Harper would have to appoint 34 Senators to dominate Upper Chamber (2)
Posted on 27 October 2008 by Jack
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who recently said he is ready to appoint Senators to reflect his Conservative agenda if the Liberal-dominated Senate delays legislation, would have to appoint 34 Conservatives between now and 2010 before the Tories would dominate the Upper Chamber.
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.
During the 2006 election campaign, Senate reform was part of the Conservative platform. Prime Minister Harper (Calgary Southeast, Alta.) said he would not make any appointments to the Senate unless they were done through a “democratically legitimate” process. He has made two appointments, former International Trade minister Michael Fortier, who resigned from the Senate to run in the 2008 election but was defeated, and Bert Brown, who ran in three Alberta Senatorial elections and won.
The day after the election, Prime Minister Harper changed his view on the issue, saying he would make appointments if the Senate was obstructing legislation coming from the elected House of Commons. “We are looking for the opportunity to elect Senators, but if at some point it becomes clear some Senators are not going to be elected, the government will name Senators to ensure that the elected will of the House of Commons and the people of Canada is reflected in the Senate.”
Nova Scotia Conservative Senator Don Oliver, who will retire in 2013, told The Hill Times last week that he agreed with the Prime Minister’s approach. Sen. Oliver said the Liberal-dominated Senate has been uncooperative with the government and that more Conservative Senators would be helpful.
“[Mr. Harper] can’t understand why the opposition in the Senate that represents a party that has lost the last two elections would want to thwart the will of the elected people in the Lower Chamber,” Sen. Oliver said. “If there’s going to be major government legislation coming to the Senate, if there were more hands and eyes to work on it from the government side, that would be a benefit to the government.”
Update: Worthington: All for e-e-equality
Note: 7:19 pm and “gone”. Bob McLelland is picking on me today and that must mean I have his attention. I’ll leave my readers to deal with him.
Goodnight.
Popularity: 28% [?]
October 27th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Constitutional change is unlikely and without it the Senate will be just as ineffective regardless of the Bills passed to elect Senators. Harper should stack the place with Conservatives, after all it is supposed to be a Chamber of sober second thought, not another platform for goofy Liberals.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Harper, get busy…………. are you worried the Loon left are
going to smear your name ?
The loon left all ready call you Nazi this Bush that, so who gives a dam what these nutbars think.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Get those appointment in place NOW. Just maybe when the liberals see that their majority in the Senate is about to be lost they will vote for electing the Senate with term limits.
I just hope all those PMSH appoints are young so they will be there a loooooooooooooooong time.
You jut know that if Dion had won those seats would be filled yesterday.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Sort of puts Harper between a rock and one of them hard places doesn’t it? How, I wonder, will Conservative partisans rationalize the fact that his making senate appointments means breaking campaign promises.
Quite frankly this sort of thing tends to amuse me considerably. All political leaders break their campaign promises and I find it funny to see the lengths that partisans will go to to defend ‘their guy‘ breaking his promises while deriding ‘the other guy‘ for doing the same.
– what makes this event so special is that the partisans seem to be actually cheering their guy on to make a liar of himself.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:21 am
PMSH has give the canadian public and the liberals ample notice of his intention to change the senate. It is the liberals who have blocked every bill. We support the stacking of the Senate with conservatives as that is the only way people will wake up.
He has tried to fullfill his promises but liberals keep putting up roadblocks. Bills that are sent up for sober second thought have been amended, changed and they send them back as liberal agendas. Enough. Get those appointments made ASAP.
PMSH finally called Dion’s bluff and called an election.
Any appointments he makes would probably be subject to retirements if things change and they would stand for election.
Some would win some would lose. Even and NDP might get lucky.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Get crack a lackin’, Steve! Appoint, baby, Appoint!
What Timwest said is absolutely bang-on. No matter what you do, you can’t win with these losers, so go for it. Being nicey-nice to leftards doesn’t get you any votes anyway.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:40 am
“after all it is supposed to be a Chamber of sober second thought, not another platform for goofy Liberals.” Nor should it be another platform for the Conservatives.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:56 am
PMSH was also perfectly clear when he said that he was not going to appoint people to the Senate without a democratic process — and then, within days be being sworn in what did he do MaryT?
Yup, that’s exactly what he did…. and now he’s saying he’s gonna do it again, and again, and again, and again.
