The PM needed an absolute majority in the Senate before June 2nd, to get the chairmanship of committees. Without these 3, the liberals could still have had chairmanships and been able to stall legislation or change it. Chairmanships are only changed after an election or prorogation. The PM could not allow liberals to stall and defeat everything for 4 yrs. Even if 2 of the 3 new ones resign within a few months, those chairmanships can’t be changed. There are around 15 vacancies to occur within 5 yrs.
h/t Gord Tulk
Doesn’t matter Kate. Problem is not that he appointed 3 senators. I’d have been fine with anyone else. It’s that he appointed THESE 3, that had been just defeated only two weeks ago, and had just resigned from the Senate to run. There weren’t 3 other people he could have appointed? I expect this kind of disregard for democracy from a Chretien or a Martin. I shouldn’t have to expect it from Harper.
I know that “losers don’t get to form coalitions”, but apparently they get to form the Senate.
John g – I do not share your anger at this. These are capable people, and being appointed to the Senate should not be impeded by having lost in there ridings. Their appointments do not in any way take away from those who were elected. Moreover, I doubt that the three were personally targeted — it was rather a rejection of the Conservative brand. Manning in particular has done a lot for his community and I see no reason to penalize him — particularly since he took a risk in an attempt to serve his community as a strong Conservative candidate. I have no problem with any of these appointments. I see resenting the appointments as somewhat vindictive.
I have no idea why anyone cares. The senate has always been filled with defeated candidates, this is not new. If anything this is efficient as they have been there before.
In some ways the senate is a nice thing to have as it allows for gradual change policies when a new majority government comes to power. You almost have to earn the right, over time, to implement your policies. This could make legislation less opposite to previous governments, so that you cannot just undo 5 years or more of work in a few months.
In the case of an NDP lead coalition, the senate would have saved us from bizzaro legislation which could have hurt us very quickly, and the effects of which could have lasted for years. As you can see, it almost helps to stop idiot voters who have no idea what they are voting for to take a step back and reconsider what they really want.
Yes it is hilariously undemocratic. But if geniuses like Robert Fife want it abolished, I think we should maybe reconsider. It is similar to getting rid of the GG. Would we be better off?
I think having an elected senate would be too complicated and cause constant backlogs of legislation. I really don’t know what the solution is.
It’s no secret that Canada will soon have an elected senate.
John g makes the argument for Harper, since his outrage seems focused on the fact that the three appointed senators were defeated in the recent election.
Hold a senate election and the winner gets in. It does not have to be somebody from the prime minister’s party who gets elected.
Simple enough?
Seems to me that the Conservative government’s efforts to reform the Senate have for years been frustrated by the opposition, who now object to the government playing by the old rules. Game on.
The reason the PM Harper appointed these three defeated candidates to the senate is perfectly understandable and as Iceman says it allows the Conservatives to appoint the Chairmanships. However, the Prime Minister had better make serious moves to reform the senate now that he will have control of it or he risks alienating some of his base.
Appointing these three makes sense. All of them are prominent public figures in Their region/province and all will likely run for Their senate seat once elections are enabled.
What disturbs menus how it was announced. The PMO should IMO have been forthright in their reasoning – the realpolitik of it. This is how such things are discussed in the US and it is precisely what the media in Canada turns a blind eye towards when it suits their political agenda/bias.
Your a champ, Champ!
The optics may look bad, but the move insures that the government can govern without interference from a party that was severely rejected in the election. Allowing the Liberals to have the power to stall bills passed by the House of Commons would be a travesty, especially since none of them were elected.
The media wants to spin this as the appointment of loosers, while the actual fact is they were defeated in their bid to obtain a seat in the House Of Commons, but these people were by no means loosers.
This is the bias of language by the opposition and media and not the relaying of the truth. I think it is time we hold our media to higher standards.
Why would an elected senate be so difficult?
Have fixed terms (like Harper’s appointments, only they’re elected by the people) and regular elections.
Bring the Senate back to 10 per province. That would mean the Senate is a body that could check on federal encroachment into provincial jurisdictions (remember that next time the NDP is howling about health care, a provincial responsibility).
Next project would be to have true representation by population in the House of Commons.
