I knew that my criticisms of the Prime Minister’s latest Senate appointment would be met with less than receptive ears from the National Post readership. One such person even called me a “Liberal hack.” Ouch.
But I can’t help it. Say what you will, and argue all you want, this appointment stinks. You can’t, I repeat, can’t appoint somebody to the Senate who has been your biggest fan and financial supporter. That’s borderline corruption.
There are many who feel that Stephen Harper has turned his back on Conservative principles since assuming the mantle of Prime Minister, and few arguments to that effect are as compelling as his about-face on Senate appointments.
The Stephen Harper of the Reform Party, the Canadian Alliance, or the National Citizen’s Coalition would likely be appalled at the actions of the Stephen Harper of 2010. Long expressing a desire for Senate reform into a so-called “Triple-E” — equal, elected, and effective — Mr.Harper became the first Canadian Prime Minister to appear before a Senate committee in 2006 to present his case for reform.
By the way, Full Comment has a whole new look with nice big glossy pictures. I think they’re trying to compete with the Globe and Mail’s blog section.
Ah yes… The National Post’s comment section does have more than a few ignorant fools posting on it. The Globe’s pretty bad too.
On the issue though, I don’t get upset about Mr. Harper’s Senate appointments. The Senate has no credibility at all. Regardless of the quality of Senators, they’re all the partisan appointments of a Prime Minister.
A constitutional change to the Senate is a practical impossibility as long as the Quebec separatists are with us. That leaves the appointment of elected senators the only viable means to a Senate with any credibility.
Practically though, moving to a convention of appointing Senators “elected” by their provinces requires the participation of the Liberal party as they’re eventually going to be in government again.
I don’t believe the Liberals want such a convention. If they did it would be easy to achieve. All they have to do is announce it and propose a draft bill.
Why would the Conservatives vote against it? Even if they wanted to, could they dare to?
The Conservatives have tried unilaterally “doing the right thing” before. It doesn’t work. They need the Liberals to cooperate on an elected Senate. Since they’re obviously not getting it, I’m not going to get too upset.
..
.
Here’s something Ignatieff could put in his draft bill:
Wherever possible, the Prime Minister shall fill Senate vacancies from a list of candidates elected to the list either by special provincial elections or as part of a regular provincial election. If there is more than one candidate from a province, the PM shall appoint the one who was first elected to the list, so the PM has no leeway to pick an ideological favourite. If there are no candidates on the list from the province available the PM shall wait a period not less than seven years for a candidate to be elected. If one is not elected after seven years, the PM shall appoint one after consultation with the House of Commons.
See? Tidy up the language a bit and you’ve got something the Conservatives can’t possibly object to. It’s not that complicated. The fact that it hasn’t been proposed, suggests to me that the Liberals are quite happy with an appointed Senate as they plan to do the appointing again soon.
(If you’re wondering, the seven year gap is to allow provinces time to elect Senators as part of a regular election).
Meh, good post but I disagree….
Keep stacking the senate IMHO…
That is all..
“Prior to Harper’s own ban on corporate donations, Mr. Braley contributed $99,000 to the party and various candidates between 2004 and 2009. Orlick Industries gave $46,500 to Mr. Harper’s own leadership campaign”
For someone who is usually pretty accurate on the details, this post is noteworthy for the omissions rather than the facts.
On the subject of the donations Mr. Braley gave to the leadership race either personally or through his company, he apparently gave Stephen Harper $46,500. However you don’t mention that he also gave Belinda Stronach $30,000 and Tony Clement $10,000. Obviously a fairly equal-opportunity kind of guy. Those were at the time perfectly legal and legitimate contributions, and quite honestly for someone who seems to give away millions to hospitals and universities, these amounts are pretty small change.
Between 2004 and 2009 (six years), Braley gave the conservatives another $12,000. Again quite legal and legitimate.
So what’s your point ? That no-one who has contributed to the CPC should ever be named to the Senate ? That Mr. Braley could only be considered if he also contributed to the Liberal Party ? Or are you trying to say that Stephen Harper should never name anyone to the Senate ? Should he simply leave all the vacancies until the next time the Liberals get back in power, when they will have no compunction in filling those vacancies, and we will be right back where we were before, with an unelected Liberal-dominated Senate for the next 20 or 30 years, able to screw up any legislation they don’t like.
I’m glad you mentioned Mr. Harper’s appearance before the Senate, but you should have paid attention to what he told the good Senators. It was along the lines of “If you don’t want to reform yourselves, then I will do it for you”. Which he seems to be on course to do.