And as far as putting Canadians on notice have you failed to consider that he failed to convince half of those who voted, let alone half of Canada, that his ideas are the right ones?
Or because you agree with them does that not matter?
Other than the fact the you seem to agree with them MaryT, what is the difference between the LPoC speaking for a minority and forcing that view on the majority and the CPoC speaking for a minority and forcing that view on the majority?
Other than the fact that you seem to agree with them, why is it that the Liberals stacking the Senate to impose their will on the House is a bad thing, and the CPoC stacking the Senate to impose their will on the House is not?
From the non hyper-partisan (or even non partisan) point of view here it looks suspiciously like you are advocating that
[a] Stephen Harper break campaign promise
[b] the CPoC conduct themselves exactly as the LPoC did when they were in power
Is that correct?
October 27th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
In order to facilitate real change to the Senate this is the way to go, the Liberals can whine all they want, but these appointments would be for a limited time only ultimately resulting in a Senate that is elected and democratic.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Mayabe I agree with PMSH because I know him personally and have had several opportunities over the years to talk to him and many conservative MPs.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I think Bruce is right on target today. Two years and Harper could have control of the Senate. A couple of fast bills later it would be all over except for the crying coming from the Liberal benches.
I think he should do it and make it priority No 1.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
“Mayabe I agree with PMSH because I know him personally and have had several opportunities over the years to talk to him and many conservative MPs.”
And how exactly, MaryT, is that remotely relevant to stageleft’s question?
Oh, its not relevant at all…
The point remains - If it was wrong for the Liberals to stack the Senate over the years to force their minority view of the country and government on us, how is it OK and good for the Conservative’s to do the exact same thing?
How do you square that little circle?
Bruce,
Without a change to the Constitution (Canada Act 1982), anything that Harper does can be rescinded and ignored by future governments. The Senate, its make up and terms for Senators are encoded in the Constitution and would require the Constitution to be changed. See sections 21-36 of the BNA 1867 and specifically Section 29.1 and 29.2.
Anything Harper does is either breaking his own promises or a giant PR stunt that is meaningless.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
With control of both the House and the Senate anything is possible including a change in the Constitution.
Referendum anyone?
Point: I wouldn’t be to fast to tell Harper he can’t do something. Liberals and the media have been telling him that for years now (”Hey, you can’t do that!”)
He’ll just go ahead and do it anyway.
Bullshit baffles brains everytime.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Mike, do you really think that these changes wouldn’t be supported by the majority of Canadians and the Provinces?
The only people against such a change are the Liberal Senators and members of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Rubbing thumb and fore finger; tiny violin.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
You go MaryT- carry on here and on other blogs - dont let the bullies get you down.
I like what Bruce says too.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
On October 27th, 2008 @ 2:00PM Jack Spake Thusly: With control of both the House and the Senate anything is possible including a change in the Constitution.
Referendum anyone?
But that’s not the way it works is it Jack? Harper’s idea require (yes, requires) Constitutional changes, and there is a specific formula for that. Do you think that either Ontario or Quebec is going to approve that one single change without a few other things being changed in their favour?
That’s not the nature of the beast is it?
This sort of thing is one of the reasons it’s so difficult to change the Constitution…… or are CPoC partisans adding advocating for ignoring the Constitution to the list?
It’s a question that requires non partisan consideration, because if the current government gets away with it then all future governments will have the same authority - so ask yourself, are you actually willing to grant that sort of power to someone like Stephane Dion, Hack Layton, or Elizabeth May?
October 27th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Sometimes there isn’t much of a difference between war and politics and being fair to the enemy may be suicidal and the favour not returned when the balance of power is reversed.
Oh, rebalancing the senate to 50/50 or close too 50/50 Liberal/Conservative is unfair how !? Letting the Liberals back in to get the Senate to 80% Liberals would be fair to who exactly !
Doing it the right way by Electing Senators seems like the way to go if it was doable or abolishing the Senate might be even better but again any radical change means Constitutional changes that are almost impossible to make.
Another problem is that a fully elected Senate would have the political clout to legitimately block legislation and we would have like the U.S. two genuine houses of Parliament: This can be a good thing in limiting the power of a sitting P.M. or a formula for gridlock !? Sometimes gridlock would be a good thing LOL: Would be a very different political system and the dangers of unexpected consequences very real if how things would work wasn’t figured out before hand.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Jack,
Uhm, are you old enough to remember Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords? In case you don’t, they were both attempts at constitutional changes, both included referendums (depending on the province) and both failed miserably.