There are now entrenched imbalances in the House, which should be corrected and which would more accurately reflect the will of the people.
There’s a better explanation: Parallax -The effect whereby the position or direction of an object appears to differ when viewed from different positions; An apparent shift in the position of an object, such as a star, caused by a change in the observer’s position that provides a new line of sight.
“Our government will continue to push for a more democratic, accountable and effective Senate.”
You see when Harper was in Opposition democracy appeared to him as electoral and Senate reform, the possibility of coalitions, the need to be transparent, tell the truth and be accountable.
When he formed government democracy suddenly shifted and appeared differently to him (electoral reform, coalitions, accountability, truth became frivolous and inconvenient).
What’s scary is how democracy and parliament will look to Harper under the optics of a majority government.
What will be the parallax effect of winning a majority. These Senate appointments portend a scary shift in perspective. A complete reversal of what Harper used to think!
Harper already had an absolute majority in the Senate before he appointed these three.
He could have just left the seats vacant and saved taxpayers the wages.
A couple of more Mulroney moves like this and there will be hell to pay. People seem to be at a boiling point with Harper. They support the guy, but they are just cringing with expectations of disapointment.
This is the culmination of 18 years of grassroots conservative movement work and if Harper blows it, then conservatism could be dead for a generation.
Still it looks bad. Poor Optics
Bill:
If I knew you, I would bet against your fears.
Before long, senate vacancies will be elected.
That was not possible as long as the Conservatives were in a minority position in both the House and the Senate.
Now that they are in a majority position in both, just watch them.
Of course, those lifetime appointments that were in the Senate before Harper came to power will continue to be there.
But Harper’s appointments have all been with term limits.
How do you get an elected senate?
Look at Alberta’s example. You hold senate elections at the same time as provincial elections. Then you have a pool of senators-in-waiting.
When the next vacancy comes up, it gets filled with the senator who had the most votes in the previous election.
Simple.
Sorry Bill Stewart but I completely disagree with you. The fact is you deal with what you have been given not what you wish you had. If the provinces had got their poop in a pile and held senatorial elections these appointments would not be needed. Instead the provinces ignored the invitation to have a greater say on the federal stage and left the PM with no option but appoint senators. He can’t just leave the seats vacant.
At first glance, it looks like crap. Yes, he could have picked other people. But the smart-ass in me likes the fact that Quebec and Newfoundland got poked here a bit, in fact, I had a good laugh over that one. We don’t need them for a majority, we’ve tried to win them over and they still hate conservatives. Well, fine then…So, a senate majority was needed ASAP. Good, so that’s done. I’m also thinking that this is a damn fine way to get two provinces (who probably didn’t want senate reform) to want change so much that they WILL institute senate elections so they can pick their own damn senators. After all, I believe provinces have to institute senate elections if they want them, it cannot be mandated from on high by a PM. Change will come to the senate, slowly but surely. I’m sure Harper added these three with the proviso that yes, if their province does decide to have an election for senate seats, they will run (as he put forth for Wallin and Duffy, etc.) Now, I can’t see Harper sticking around after this term is finished (at least I hope he doesn’t). Nine years is a long time. He’ll likely want to hand off to a new leader around late in year 3 of his mandate. Good to get huge things like this out of the way quickly to lessen the impact a few years down the road.
The Concensus media never lets facts get in the way of their anti-Harper agenda, I find Jacks outrage and hysteria funny considering some of his Quebec MPs were on vacatio/staycation in foreign lands and actually won their vacant seats.
Shocked! I am SHOCKED! That the CBC, CTV, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and other news outlets that have legions of ‘political analysts’ at the ready could have possibly missed the reason for these appointments.
Preston Manning’s “Liberal, Tory, same old story” line: as true now as it was then….
We’re about 3 years away from guys taking cash in brown paper bags and Roman fountains appearing in Calgary Southwest.
any chance of ‘small step for man giant leap for mankind’ senate reform in the next 4 long years?
uh, any chance of the ‘mercuns reviving the lunar space program in the same time frame?
harper is nothing but a cookie cutter grade conservative.
slaw:
If I knew you, I would bet against your irrational fears.
