A slap in the face to Canadians?

[oneh2obabe]

Joan Bryden
The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - Stephen Harper has tabbed three people who couldn't get elected to the Commons to help him bring elections to the Senate.

The prime minister sent three defeated Tory candidates to the upper house on Wednesday, including two who quit the Senate just two months ago to run for seats in the House of Commons.

Larry Smith and Fabian Manning are returning to the Senate along with Josee Verner, a former Harper cabinet minister. All three were defeated May 2.

Harper said the trio will support his government's efforts to reform the Senate, including imposing eight-year term limits on senators and creating a process for electing them.

"Our government will continue to push for a more democratic, accountable and effective Senate," he said in a news release.

But NDP Leader Jack Layton said there's nothing democratic about appointing three people who were rejected by voters two weeks ago.

"This is wrong,"Layton said. "This is completely undemocratic. It's a slap in the face of Canadian voters.

"Mr. Harper talks about Senate reform but he's doing things in the same old way, in fact, even worse ... The ink is barely dry on their rejection notices and they're being appointed to the Senate."

Layton said the appointments are symptomatic of the hypocrisy and "culture of entitlement" that pervades politics and breeds cynicism among voters.

"You should earn your place in the Senate and, if you can't get elected, you shouldn't be appointed to the Senate two weeks later, that's for sure."

Smith is back in the Senate after running third in a Montreal riding in the May 2 election. On election night, he said he had "no illusions of returning to the Senate because I have resigned and that was a condition of me running."

The former commissioner of the CFL was considered a star recruit. He was first appointed to the Senate last December but resigned in March in order to run for the Commons.

Manning, a well-known Newfoundland politician, was first appointed to the Senate in 2009 after losing his seat in the 2008 election. He, too, resigned to run in the May 2 election, in which he finished a close second to Liberal Scott Andrews.

Verner had held various posts in Harper's cabinet since 2006. She lost her Quebec City seat on May 2 to New Democrat Alexandrine Latendresse.

The appointments solidify Harper's control over the 105-seat Senate. There are now 55 Conservative senators to the Liberals' 45. There are four independents and one vacancy.

Harper announced the appointments in a news release shortly after speaking with reporters about his new cabinet. Marjory LeBreton, government leader in the Senate, was left to field questions about the new senators.

LeBreton said the voters were "not wrong" in rejecting all three, whom she praised as "outstanding" individuals. But she insisted Harper has no choice but to appoint senators until he can implement his promised reforms, which have been thwarted until now by minority parliaments.

"Until we have that new system, we will work with the system we have," she said.

Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch, an advocacy group, said police should investigate whether Smith and Manning were promised reappointment to the Senate if they lost the election.

Under the Criminal Code, Conacher said, it's illegal to entice parliamentarians to resign for reward or profit.

[oneh2obabe]

True ... never mind implementing an 8 year term limit, get rid of it entirely.

[NAB]

Seems to me that if legislation is to be introduced and passed in Parliament to reform the Senate, a Prime Minister must first have a Senate in place who's majority is on side with the need to reform itself so that the legislation has a good chance of passing the Senate. And of course, until the Senate is reformed, a Prime Minister has no option but to fill vacant Senate seats in the traditional manner.

The Prime Minister has been gradually finding people to appoint to the Senate who support Senate Reform, to the point where now those who do are firmly in control and the debate can proceed as it could not before. I have no idea why Jack Layton is being so petty complaining about these appointments, since he knows full well what the objective is and, as far as I know, agrees with the need for Senate reform.

Unless of course now the NDP have become Official Opposition, he see's himself as a step closer to becoming PM in 4 years time, and suddenly is flip-flopping on his position - perhaps seeing a self serving value in a PM being able to appoint Senators rather than have them elected. Layton knows full well that were he ever to become PM, one of the very first things he would try to do is stack the Senate in favour of the NDP - just as every other Prime Minister has tried to do for his/her party when vacancies arise.

The Liberals of course have had the Senate tied up in their favour using that system for as long as I can remember. No longer LOL.

Anyway, It will be interesting to see what Layton and the NDP's position is once Senate reform comes up for legislative debate. Will he or will he not turn hypocrite on the matter?