“Mike, do you really think that these changes wouldn’t be supported by the majority of Canadians and the Provinces?”
I think they wouldn’t be supported by the majority required by the Constitution to affect the change. An elected Senate is popular out west, but lots of folks in the east just want the whole thing abolished. I think there are enough people who would be against Harper’s vague plan for Senate reform on grounds OTHER than being a Liberal or a Senator to scuttle it.
And you can drop the violin. I am not nor have I ever been a Liberal. I am a market anarchist and a libertarian. I’d like to abolish the Senate AND the House of Commons, quite frankly. Despite that, I know the Canadian Constitution quite well and I can read it. Feel free to follow the link I provided earlier.
None of that changes the fact that in order to make real Senate reform, Harper will need to engineer a Constitutional change. Acting like the Liberal party and stacking the chamber with his cronies won’t cut it, no matter how much you guys whine about it.
I wouldn’t be to fast to tell Harper he can’t do something. Liberals and the media have been telling him that for years now (”Hey, you can’t do that!”)
He’ll just go ahead and do it anyway.
Bullshit baffles brains everytime.
Yawn. Isn’t the whole neo-con “we create our own reality…” prattle so 2003? You are right about one thing, it is bullshit.
Whether you guys like it or not, Stephen Harper cannot affect any long term change in the Senate - “democratic” or otherwise - by passing laws in the House of Commons and by stacking the Senate with Conservative appointees. Changes to the senate REQUIRE, pursuant to the Constitution Act 1982, a constitutional amendment passed not just by 7 provinces representing 50% of the population or more, but by unanimous consent of the provinces.
Good luck with that. If Stephen Harper really can do this, why doesn’t he just do it, instead of wasting 2 more years acting like the Liberals and stacking the Senate with his cronies?
This is just a PR stunt so Harper can try to get the kind of power that Chretien once had, nothing more.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
“It’s a question that requires non partisan consideration, because if the current government gets away with it then all future governments will have the same authority - so ask yourself, are you actually willing to grant that sort of power to someone like Stephane Dion, Hack Layton, or Elizabeth May?”
You use poor examples to show who might govern the Canadian people. I can’t see it.
Far beyond that I have often said the Constitution is not carved in stone. It is a living document that should change with the times just as the US Constitution does and I see no reason why it should not be re-opened in order to effect the change Harper wants.
Worthington today made the argument I’ve been making for well over three years on the net. If Harper gains control of the Senate those suggestions could very well become fact in a special referendum and if I’m right only 66% of registered voters must approve the change.
Point: It won’t matter what Quebec thinks just as it did not matter when Mulroney screwed up. ‘The ROC will decide’ if Harper wants to go that way and in his shoes I would.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Mike, anarchist eh? Well that explains it.
And stacking the Senate will achieve an eight year term limit as proposed, as well as individual provinces holding votes to fill individual Senate seats, winning candidates who will then be appointed to the Senate by the Prime Minister, thus not requiring a change to the Constitution.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Far beyond that I have often said the Constitution is not carved in stone. It is a living document that should change with the times just as the US Constitution does and I see no reason why it should not be re-opened in order to effect the change Harper wants.
I don’t disagree, except that isn’t what the plan seems to be…its about carrying on just as the Liberals did, stacking the Senate with your partisan appointees.
If Harper gains control of the Senate those suggestions could very well become fact in a special referendum and if I’m right only 66% of registered voters must approve the change.
You are wrong. This change would require unanimous support of the provinces. It WILL matter what Quebec thinks. Or Alberta. Or PEI. The referendum is a nice gesture, but means nothing (and even if it did, I doubt 66% would support a triple-e Senate anyway).
And Harper does not have to “control the Senate” in order to do this…the Senate is almost irrelevant if the House and all 10 provinces agree.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Anyone doubting that any Senators PMSH appoints would not have a condition that they resign and stand for election should pay attention to the guy from Quebec.
Why are liberals afraid of conservative Senators, could it be they would act the same as the liberals do with a conservative govt.
Any info yet on the recount in Keith Martin’s riding.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
“Whether you guys like it or not, Stephen Harper cannot affect any long term change in the Senate - “democratic” or otherwise - by passing laws in the House of Commons and by stacking the Senate with Conservative appointees. Changes to the senate REQUIRE, pursuant to the Constitution Act 1982, a constitutional amendment passed not just by 7 provinces representing 50% of the population or more, but by unanimous consent of the provinces.”