Think this through. In three years, one year before the next election, guys would do things that would make sure they would not get re-elected?
Give your head a shake.
I see NDP and Libel trolls are busy at work on this board!
An elected Senate is a major platform of the CPC party going back to Reform days. The interesting aspect is that in all likelyhood a opposition Senator could be elected. Elected Senators with a more provincial outlook enhances provincial power but also undermines provincial Premiers. All so interesting. I suspect PMSH will want to get much of his platform passed before he moves in that direction.
If I remember correctly all Harper appointments are required to run for their Senate seat once the Senate is redefined and has elections. The Dippers and The Libs blocked all Senate reform, The Libs as it was loaded with Libs. , the Dips because they want an outright ban on the Senate. The US Senate was created to stop high population states from running roughshod over smaller states. The Canadian Senate reform should moderate the effects of Ontario and DipBec.
So these three losers were the only eligible Conservatives in the country? Pretty lame excuse.
Had the opposition gone along with Senate reform, the appointment of these Senators would not have happened. The system is what it is. And until it is changed, it is absolutely acceptable to use it to your advantage. Do you think for one minute that the opposition wouldn’t do the same thing?
Fister:
With elections, only winners would get to be in the Senate.
Thanks for making Harper’s argument for him.
The premiers of NFLD, Quebec, and Ontario all had the opportunity to give their people a say in who would be their next senator(s). They all vindictively refused so that they could not allow Harper to say he had an elected senate. Payback.
I had a small side discussion with Indiana Homez in another thread yesterday. The discussion revolved not around the idea of Senate Reform but around the priority of Senate Reform. I was arguing that represenatation by population reform should come first.
Therefore, I disagree with the order of items with set you free at 10:28.
This other web site should make clear the massive imbalance within Canada in regards to representation by population. Some relevant statistics (average size of a riding by population) from the Wikipedia site.
Ontario 114,720
Quebec 100,615
B Columbia 114,264
Alberta 117,513
Manitoba 82,029
Saskatchewan 69,154
Nova Scotia 83,042
New Brunswick 73,000
Newfoundland 72,209
Prince Edward Island 33,963
So, “Set You Free,” all that talk about Senate reform, cleaning up Ottawa, etc. was just guff to get your turn at the trough. My, my. Some of us actually believed it and voted for Preston Manning and the Reform Party. Silly us.
Don’t like patronage appointments? — Vote for elected Senators.
Lloyd:
Incorrect assumption on your part.
Elections are now possible with majorities in both the House and the Senate. They were not possible when the Senate had a Conservative minority.
Any senator Harper has appointed has a term limit of eight years, which is a huge improvement on the senator-for-life. And, any senator Harper appointed would have to stand for election.
So, let me make an assumption about your stance: it seems you are against a democratically-elected senate and you will resist any attempt at change.
Piss or get off the pot. Elected senate or not?
Any senators appointed by Harper need to run in an election concurrent with a provincial election or not?
Just trying to get a sense what your solution would be.
BTW. Bitchiness does not equal intelligence.
Posted by: Brent Weston at May 19, 2011 11:25 AM
There’s a logical reason for senate first/rep by pop second.
The senate would be a body elected in provincial elections and therefore is set up to look after provincial interests.
That would negate the “bigger provinces can bully us around’ argument, since PEI would have the same punch as Ontario.
Once that’s established, it would be easier to settle the rep by pop issue, such as Quebec’s guaranteed 75 seats and PEI’s guaranteed four.
If you did rep by pop first, see we’re going to be bullied about.
As BW alluded to, I am a large supporter of Senate Reform, but I also support rep by pop(obviously).
All of that said, I support PMSH stacking the deck at all levels and instituting as much Conservative fiscal policy (legacy policy I hope). In my view, individual provinces have had ample opportunity to elect SiW which PMSH would have a difficult time not appointing. The way I see it, the Conservatives carried all of the Provinces (except Quebec) and those provinces would have likely elected Conservative Senators regardless.
The Left is whining as they are want to do, Jack is outraged as he is want to be; but, with all of the whining and outrage that we’re bound to hear in the next 4 years, I suspect Canadians will be deaf to the shrieks of horror from the Left.