I would also point out that it was not until early this year that the Conservatives had a plurality in the Senate, so any potential reform initiative would have gone about as far as the nearest garbag can.
You know, if Duffy were still doing his show, he would have to start referring to the unelected, unaccountable conservative dominated senate.
Yeah, but what does stacking the Senate accomplish? I don’t see how this does anything toward the goal of reform.
What does it matter? All three were leadership hopefuls for the Conservative Party. Whether he gave to just Harper, or every Conservative who threw their hat in the ring, what does it have to do with anything?
But what does that have anything to do with rewarding a benefactor with a patronage appointment? The simple fact is that Harper appointed a guy who gave him money to help him become Prime Minister. Full stop.
I think my point was quite clear. It’s disgusting to “donate” money to a party, and then be rewarded with a cushy job when that party gets elected to power. It’s a Liberal thing to do.
I’m sure there are more deserving individuals aren’t so blatantly tied to the party’s finances.
How? How does this accomplish Senate reform? How does naming someone who contributed $100k to the party put the country on a course for Senate Reform?
So what’s your solution Adrian.
No province (other than Alberta who have their elections at the same time as the municipalities have theirs) has chosen to elect senate appointee candidates.
Should he just leave those positions that come vacant blank?
How silly can you be Adrian to think that the Liberals wouldn’t jump at filling those positions the moment they got back into gov’t.
You also do know that every one of these senators has agreed to Harper’s terms for appointment.
So chalk me up as one of those that disagrees with you.
I await your answer as to what you think he should do.
If Duffy was still doing his show, CTV would have good ratings in the 5-6 slot…
Gayle, tell em’ why you mad…
No. I’m saying don’t appoint someone who so blatantly contributed to your own political rise.
Appoint someone who didn’t personally contribute to Harper.
Otherwise it’s the old quid pro quo of Ancient Rome. Rub my back and I’ll rub yours.
I agree Adrian. I know at least 100 guys who have never contributed to any political party. In fact their only idea of a party is sitting in a circle passing brown paper bags full of hooch around. Amongst the lot of them we aught to be able to find at least one suitable candidate.
You know on second thought maybe its not such a bad idea to appoint successful community minded people to the Senate even if, OMG!!!!!, they contributed to a political party.
Adrian, I give the maximum allowed to the CPC.
If you add it up I have given many thousands over the many years, I have donated. I don’t expect any reward but to help elect Tory candidates. What does this multimillionaire get from a senate appointment. He is a good manager if money and organizations and O am glad he is a Tory senator. I would prefer an elected senate but until then this is how are system works. He has not hidden his donations and I don’t think donating to poltical causes disqualifies him from a Tory senate seat.
Unlike liberal hack frank graves who pretends neutrality but gives thousands to the grits. This senator has been completely above board.
Point still being quid pro quo. Scratch my back, and when I’m in power I’ll send you to the Senate. Looks good on your resume. You even get your office.
I don’t have a bad word to say about David Braley. He did right by his conscience. But I don’t think we should be electing political appointees who have had a direct aid in ascending a man to the highest office of power.
If it were just political donations to the party, it might be less controversial. But this is a donor who directly aided the leadership efforts of Stephen Harper. And is now, apparently, getting some form of thanks.
Adrian you missed the point that I was making. Offering a multimillionaire the salary of a senator as some sort of quid pro quo is laughable. He regularly gives away far more than a life time of senatorial pay could recompense him. By your standards the only person eligible to be Prime Minister would be Mr Ziffy because he is the only leader that contributed nothing to the party he leads.
Really? How prestigious is it to be called a Senator? Wouldn’t it be worth than just $130,000 to be able to have that as a legacy? Quite a nice reward for a donation to Harper’s leadership campaign.
You’re right of course Adrian. Eliminating candidates would contributed to his *personal* success would still leave plenty of partisan yes men available.
Still, it’s hard hard to care about a Senate appointment when the *best case scenario* is an undemocratic appointment determined by a single person. The Liberals show not the slightest interest in an elected Senate and the NDP just want it abolished. (An impractical wish as that would require a constitutional amendment.)
“How prestigious” Huh!?!
Geez, I wondered why he would want to start slumming it with a gaggle of un-loved political hacks and has beens.
But, all things considered. It doesn’t look all that great.
But I’m still okay with it.