“OK Mike”…you have a good point. So instead of screwing around with this very stupid Constitution Act why don’t we just repeal it and end the pain?
“Oh…I forgot. It’s carved in stone. The only person who can do that is the Queen acting on a request from the Canadian Government. How silly of me.”
She’d NEVER do that!
October 27th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I wonder if Mike the anarchist is on video smashing windows in Quebec City not too long ago?
October 27th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
And stacking the Senate will achieve an eight year term limit as proposed, as well as individual provinces holding votes to fill individual Senate seats, winning candidates who will then be appointed to the Senate by the Prime Minister, thus not requiring a change to the Constitution.
Uhm, no it won’t. Such niceties might last while Harper and the Conservatives remain the government, but in case you didn’t follow the links I gave earlier (and clearly you didn’t), its the Constitution that dictates how Senators get and lose their jobs and how long they serve, not the Government of Canada or any act thereof. As soon as a different government takes office, whether that government is of a different party or a different leader of the same party, they are perfectly and legally within their rights to revert back to the old way do doing things - appointing old cronies for life (which is what Harper is doing, no matter what he says). The Constitution takes precedence.
If you want to change the Senate permanently, rather than for just the next 2-3 years, you must - that’s must - change the Constitution, and do it by unanimous consent of all provinces.
Again, good luck with that.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Another thought, Mike which may puncture your balloon. While the Constitution Act prescribes the terms regarding our Senators it says nothing about their pay.
If they’re not doing anything why should we pay them? I vote we give them a “per diem” of $10.00 a year and if they don’t like that they can all take a hike.
What do you make of that?
October 27th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
“I wonder if Mike the anarchist is on video smashing windows in Quebec City not too long ago?”
Ah, the ad hominems come out now eh?
Bruce, google “Market Anarchist” - I’m actually a business person who thinks the best state is no state at all…I might be your nieghbour. Think libertarian, if anarchist is too scary for you…
When you come back, maybe you could actually discuss the issue I raised, and those that stageleft raised, with the whole Conservative Senate stacking hypocrisy.
“Oh…I forgot. It’s carved in stone. The only person who can do that is the Queen acting on a request from the Canadian Government. How silly of me.”
No Jack, the Queen cannot do that. The only way to repeal the entire Constitution now would be essentially the same way - have a Constitutional Convention of some sort and create a new one, then have all the provinces agree to it.
Or via a violent revolution - not something I advocate, I’d prefer voluntary choice, not violence.
Anyway, back to the point, how come when Liberals do the stacking its a travesty of government and justice, but its just fine for Conservatives to do it?
October 27th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
If they’re not doing anything why should we pay them? I vote we give them a “per diem” of $10.00 a year and if they don’t like that they can all take a hike.
What do you make of that?
Sounds fine to me. I personally would like to see it abolished, as I stated before…too much of a waste of money and time.
I’m not sure how that would “puncture my balloon” - even at $10 per day, we would still have a Senate and anyone appointed would still be appointed for life and they could still hold up bills and conduct those embarrassing public hearings.
Only for that kind of money they would probably be a bunch of homeless guys. And you think the Liberal Senators are bad….
October 27th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
If you don’t like those examples Jack how about asking yourself if you would have wanted Paul Martin or Jean Chretien to have that sort of power?
While the Constitution is not carved in stone, neither can it be changed willy-nilly by whichever party happens to have control of both the House or the Senate.
Do you want future all governments to have that sort of power Jack?
The process is 7 provinces representing 50% of the population, and unless 7 provinces representing 50% of the population agree to change the process, that’s the way it is and will continue to be.
Take a quick look at the amendments to that living document south of the border you mention.
“Over 10,000 Constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress since 1789; in a typical Congressional year in the last several decades, between 100 and 200 are offered. Most of these concepts never get out of Congressional committee, and far fewer get proposed by the Congress for ratification.”
They also have a process that makes it really hard to make constitutional change, and its’ for the same reason that the Canadian Constitution is so hard to change.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I wonder if Mike the anarchist is on video smashing windows in Quebec City not too long ago?
Oh and for the record, I have never been employed as a constable for the Surte du Quebec either. I know sometimes the two are hard to tell apart….