@set you free – I introduce you to the new head of ACOA: Bernard Valcourt. Nothing says new and improved like bringing back ministers from Mulroney’s corruptocrat cabinet to run pork agencies. We’ve already got the gazebos in the middle of nowhere. Just matter of time till it gets worse.
I voted Tory, so I can’t much complain, but if you think Harper’s boys are that much different from Chretien’s or Mulroney’s you’re in for a major disappointment.
Lloyd,
“Some of us actually believed it and voted for Preston Manning and the Reform Party”
You live out east and would never have voted for Reform.
Why pretend you are something you are not?
slaw:
I fully understand all political parties are populated by human beings.
So, “Set You Free,” all that talk about Senate reform, cleaning up Ottawa, etc. was just guff to get your turn at the trough. My, my. Some of us actually believed it and voted for Preston Manning and the Reform Party. Silly us.
Posted by: Lloyd Fister at May 19, 2011 11:46 AM
I have a high degree of respect for Mr. Manning and would still prefer to see him over Harper as the PM. However, that does not mean that Reform had everything correct. I think the American model is a good one; it has both a rep-by-pop House and a EEE Senate. Although rep-by-pop should come first, I think Reform got the part right about advancing the argument for a EEE. The part they got wrong was the way they wanted to bring it about.
The Equal part of the Senate cannot happen without constitutional change. I never bought into Manning’s argument that it could ever happen. I doubt ON would ever give up their advantage, but Quebec? We all know how that would turn out. The Elected part is dangerous without the Equal part. Why? Because once the Elected part is in place, the Effective part comes into play and comes into higher demand. We are not afraid of Elected and we actually want Effective, but we only want Elected and Effective when we get Equal. We do not want an Effective and Elected Senate that is not Equal. All three need to come at the same time. It really is an all or nothing thing.
Yes, I think Mr. Manning got a lot of things right. I do not think this is one of them. EEE is preferable to the status quo. The status quo is preferable to an Elected and Effective Senate that continues in the current unequal distributions.
I also think it would be naive to think that if you got one or even two of the three “E”s, you would necessarily get the third. You have to ask, what would make ON give up approximately 25% of Senate seats to get 10%. Maybe (and I am not being sarcastic) we could catch them on a good day. Maybe not. Quebec? What would make them give up approximately 25% of the Senate seats in exchange for 10%? …..
EEE is a very good idea. It is, I think, a practical impossibility because of the constitutional problems. If you cared to read my arguments on the other thread, I also do not think EEE is such a big deal anymore. EEE was always an item of significant interest only to western conservatives. Western conservatives no longer have such a need for a EEE. That fact does not somehow make a previously good idea now a bad idea. No, it just makes the accepting of the fact we will not get a EEE anytime soon not such a big deal.
Finally, based upon the current and unpleasant realities, Mr. Harper did the right thing under the circumstances.
Little Warren sure ain’t very happy!
Brent:
10 senators per province. Equal.
The House is rep by pop. The Senate is rep by province.
It’s really not all that complicated.
The House is rep by pop. The Senate is rep by province.
It’s really not all that complicated.
Posted by: set you free at May 19, 2011 12:39 PM
I belive this is where your greatest error lies. Perhaps you mean the way things should be. They are not that way now.
The HOC can be made rep-by-pop by legislation; it would require an increase to the seats in the HOC so that the constitutional minimums you refer to have no practical effect. This is why this needs to be first.
The Senate is not rep by province; it is rep-by-region; it was designed that way.
From the Constituion of Canada:
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html
22. In relation to the Constitution of the Senate Canada shall be deemed to consist of Four Divisions:–
1. Ontario;
2. Quebec;
3. The Maritime Provinces, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island;
4. The Western Provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta;
which Four Divisions shall (subject to the Provisions of this Act) be equally represented in the Senate as follows: Ontario by twenty-four senators; Quebec by twenty-four senators; the Maritime Provinces and Prince Edward Island by twenty-four senators, ten thereof representing Nova Scotia, ten thereof representing New Brunswick, and four thereof representing Prince Edward Island; the Western Provinces by twenty-four senators, six thereof representing Manitoba, six thereof representing British Columbia, six thereof representing Saskatchewan, and six thereof representing Alberta; Newfoundland shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by six members; the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by one member each.
