oppose the will of the people - and refuse to allow for an elected, limited term, and accountable Senate?

So I take it Ted that your are impressed with what the lietards did when they asked 800 reps. to who should lead the lietards in the next election.

Thanks "Marie' for that. The media spin was he was the last to sign.

Good one 'Warwick'. If you have to do it. Do it right.

"They are already spinning the Conservatives as right wing, next it will be 'extremely right wing'."
~Merle Underwood

"Right wing" is the new euphemism for ELECTED.
"Extremely right wing" will come to mean elected with a majority.

note:
Wikipedia lists the NDP as "center Left".
:)

"Harper doesn't have the power to keep his promise"

So why did he make the promise in the first place???

Harper will say anything to the Canadian voter if he thinks it will get him into power and he will do anything - like cancel opposition days and cancel Parliament - if he thinks he needs to to keep power.

Ted,

"So why did he make the promise in the first place???"

Oh, let me open up my crystal ball and hazard a guess... let's see now, here it is... it's clearing up... Yup. The plan was to get a F'ING MAJORITY. Generally one makes promises based on the assumption that you'll be elected with a majority and thus the power to make your plan happen.

Without a majority, no promise can be kept unless it corresponds with the promises or convenience of the other parties.

I don't have to explain math as well. Do I? No Majority = all bets are off. You do what you can until you have the majority.

"he will do anything - like cancel opposition days and cancel Parliament - if he thinks he needs to keep power."

Gee, who does this sound like... thinking... it's right on the tip of my tongue... oh! I got it! It sounds like you are describing PAUL MARTIN. You know, the guy who lost 5 confidence votes and just pretended they didn't happen until he had bribed some opposition members into his cabinet to stave off a 6th confidence motion. You know that time the media shilled for him and pretended those lost money-bill votes and non-confidence amendments weren't actually non-confidence votes? 5 TIMES.

Now I'm not suggesting that Harper hasn't also attempted to cajole the opposing benchwarmers to cross but if Harper had lost a vote that smelled something like the kind of thing an illiterate journalist might mistake for a confidence vote then the median, the opposition and all of their leftarded like-minded shills would have demanded the coalition be coronated without another moment's hesitation.

Spare me the hypocrisy. Harper is playing by Liberal rules and you Liberals can't stand it.

Well, if you expect Harper to play by the former rules you shouldn't have changed them when it suited you. So sod off about it now.

PM Harper said during the election campaign that since he is having trouble getting any cooperation on Senate reform from any of the other parties and ESPECIALLY not the Senators that he may have to put this oon hold while tackling the more immediate problems with the worldwide economic collapse.

He said that the inequities in the Senate with such an overwhelming Liberal majority had to be addressed and he would address it.

People who were listening and voted for the Conservatives knew he was going to do this.

It was also alluded to in the Throne Speech, I believe, which was passed by the majority of the HOuse which had CONFIDENCE in him on the THurday night they passed the Throne speech while on the Friday they were plotting their coup because of NON CONFIDENCE.

Cynical?

Oh, let me open up my crystal ball and hazard a guess... let's see now, here it is... it's clearing up... Yup. The plan was to get a F'ING MAJORITY. Generally one makes promises based on the assumption that you'll be elected with a majority and thus the power to make your plan happen. Without a majority, no promise can be kept unless it corresponds with the promises or convenience of the other parties. I don't have to explain math as well. Do I? No Majority = all bets are off. You do what you can until you have the majority.

Warwick, that doesn't make any sense. The minority House passed all of Harper's senate reform bills just as much as a Harper majority would have.

And please keep up with the talking points. Your fellow commenters here have been whining that it is the senate's fault that Harper has not put a process in place or even discussed with the Premiers a process to have elected senators.

No, ted, you are missing the point. The Liberals objected to Senate Reform. Got that? Liberals.

The House passed Senate term limits, with the Liberals knowing full well that the Senate Liberals would refuse it.

The House passed the Accountability Act, with the Liberals knowing full well that the Senate Liberals would refuse it.

They were abusing the parliamentary process, using the unelected Senate to fulfill THEIR agenda, which was to keep the Senate as an unelected power broker for their patronage appointments.

Then, the LIBERAL and Red Tory govts of Ontario, Quebec, Nfld, NB, claimed that they insisted on a constitutional opening of the question.

Now, would you, yet again, please answer my question. How do you fault Harper for being unable to fulfil his agenda of a reformed Senate when the House and Senate refuse to support this agenda?

ET, Warwick et al:

Please - you know better. Ted tries to promote himself as a legitimate Liberal (as if such a thing exists) but we all should know by now that he is nothing but a disgusting troll. A somewhat clever troll but disgusting nevertheless.

I don't know why anyone bothers trying to have a rational discussion with Ted (and his ilk) when time and time again he's proven himself to be totally incapable of grasping even the simplest of points. He's the poster boy for the saying "if it weren't for double standards he wouldn't have any."