October 27th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Whatever you want to call yourself Mike, I will not waste any more of my valuable time debating anything with you, it is clearly pointless.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
There is so much partisan misinformation about this issue on the blogosphere that it has been difficult for me to sort through to the bottom of whatever Harper actually promised.
Harper did promise to attempt to create “a new national process for choosing elected senators from each province and territory”, through a promised “bill to elect Senators” but he delivered on those promises when he tabled such a bill in Parliament. Harper has also in the past chosen to decline appointing Senators in an effort to convince the Senate itself as well as the opposition parties to contribute to needed Senate reforms, but that gesture of bipartisanship has been unsuccessful.
I have looked at all the direct quotes I can find and as far as I can tell, Harper did not make any election campaign promise “never to appoint a Senator himself” as a means of achieving his goals through the flawed system we have in place now. I have heard rumor that Harper may have made such a promise on a French language radio program in Quebec, but rumor isn’t fact, therefore if anyone can back up their assertion that Harper made a “perfectly clear” promise “never to appoint a Senator himself”, by citing a direct quote, that would be helpful.
Otherwise, after having made the promises he has, and already having tried other less partisan means, Harper would be irresponsible not to appoint Conservative Senators now to try to use the flawed system we have in place in order to fulfill what seems to be the democratic will of Canadians to change what is wrong with the system we have in place, because if Stephane Dion had been elected PM we would already have 17 more new Liberal Senators by now and be that much further away from what Canadians seem to want. If in the end the attempt to bring about Senate reform is to prove unsuccessful, nobody in their right mind could expect Conservative governments not to appoint Conservative Senators, while Liberal governments remain free to appoint Liberal Senators.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
We all know what “stage left” is all about and I think that “Mike” is that “Balbulican” troll from over there. Those moonbats who think that they are owed a debate on any topic from anyone.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
On October 27th, 2008 at 3:09 pm Bruce opened his yop and spake thusly: I wonder if Mike the anarchist is on video smashing windows in Quebec City not too long ago?
Ah yes, here we have the first sign of someone who has run out of talking points…. usually it’s better to just bow out Bruce.
I am also an anarchist, and ya know what, I’ve never been much at smashing windows…. I do have some really good pictures of the authorities pretending to be anarchists though, do you remember them, from the big SPP meeting?
The simple fact is that Harper cannot accomplish what he says he want to do without constitutional change - you may not like the idea that he does not have unfettered power but that’s the way things work, full stop, end of story.
I’ll ask you the same question I asked earlier, do you really want all future governments to have that sort of power?
October 27th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
You and Balbulican aka Mike make a fine pair.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
“No Jack, the Queen cannot do that. The only way to repeal the entire Constitution now would be essentially the same way - have a Constitutional Convention of some sort and create a new one, then have all the provinces agree to it.”
So rather than argue for the next 20 years about a piece of paper that is totally worthless and no longer serves our needs why don’t we do that?
October 27th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
PMSH knows some principled people. Here on Jack’s newswatch, right after the election, there was an article saying that if the provinces refused to elect Senators then PMSH intended to appoint some people who would push through the reforms from WITHIN the senate. Sounds like a good idea to me. As my Dad would say ‘there is more than one way to skin a cat!’
October 27th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
If in the end the attempt to bring about Senate reform is to prove unsuccessful, nobody in their right mind could expect Conservative governments not to appoint Conservative Senators, while Liberal governments remain free to appoint Liberal Senators.
Well, I don’t think anyone is saying they can’t, or even that they shouldn’t - clearly they can and are. Rather the point is that if the Liberals doing it is bad, then so is the Conservatives doing it.
I think we can all agree that the Senate is an anachronism and completely undemocratic. But lets not pretend that the Conservative’s doing what the Liberals did is somehow more virtuous and different.
Let’s not pretend that somehow it will result in a reformed Senate.
It won’t.
It will result in a Senate with more Conservative Senators, appointed for life who can block legislation and carry out embarrassing hearings.
And in the future when another party forms the government again, they will appoint their cronies.
To believe otherwise is just partisan hypocrisy of the highest order.
The only way to change it is through constitutional change, either via the amendment formula or via the creation of a new constitution.
If that is what is needed, I say go for it. Why waste time playing the same old game by the same rules, but pretending to be different?
October 27th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
If Harper appoints only Conservatives to the Senate he can kiss Quebec goodbye.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“If Harper appoints only Conservatives to the Senate he can kiss Quebec goodbye.”