I do wonder though, considering the results of the last election, particularly in Quebec, whether the voters are actually able to wisely choose relatively non-partisan people capable of "sober second thought" to serve in the senate. Further, how will elected Senate seats be apportioned - so many per province based on population or some other criteria? Could that in itself produce even further national divisions and regional bias than we have now?

Nab

[UnknownResident]

The NDP want to abolish the senate, not reform it. They have said so for some time now. Get your facts straight Nab.

[steelrules]

Abolish the senate, who need a bunch of fat cats sucking off the teets of the tax payer.
And for those of you that voted for and gave Harper a majority, "get ready for 4 years of a dictatorship".

[NAB]

The NDP want to abolish the senate, not reform it. They have said so for some time now. Get your facts straight Nab.

You can take your snippy remarks and shove them Unknown, and get your own facts straight. Suggestions as to what to do with the Senate (if anything) has been under discussion by all parties for years now, and by and large ALL ideas come under the general heading of "Senate reform", so don't start playing games with semantics.

As for what the NDP want, I will take the position of their Leader, Jack Layton, over your view of what the NDP want. His statements are all over the place (and not always the same from day to day of course). A recent example however, as of this past January, has Layton quoted thus....

“Unfortunately, today’s Senate is too often just partisans working for their parties while being paid with public money. No ‘sober second thought’ can come from unelected appointees with such an obvious conflict of interest,” said Layton. “Let’s take two small – but important – steps towards a more accountable Senate. First, remove all failed candidates and party insiders from the Senate. Secondly, let’s make sure all Senators stop fundraising for political parties.”

Now I don't know how you interprete that, but it sure sounds like support for changes in the Senate, not its abolition.

Edit to add: And now if Jack Layton comes out clearly that he and the NDP want the Senate abolished, there is not hope in hell of that happening anyway.

Nab

[UnknownResident]

“Unfortunately, today’s Senate is too often just partisans working for their parties while being paid with public money. No ‘sober second thought’ can come from unelected appointees with such an obvious conflict of interest,” said Layton. “Let’s take two small – but important – steps towards a more accountable Senate. First, remove all failed candidates and party insiders from the Senate. Secondly, let’s make sure all Senators stop fundraising for political parties.”

Now I don't know how you interprete that, but it sure sounds like support for changes in the Senate, not its abolition.

Edit to add: And now if Jack Layton comes out clearly that he and the NDP want the Senate abolished, there is not hope in hell of that happening anyway.

Nab

One quote out of context, and that's all you offer up. Here's some links for you to review dating as far back as 2007.


http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/2007 ... te_071105/
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/201103 ... um-110301/
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... d-ndp-says
http://carolynbennett.liberal.ca/blog/s ... he-senate/
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDi ... ?e=3000037
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1925290/


Need I say more? These aren't games you're flat out lying, and now you're getting called out for it.

[Ranger66]

“The Prime Minister has been gradually finding people to appoint to the Senate who support Senate Reform”

Reform of the senate would require a constitutional amendment that would require all of the provinces to agree. So fill the senate with your lackeys all you want what he should be doing is getting the premiers together and onside.

[NAB]

“Unfortunately, today’s Senate is too often just partisans working for their parties while being paid with public money. No ‘sober second thought’ can come from unelected appointees with such an obvious conflict of interest,” said Layton. “Let’s take two small – but important – steps towards a more accountable Senate. First, remove all failed candidates and party insiders from the Senate. Secondly, let’s make sure all Senators stop fundraising for political parties.”

Now I don't know how you interprete that, but it sure sounds like support for changes in the Senate, not its abolition.

Edit to add: And now if Jack Layton comes out clearly that he and the NDP want the Senate abolished, there is not hope in hell of that happening anyway.

Nab

One quote out of context, and that's all you offer up. Here's some links for you to review dating as far back as 2007.


http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/2007 ... te_071105/
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/201103 ... um-110301/
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... d-ndp-says
http://carolynbennett.liberal.ca/blog/s ... he-senate/
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDi ... ?e=3000037
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1925290/


Need I say more? These aren't games you're flat out lying, and now you're getting called out for it.