My wife says I’m too principled, but ultimately too naive as well. She has no problem with the appointment, and says matter-of-factly that “it’s the way the world works.”
Hey, lay off, he will only be there for 7 years.
Have you done research on what all those lib senators, past and present gave, or did, for their seat.
Well, I realize I’m from the wrong side of the tracks from where you sit, but I’m with you here. It does reak of quid pro quo.
Salary has nothing to do with it; it’s all about legacy as you point out; status symbol.
I can only imagine how ga ga giddy the illiterate hockey coach was when Harper sent him to the senate.
I very seriously doubt that Harper gets any joy out of appointing senators.
He’s forced to do this in order to get any of reform at all pushed through. And if he’s forced to do this, as a short term and necessary evil of sorts, then I don’t blame him at all for making sure the people he appoints are on side with senate reform. Whatever it takes.
Where’s the story here? Harper appointed an actual Conservative Senator??? Who happens to be a long time Conservative???
And???
He’s playing the hand the Liberals dealt back to him, no more, no less.
More power to him!
More power to those who helped Harper. I guess it pays to have friends in high places.
I can’t but help think that so much of the criticism is really small minded and bitter. The man gives millions to help Canada and out of the millions that he gives, he supports a good man for PM.
What I am reading is that because he supported a good man for PM he is not qualified to participate in Sober Second Thought for the benefit of Canada and Canadians.
Just because 100K to be a Senator is a big deal prestige and money wise to most, it is really not much to this man. He is doing this job to be of service to his country, nothing more and nothing less.
Try and look outside the grubby box of patronage.
As I say, I have nothing against the man. It’s the optics of a reward for supporting the man who went on to become PM.
I think that it is not “Optics” as much as “How you choose to see it”.
Certainly not how I see it.
Fair enough. But I can’t help it. It makes me sick. I’m not “wired” to see it the way you see it.
Adrian,
I might agree with you IF the man was not obviously qualified for the job. However, Mr. Braley has quite an impressive resume of accomplishments and is exceptionally qualified for the appointment. Optics are just that… how someone might choose to see something, which isn’t necessarily the truth. Just because it may look like a pure patronage appointment, doesn’t mean it is. Why should someone who is a great candidate for a position be disqualified simply because of optics? That’s like an employer passing over a good applicant because it would look better to hire the right mix of genders and races.
Lemme ask you a question. Business mogul contributes $50,000 to Iffy’s campaign. Iffy becomes PM. Appoints mogul to Senator. Fair deal?
I like your wife.
If the Iffy appointee has the right resume for the job, then yes. It’s a fair deal.
When it comes to hiring people, whether they be senate appointments or just some civil service job, I don’t care so much about who they contributed to, who’s ass they may have kissed, or who’s brother they may be related to. I don’t think those optical issues should get you the job, but I don’t think they should disqualify you for the job either. For me, the test is do the candidate’s qualifications hold up on their own?
Yeah, she’s usually right about these sort of things.
Considering that iffy has only been a liberal for about 4 years, and out of Canada, it would be impossible to say this mogul was a lifelong supporter of his. But, if he had been a lifelong liberal, given millions to charities, universities, hospitals, maybe it would be ok. But with new campaign financing laws he couldn’t do it. And if there were liberal moguls around why is their fund raising so low.
Ever think the PM appointed this newest Senator for the optics to make Canadians realize that an elected senate is the answer, with term limits. Message to Premiers, elect your senators unless you want the status quo to continue.
Two more Liberal Senators are out the door by Christmas!!!
I vote we change categories from sports to music.
(please not Celine Dion)
I don’t believe for one minute Harper appointed Mr. Braley as a pay off.
And no amount of ink spilt trying to convince me of that, will do so.
Optics? pffff
Harper picked Braley to get things done.
Everything Harper does is to get things done. (think Manley report, Haiti response)
Has business mogul also been an outstanding community member throughout his life and generous philanthropist to apolitical organizations? If so, I say absolutely yes, fair deal.
Seems when (ALL) previous governments, Liberal or Conservative, have made senate appointments, it was patronage, pure and simple. Harper, at least, has an end game to his appointments.
As others have pointed out, not only is this man MORE than qualified for the job, and is not taking the job for the money, the PM is merely playing the hand he was dealt. If the opposition went along with senate reform when it was proposed by this government, there would be no appointments to complain about. Until the opposition go along, or Harper has his majority in the senate, I say keep the conservative appointments coming – as long as they all agree to senate reform, which from what I understand, they all have.