Totally absurd, Bob. How the hell do you know what Quebec thinks? Jean and others are here all the time. Popping in and out and not once can I find a comment where they disagree with the ROC.
“You git back in your hole!. You don’t belong here.”
October 27th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
More than anything else here right now, I find the PMSH acronym to be most interesting. Why not just “Harper”? It just adds a layer of cliqueishness to say “PMSH”.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I feel compelled to clarify that the “Bruce“ who has commented earler on this thread is not the `Bruce`that occasionally contributes articles to this blog, which is me.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I think anyone can be named a Senator and not just an old politician and they are usually considered a Conservative or a Liberal Senator depending on which Government named them to the post. ( Could be wrong here, so some fact checking might be needed ).
The point being that PMSH could name some prominent Quebecers that might be acceptable to the population of Québec and not just Conservative insiders ?
The whole question is should he name new Senators during his mandate or leave the openings open so that the Liberals can name their own supporters if he can’t do it the way he would prefer with elected Senators ?
A question of balancing the desirable, the honourable, the possible and the
expedient ! ( Or opportunistic if one wants to give it a negative spin ).
(Oh, the PMSH abbreviation is that it’s convenient and for me it avoids just writing ” Harper ” which seems used mostly by people who don’t like him or seems impolite: I might write Steven Harper or Prime Minister Steven Harper or M. Harper at times. Also, I think it started with PMPM for Paul Martin as a precedent ).
October 27th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
“I feel compelled to clarify that the “Bruce“ who has commented earler on this thread is not the `Bruce`that occasionally contributes articles to this blog, which is me.”
We have to find a way to work this out, Bruce. I had no idea until this very minute. Time to put our thinking caps on because this is true.
Anyone can use our names and say whatever they like. Visitors would never know.
“So Cynapse”..how do I secure the comment area? I don’t know.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Then again maybe I do. The solution may require that commentors set up an identity with a password. I don’t want to go there but that may be the only solution to maintain the integrity of the site.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Disregard my last comments everyone. I just caught the “turd” and fired him. We can move on.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Well two people shouldn’t be able to use the same name i.e. There could be Jean ( The original ) and Jean1, Jean2, Jean3 or any other unique identifier.
Technically I don’t know how to make this work but when someone makes their first comment they should have to use a unique name.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Sorry Jack and Bruce, I had no idea that you had a Bruce who regularly commented here as today was my first visit to your site, as to being a “turd”, I would hope that you would retract that Jack, we’re on the same side.
I propose a solution to this little imbroglio, as my name is Bruce, I will sign as “Bruce from BC” if that is OK with both of you.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Jack, couldn’t it be possible that there is just a new Bruce who didn’t know about the old Bruce? And if so, could you have just fired a completely innocent Bruce? It isn’t like the new Bruce was saying anything too radical, otherwise, how could you have mistaken him for the old Bruce?
October 27th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
There you go. Welcome Bruce from BC.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
“I propose a solution to this little imbroglio, as my name is Bruce, I will sign as “Bruce from BC” if that is OK with both of you.”
Approved “Bruce” but to help you out a bit use “Bruce 2″…our Bruce is also from BC. That way you will help us all and your comments will be allowed. Sorry I used the word “turd”…I failed to think about a new “Bruce” that had not visited here before.
I’m getting a lot of comments and I’m screening everything so I hope you can forgive. Not all comments are kind and it’s hard to tell the difference bedtween trolls and real people.
By replying you have become a “real person” and have space here.
Whatever name you use is fine with me as long as there is no mixup.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Welcome Bruce from BC. You will enjoy this site.
A couple of rules, if you ever make a comment re Jack Layton or other Jacks mentioned in posts or comments, please make sure you identify who you are referring to.
If you are making a comment to the author of this site, use BEAR. I fouled up a couple of times without meaning to and the author thought I was talking about him. But, you will find he is a very forgiving person.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
By the way…I’ll “unfire you” just as soon as I come across the next comment.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
“OK”…enough of that. “Bruce 2″ and I have sidetracked the entry without meaning to.
Let’s move on.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
So rather than argue for the next 20 years about a piece of paper that is totally worthless and no longer serves our needs why don’t we do that?
That’s a good question Jack…you should ask Harper why he won’t do that, instead of wasting everyone’s time acting like the Liberals and appointing Senators to carry out his partisan plans.