Van/BCer: I'm just holding up a mirror so you folks can see what you've become in two short years. I once had very high hopes for Martin, so I can understand how difficult it is to be forced to see your party and your leader for what they really are when it is so much easier to pretend that there is still some small part of Harper/CPC circa 2005 left somewhere in Ottawa.

I wonder if Harper has considered having some candidates move from under-represented provinces to Quebec and the maritime provinces in order to somewhat equalize the numbers per province. I bet that there are no rules prohibiting a senator from moving to another province once appointed. If we can not have an elected senate perhaps we can work toward a more equal senate. Of course, I thought that removing the $1.95 subsidy was a brilliant idea.

Yeah Gus, I figured cutting the $1.95 handout was a good way to start to show that the government was being prudent with our tax dollars. Just like the $50 million in "arts" cuts that were in fact just getting rid of programs that had finished their original objectives.(btw, nobody ever mentions that most of that money went back into other programs but that's another rant.)

Danny Williams for Senator!!

Electing the Senate is a bad idea. If 62% of voters dont vote Conservative what is the point of electing Liberal senators. The NDP wont run candidates because they want the Senate eliminated so the 62% would elect Liberals. What a dumb idea!!

Hate to say it, but Ted is right and ET IS playing with semantics here with her creative distinction between agenda and promise.

He DID say he would appoint no senator who had not been elected. Period. Obviously this is why the seats had been left vacant.

Here's a promise he could have made and which he would not now be breaking:
"One of my top priorities will be the reform of the senate which will include, inter alia, the election of senators. Only if I fail to pass this legislation will I appoint a senator who has not been elected.

In this instance, only if he failed to make these efforts would he have broken a promise.

Let's man up and just admit he broke a promise as a justified reaction to a completely inappropriate coaltion which included a party whose main objective is the destruction of the country. And maybe regret his rookie utopian naivety.

One must be very careful operating on principles when none of the opposing parties ever do. Politics is no place for principles. Leave those to the philosophers and moralists.

There's no guarantee that the stooges are dead yet. First there was Moe, Larry and Curley, now we have Moe, Curley, and Shep! Best to fill those seats (as I said a week or more ago), to Keep as many conservatives in, and the BQ and Ellie May out.

sorry, me no dhimmi, an agenda and a promise are two different things. You cannot make promises in a political campaign; you only make agendas.

IF you achieve a majority, THEN, your agendas can be accepted as commitments to be fulfilled.
IF you don't achieve a majority, THEN, there is no way that your agenda can be considered as a commitment - because it can't be fulfilled.

I think that's pretty simple. Your verbiage is simply the articulation of the above two sentences.

Since he was elected with a minority, and since the Senate is stacked with Liberals, THEN, he could not get any Senate reform, despite his several attempts. So, I absolutely disagree that he 'broke his promise'. That would only be a valid conclusion IF he had the opportunity to fulfil such a promise.

Again, ted still hasn't explained what he expected Harper to do to fulfil that so-called promise, when the House and the Senate refused to reform that Senate.

Again, I think it's very important to differentiate between a promise and an agenda. You can only make a promise when you have the power to fufill it. Otherwise, it is an agenda, a plan, a goal.

I object to politicians telling us voters that they 'promise to fix the economy', promise to end poverty in ten years', promise to stop global warming, promise to....whatever. These cannot, ever, be promises, and I'm tired of the rhetoric, by both the speaker and the listener, that assumes that they are.

They are agendas, goals, intentions, and as real actions affected by complex other realities from other parts of a nation and from other nations, are vulnerable to other realities that impinge on their end result.

"You cannot make promises in a political campaign; you only make agendas."

Has anything more ludicrous ever been said by any partisan, left or right? Honestly here, folks.

So McGuinty did not break a promise not to raise taxes, he only had an agenda not to raise taxes????

So Chretien did not break a promise to cancel the GST, he honly had an agenda to cancel the GST???

So Conservatives were making stuff up when they put up "Promise Made. Promise Kept." ads because they did not make promises during an election, just made agendas????

Read a dictionary, ET.

Again, ted still hasn't explained what he expected Harper to do to fulfil that so-called promise

I have time and time again. He could have kept his promise and not appointed unelected senators. Period. Just like his promise to keep spending in control: no one forced him to go on historic record-breaking spending sprees.

No one is forcing him to appoint senators. If principle mattered to this PM, he simply would stand up for his principle to make a bigger point to the public. But he has none anymore. In fact, the senate tried to make him appoint senators earlier in this term and he attacked the senate for doing so saying that the senate had no legitimacy. What an affront to our Constitution.

We will know Harpers plans for the Senate by who he chooses.
This was of course unavoidable in light of this weeks freak show. A mixture of The Rocky horror show & SAW 3 ™.
Harper is a Fox, in a den of dull witted Dino‘s.