In the case of Quebec each of the Twenty-four Senators representing that Province shall be appointed for One of the Twenty-four Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada specified in Schedule A. to Chapter One of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada.(12)
From the 1982 Charter (Sections 38 and 42):
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html
38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by
(a) resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons; and
(b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of the provinces.
(2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1).
(3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment.
(4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.
42. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):
(a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d) subject to paragraph 41(d), the Supreme Court of Canada;
(e) the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and
(f) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces;
(2) Subsections 38(2) to 38(4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to matters referred to in subsection (1).
I suppose, depending upon your definition of “really not all that complicated”.
Note to bloviating Mr. Layton: The recent appointments are no less “democratic” than any other Senate appointments. Your frothing in a media interview and the wailing and hyperventilating of the usual suspects in the MSM does not change that. The fact that these three people actually bothered to present themselves for election to the HOC and have previously engaged in public service, if anything, makes these appointments more democratic than the usual appointments of bagpeople and other assorted hangers-on.
If you are seriously concerned about “democracy”, Mr. Layton, why doesn’t your party nominate for election to the HoC well-informed candidates in all ridings who are seriously committed to winning election and are not merely placeholders to scoop up $2 per vote per year.
Gee, how surprising. Harper senate appointments explained by the fact that Stevie had an important reason for it and knows what the hell he’s doing. Amazing!
The cherry on top is Robert W.’s contribution, Warnout “Special K” Kantsellya isn’t happy. The lamentation of the trolls adds beautiful background music.
Man, I can hardly wait for the CPC to jerrymander the ridings so the NDPee and the Libs are in the minority forever. It’ll be -awesome-.
I guess Harper’s had a rethink on the whole losers don’t get to form government (which of course was an incorrect statement and Stevie argued as much in his Opposition days), they simply now get straight passage to a cushy lifetime gig full of perks.
What happened to the meritocracy upon which Conservative ideology of free market and self-reliance are supposedly constructed?
Blah blah.. Harper is a big meany! And undemocratic too! Rise up Canada, RISE UP!!!
Sorry lefties, but it’s finally time for you to suck it. Senate reform wasn’t OK when full of Liberasts, but now it’s crucial… yeah.
Harper appoints these three losers to the Senate after promising to reform it, and also creates one of the largest cabinets (39 members) in the history of our government.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, he’s just another politician making empty promises.
When a Conservative senator gets his wings, a concern troll cries.
8=^(
Not a good move, as some of us have said all along, when you accept shortcomings here and there on a regular basis, it’s really just part of the eventual process of inevitable (and so far postponed) disillusionment on larger, non-negotiable issues where nobody can credibly rationalize any further. That time is coming sooner than you might wish or acknowledge, with the countdown to the omnibus crime legislation and some of the darker details concerning your internet freedom.
This is the Harper m.o. perfectly illustrated, to announce high principles one moment, and to act in an entirely cynical and uncaring way the next.
What we have, basically, is a competent finance minister raised above his real station, and using the last refuge of the scoundrel, patriotism, to avoid real discussion of his policies. The campaign fooled many, but will the government that follows continue to fool you? Time will tell.
Its going to take more than a few years to dismantle the Entitled elite paradise for LIberals, that Harper inherited.
Forty years of crooked governence is hard to break down. I include the Mulronities in that score as well.
Harper has done an almost impossible thing in making Canada the Worlds most solid finachial center, evewn wityh the American crash. My only worry is his clining to the kangaroo court HRC’s & giving them even more power.
The Senate will be changed but I now favor candidates picked aftert an election by the Province. The American Senate has become to attached to Washington. They represent not thier States but themselves. We can do better.
JMO
I went to my first Reform Party meeting in Orillia in 1991 and voted Reform in 1993. And I think what Harper is doing is no better than what Mulroney did.
Sorry, I haven’t really had time to care about this senate in a teacup. I’m too busy dancing a continual jig over the 4 upcoming appointments to the Supreme Court and contemplating the rest of my adult life being spent in peace not having to worry about activist judges “reading things into” the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.