If he was serious about Senate Reform, rather than just using it to justify acting like a Liberal, that is what he’d do.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I agree, lets move on, notwithstanding the objections of the Liberals, various other groups suffering from acute Leftist Mental Disorder and other general malaise, I move that we all encourage our Prime Minister and Conservative government to use every tool at his disposal to put an end to the present appointed Senate system, such as it is. Yes , I do mean the “Notwithstanding Clause”. If absolutely necessary, invoke it.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
How the hell do you know what Quebec thinks?
Well, Jack, for one I watched what happened during the election. Look at the two issues that upset Quebeckers; culture and crime. The Senate has only stalled Harper on his culture and crime agenda. So Quebeckers wouldn’t take too kindly to Harper stacking the Senate by only appointing Conservatives because it would be seen as an attempt to ram through the parts of his agenda they don’t like.
Quebeckers are also quite vocal about their desire to maintain their power within Canada and Harper’s triple E Senate threatens that. So they’d see an effort to stack the Senate as a threat to their power.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
“Well, Jack, for one I watched what happened during the election.”
Sorry, so did I Bob and a creep by the name of Charest blindsided the PM. I’m not forgiving about that at all and I hope and pray that Harper isn’t either.
Charest is about to call an election and if I were Harper I would bankroll the PQ. And then I would bury that sorry province as I kissed them goodbye.
It’s like this you see. They keep threatening and we keep “caving”. Meanwhile Harper has an entire country to look after.
It’s time to call it a day. Quebec can leave or it can stay. It’s up to them but if they want to leave with all the problems that entails in the future they are welcome to it. I’m very tired of hearing this blackmail and I refuse to follow them once again.
Let’s end this bullshit.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
PM Stephen Harper should appoint some social-conservative women and men NOW to the Senate!!.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Regarding all the comments about what Mr. Harper has or has not said about Senate Reform, here is the official position as per the current Conservative Party Policy statement of March 2005.
9. Senate Reform
i) A Conservative Government will support the election of senators. The Conservative Party believes in an equal Senate to address the uneven distribution of Canada’s population and provide a balance to safeguard regional interests.
ii) Where the people of a province or territory by democratic election choose persons qualified to be appointed to the Senate, a Conservative Government will fill any vacancy in the Senate for that province or territory from among those
elected persons.
Of particular note, this policy framework states that the Conservative Party supports the appointment of Senators who are elected by the people of a Province or Territory and will make such appointments in this event. This they have done, (Senator Brown from Alberta)
Nowhere does the policy indicate that a Conservative Government would not appoint Senators in the absence of such election by the people. Any suggestion to the contrary is MSM fluff as far as I am concerned.
Link to the March 2005 Document:
http://www.conservative-own.ca/documents/policy031905.pdf
October 27th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I’m not certain that the idea Harper would be breaking any known promises by appointing his own Senators as is currently part of his job, came from the MSM, since it seems to me to be a mass delusion affecting the left half of the blogosphere and possibly a few anarchists. Therefore, I’m still not certain where stageleft got the idea that Harper was “perfectly clear when he said that he was not going to appoint people to the Senate without a democratic process”, because if Harper was “perfectly clear” about anything then there should be a well documented direct quote stating exactly what he said and when he made this promise somewhere, and we are all still waiting patiently to read about it.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Québec is a complex, pridefull and emotional place and the election could have gone the other way here if there had been some real attention paid to the ” Culture & Crime ” issues and if the Prime Minister had explained the issue more clearly earlier in the campaign or had a credible Québec lieutenant to counter Duceppe. ( Maxime Bernier could have done it if his reputation hadn’t been compromised and assuming that he isn’t really an empty suit ? ).
The ball got dropped and the issue snowballed as Duceppe was left alone to explain things his way. The new media didn’t help in giving all the information or the other side of the story. More of a mismanaged campaign than a rejection by the people of Québec in my opinion.
My 88 year old mother kept saying to me that she was waiting for Steven Harper to explain things and knew that not doing so was a big mistake the night of the French debate or at least very soon after.
Don’t confuse the political elites who have been using the issue of separation as a useful political blackmail on both sides of the issue with the general population who may have bought into a lot of it.
I can’t say that I speak for all Quebecers or even the majority of them, but I have lived here all my life and maybe I do speak for a minority of right of centre Quebecers ?