I'll bet Peter Wolstencroft, a professor from Waterloo (I think) isn't asked back to comment on CTV again: he had the temerity to both keep his cool altogether and state that it's entirely constitutional—reasonable too!—for the PM to name 18 senators to the empty seats.

On Mike Duffy Live just now, the commentator from Calgary (sorry, I can’t recall her name) made it clear that PMSH is NOT abandoning his commitment to Senate reform at all: all the new appointees will be required to sign an agreement to step down and run for their seat if there is a time when Senate openings are to be elected.

From the spin of the lefties, I don’t understand why they don’t just abandon day to day, rational life and become certifiable whirling dirvishes.

ulianov @ 1:34 “So much for the Triple E senate...these flip flops keep getting better and better.”
These are not flip flops they are prudent measures.
Oct 15,2008 Globe & Mail : Newly-re-elected Prime Minister Stephen Harper today served notice that he will stack the Senate with Tory appointments if necessary to push through democratic reforms of the chamber.
Throne Speech 2008. Our Government will introduce legislation to move toward representation by population in the House of Commons for Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. Legislation will also be introduced to allow for nominees to the Senate to be selected by voters, to serve fixed terms of not longer than eight years, and for the Senate to be covered by the same ethics regime as the House of Commons.
I am delighted that PMSH is steadfast in his goal of a reformed Senate; we needed this step, a balanced Senate to pass the laws to reform its self. No Senate at all would be an improvement over their performance in the last 2 decades. PMSH will balance and reform the Senate, his predecessors should have done so, but they were lesser men. He will appoint people of quality. The “Old Guard” in the Senate will actually have to come to work most days.
In the fiscal update they said they would be appointing Senators, I think this is another proof that the Conservatives knew that the Liberals were bartering away our democracy (and Senatorial seats ) in their hidden agenda. Parliament could have fallen with the seats vacant; it still could fall, those seats must not be empty!

lookout: That was Joan Bryden. She made a lot of sense, unlike that CTV reporter, whatshisname, who said Harper has a lot of 'splaining to do.

He has no choice, it has to be done. Even with those seats filled it's still 58 Libs to 38 Cons & if he were to leave them open the Liberals would have them filled in a flash. With then 77 Liberal Senate seats - senate reform will be dead for another 100 years.
Filling them now is the way to go. This coalition is far from dead & even if they rule for a very short time - they can do a lot of damage. The senate has to be protected from their sticky fingers.

"He has no choice, it has to be done.

I see your point. Trudeau had a whole bunch of vacancies that he had to fill just before his last term in office was to end as well, and it had to be all his Liberal cronies. Mulroney was wrong. Turner didn't have a choice.

Interesting that at the same time that Harper is breaking one of his fundamental promises and principles, he's also :

Patronage speeds up in 2008

OTTAWA - The Harper government has made more than 500 appointments to federal boards, tribunals and commissions this year, including a batch just after the fiscal update triggered an opposition uproar that threatened to topple the Conservatives.

The Tories have given out 56 per cent more jobs in 2008 than in their first year in office. [...]

The figure does not include the 18 Senate seats, the most coveted of federal plums, that Prime Minister Stephen Harper plans to fill before Christmas. [...]

In 2006, they made only 360 appointments. Some complained that delays in staffing immigration boards were slowing the processing of cases and leaving applicants waiting longer for decisions on their immigration status.

By Dec. 4 of this year, the cabinet had made 561 appointments to these types of jobs.

At least Trudeau had governed for 16 years and Mulroney had governed for almost 9 before the pork barrelling got under way big time. Harper hasn't even been at it for 3 years! As his supporters have said, the Conservatives are getting done in 2 years what it took the Liberals 13 years to do (or 16 in the case of Trudeau and 8 in the case of Mulroney)!

Not sure what happened to the link there. A sentence was dropped. That should have been:

Interesting that at the same time that Harper is breaking one of his fundamental promises and principles, he's also turning into Mulroney in other ways:

Problem is that Ottawa 76ers are just like the scum lurking in the parking lots this time of year. If they see something to steal, they will steal it.

"Harper would ask anyone he appoints to agree to step down and run in a Senate election if new legislation is ever implemented."

HAHA, so senators are expected to step down if a democratic system is put in place?

Funny, I remember Harper losing the confidence of the DEMOCRATICALLY elected House. So where is the respect for democracy?

pdge - no, the House may have been democratically elected, but a vote by a coalition, which was not elected by the people as a coalition is not a democratic act. Furthermore, this coalition of two parties is unable to defeat the Conservatives; therefore, they signed an agreement with a political party, the Bloc, which is electorally out of the reach of over 80% of Canadians to support them, without even reading the Motion. That is not democratic.

Perhaps you think that IF the MPs were voted in, THEN, their subsequent behaviour would always be democratic. Not true.