I'm not going to play Goodle tag and semantics with someone who obviously doesn't even bother to carefully read his own linked references Unknown. Those are old games, and perhaps you haven't noticed but there has been a federal election since. Essentially, I said that Harper has always wanted to reform the Senate, and that Jack Layton does too, and even most of those links you provided show that to be the case. That is no lie and I stand by that statement.

Layton's attempts to provoke a national referendum on abolishing the Senate failed to pass in Parliament. Old news and end of game. What is important now is what Layton proposes related to Senate reform now that the Conservatives have their majority, and also a majority in the Senate. Clearly a referendum on abolition is no longer an option, and it wouldn't receive parliamentary approval anyway. So best those who think abolition is an option get over the idea and move on.

In other words, "That was then - this is now".

Edit to add: BTW, way back at the beginning of March I started a thread in the Riposte and Parry forum regarding Senate Reform but it didn't get much response. I have just modified it and brought it forward since it is now a major federal issue that can be dealt with.. I'll be glad to discuss the topic there with anyone who is interested in serious discussion about it.

Nab

[UnknownResident]

Edit to add: BTW, way back at the beginning of March I started a thread in the Riposte and Parry forum regarding Senate Reform but it didn't get much response. I have just modified it and brought it forward since it is now a major federal issue that can be dealt with.. I'll be glad to discuss the topic there with anyone who is interested in serious discussion about it.

Nab

To be honest I think the Riposte and Parry forum is useless. But another thing is that this issue COULD be dealt with, but we both know it won't be. There is no reason for Harper to do anything with the senate besides fill it with people that share his views, so that an unelected senate can block parliament. Just what he said he is against, but I really doubt he's against it now, or I doubt he'll do anything to change it.

[NAB]

Edit to add: BTW, way back at the beginning of March I started a thread in the Riposte and Parry forum regarding Senate Reform but it didn't get much response. I have just modified it and brought it forward since it is now a major federal issue that can be dealt with.. I'll be glad to discuss the topic there with anyone who is interested in serious discussion about it.

Nab

To be honest I think the Riposte and Parry forum is useless. But another thing is that this issue COULD be dealt with, but we both know it won't be. There is no reason for Harper to do anything with the senate besides fill it with people that share his views, so that an unelected senate can block parliament. Just what he said he is against, but I really doubt he's against it now, or I doubt he'll do anything to change it.

Well, if you cannot the qualify the topic for Riposte and Parry, that''s your problem not mine. I'm done with you here since you obviously are totally out of the loop with what Harper desires with respect to Senate reform, nor even following the current news. He has been following the rules as they exist (appointments), but has long desired a triple E Senate, ...and just watch what happens now he has a majority to pursue that objective.

I will discuss it further in Riposte and Parry, not here. See ya

Edit to add: I see you are not a member of Riposte and Parry, and can understand why. So it is no wonder you see it as useless. It requires that members follow some basic rules, and display some capacity for serious discussion and basic common sense.

Nab

[steelrules]

Way to bang the drum for Harper Nab, good god man not everyone has such a short memory as to forget all the scandals we have see under Harper.

[Glacier]

I was listening to Bill Good today, and he made the comment that this move by Harper just proves he is no better than Chretien or Mulroney. People from all over the political spectrum supported the Reform Party and their ideals for political reform, but this latest move of political patronage shows again that Harper supports the status quo instead.

[NAB]

Way to bang the drum for Harper Nab, good god man not everyone has such a short memory as to forget all the scandals we have see under Harper.

In my lifetime steel, quite frankly, in terms of "scandals", things have been pretty tame since the Harper Conservatives have been our government. May they live long and prosper

Nab

[NAB]

I was listening to Bill Good today, and he made the comment that this move by Harper just proves he is no better than Chretien or Mulroney. People from all over the political spectrum supported the Reform Party and their ideals for political reform, but this latest move of political patronage shows again that Harper supports the status quo instead.

That is, to me, absolute nonsense Glacier. Change requires legislation to do do so. And getting things done over the past 5 years with the idiocy of the opposition coalition and a minority government was simply not conducive to getting anything worthwhile done. Things will change now.

nab