Back to the subject: Maybe PMSH should just start naming new Senators if the system can’t be changed: Why is it wrong for him to do it and it would have been O.K. for Dion to do it if he had won under the present rules ! Until the Senate can be changed or dissolved what other choices are there ?
October 27th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Brian S: I read it in the story that Jack linked.
There are three explanations:
(1) The Hill Times lied
(2) Harper was misquoted
(3) Harper did in fact say that
And I do have recollections of words to that effect coming out of his campaign at the time.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
I just figured that because you commented that Harper made it “perfectly clear” you must have some knowledge of what exactly he said to give people the idea he would never make an appointment of his own if his attempt at reform failed, but vague “recollections of words to that effect coming out of his campaign at the time”, seems too little an amount of information to even form an opinion on.
Similarly, much like the “not perfectly clear” vague notion that is printed as fact in the Hill Times(I certainly cannot find any quote from Harper that contains the words they have printed), I keep reading that Harper may have promised something along those lines, but cannot find out what exactly Harper has supposedly said, because nobody ever seems to quote him on it. Therefore, at this point, I am inclined to wait until I read a direct quote before I believe any of it, because without such evidence it seems to me the left is just projecting onto Harper how they would like him to proceed with the Senate appointments that it is his job to make.
I should add that my reading of Bill C-20, the actual Senate reform bill put forward by the Harper Conservatives to deal with the issue of an elected Senate, was that Harper would still get to make the final decision and appointment, even after the provinces put forward their lists of elected candidates.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Busy thread…
I don’t blame Harper for suggesting he might start appointing Senators. That is, after all, his right and duty as PM. Anyone want to continue arguing that Harper is a control-freak might want to keep in mind that Harper tried to put through legislation (jammed by the Liberal-dominated Senate), invited the provinces to elect Senators who he would then appoint (non-partisan solution but no action by the provinces)… and now he’s looking for another solution. Does this sound like a control freak?
If Harper does decide to attempt a Constitutional amendment, I suggest the first thing to be addressed is: the amending formula. The current “model” is one of the more glaring flaws in Trudeau’s chef d’oeuvre. It would take some fancy talking to get the provinces onboard but Harper has already shown he can bring together diverse groups for the betterment of all.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Harper may well have expressed his intent to name new Senators based on Provincial elections if Provinces decided to have these types of elections, he may not have explicitly promised to not name Senators in the old way should his plans prove impossible to implement.
Not naming any new Senators indefinitely may not be a good option under present conditions and the PM may have to act contrary to his words and intent of a few years ago. ( Breaking a promise or not depending on how partisans or opponents want to spin it ).
Assuming that the Conservatives stayed in power for ” decades ” could the Senate be ” killed ” by simply never naming any new Senators until there are no Senators left ? Just curious if the constitution obliges the PM or any PM to name Senators ? Naturally the first time the Liberals got back in they could just fill the Senate with their nominees.
Just a theoretical question I don’t think anyone has ever mentioned before to my knowledge i.e. letting the Senate go extinct ! LOL.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:17 am
A while ago, some journalist (Gunter?) commented on how unforgiving the MSM and Opposition are about changes of policy for the Conservatives, especially Harper. Everything gets morphed into a “BROKEN PROMISE” which they can then use as ammo. Sad, really.
The Senate, if it wasn’t topfilled with Liberal hacks, served as a necessary check & balance to the power of the House of Commons. I would rather see the Senate elected, equal and effective but that’s going to be a while coming. Extinct? Naw…
December 29th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
To appoint people to a position that should be abolished is a a waste of tax payers money. The people filling these positions should be ashamed of themselves for accepting the position. Thats almost as bad as the Govenor General position, another waste of money. I think it’s time our government took a long look at why voting numbers are low, up until last year I always voted; now I couldn’t be bothered. In my opinion our Government is a totally corrupt and disorganize. I voted Steven Harper in, and would like to thank him for making me think that voting is a definate waste of time and energy.
December 29th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Ralph, if that’s how you feel about the Senate and GG, I’m rather surprised you would be voting Conservative since they’ve never advocated abolition of either institute. The NDP, however, advocates such. Perhaps you’re not being entirely candid about your vote?
There’s been a great number of folks who post (here and elsewhere on the blogosphere) about how they voted Conservative but damned if those Tories refuse to do something which the Liberals or NDP promised so they’ll never vote Conservative again. Every time I read this kind of post, my “Bullshit” meter starts flickering…