I think the big question is what now. Harper has to get the term limits and election legislation that was stalled for the last few years through the Senate, or at least try his best to accomplish that. He had to appoint these Senators to get this done, and must continue to appoint form those provinces that have no intent at this time to hold Senate elections.
If he does not give a big effort to get the legislation that was stalled before passed this term, he will have a lot of explaining to do.
On the other hand, being from Alberta which has led this issue from the start, it is very disheartening to have a Premier thumb his nose at it at this critical time.
Good article. IMHO you are a wee bit off track. Quid pro quo? if the criteria for “advancement” into the upper halls of Senate “power” was based on the amount of cash contributed, THEN, I would suppose that Braley’s $50,000,000 plus, in donations to Mcmaster U and various medical facilities in and around the Hamilton area, MUST, PERFORCE, have him elevated to the level of Regent of the University, Head of the Hospitals and Grand Poopah of Hamilton City, and much of the Niagara Frontier.
I understand your position and your reasoning, but don’t agree with your contentions.
However —-
Keep swinging for the fences!
tj
t.e.&o.e.
1) Your piece was inaccurate in that you seemed to be saying that the money ALL went to Harper.
2) & 3) I guess it’s totally impossible that he might have got a senate seat because he is a philanthropist who has given away millions. Much more likely that he “bought” his seat with donations to the party, even though they add up to a minute fraction of the amount he has given to hospitals, etc. BTW, he may have helped Harper become leader of the CPC, I think it’s a stretch to say that he helped Harper become PM.
4) You seem to be determinedly myopic on this one. If the PM wants to reform the Senate, and if the Senate will not co-operate, the only other way is to take it over from within, which is what he is doing. He now has a plurality, and by year end will have a majority. At that time, he will, if he wishes, be able to make changes. At that time, if he does nothing, then I would agree that he is hypocritical.
But you still have not explained, either to me or to some fo the other posters, a) what you would do in Harper’s place, or b) how he is supposed to push through senate reform without a majority in either House.
1. No I didn’t:
2. I didn’t say he bought his seat. I’m saying it looks like Harper is showing a certain level of loyalty to a supporter.
4. The article had less to do with the subject of reform than the particulars of this appointment.
a) I wouldn’t have appointed someone who gave me $50k.
b) No idea. It’s his white whale, not mine.
This is funny. It is ok for Harper to appoint senators to get the bills he wants to pass passed, but when the liberals do that it is totally EVIL.
I wonder if you people ever consider the utter hypocrisy you represent.
Hello – do you want c311 passed????????????? This is survival for now.
Wasn’t the Senate appointment so much as the appointed.
It is funny the way you justify appointing senators to get conservative bills pass, but wail and cry if liberals appoint senators to get liberal bills passed.
Re: answer number 2)
You WERE implying he bought his seat. Your second paragraph on this blog says “That’s borderline corruption.”
Pick a side Adrian… you’re starting to sound like Iffy.
Sorry Adrian, but is going to jump into the pile on concerning this one, besides the fact disregarding any political stripe, this is the kind of people who if we must appoint should be appointed, the PM if he wants to accomplish his goal of Senate reform must appoint persons who are like minded on that goal. The man donated money to Harper way back when it didn’t look like the man had a chance of being the PM, he must of did this because he agreed with his outlook on most things political. Go with your beautiful and intelligent wife’s instinct on this one,,lol
Gayle, it’s not the first time; there has been a double standard for quite sometime.
Why should this be any different? Conservatives whined about the Liberal stacked senate and now Steve does it himself.
I will say though; I don’t ever want to hear about the Liberal stacked senate ever again.
Anyone catch Steve on that youtube thing answering censored and pre-selected questions? Pretty feeble attempt at answering about senate reform.
Qualifications? Are any of them really qualified? Even the functional illiterate hockey coach?
I say get rid of the senate; been saying that since Jacques Demers was appointed.
This looks as bad or worse
all appointments to the senate are corrupt no matter which party does it.
Gayle…did you EVER consider that this is just another way to reform….by appointing these senators who have agreed to term limits and elections, reform WILL come one way or another.
When the liberals do it, they are there for life.
I believe that your statement is the very definition of the weasel attitude of “don’t pay attention to the awful things my party is doing, because the other guys are worse”.
Ugh. Blind partisanship…
Oh please… That’s a pathetic argument.
Stacking the Senate is obviously not good, but the Conservatives & Liberals are hardly equivalents here.
I’ve explained this before, but I’ll repeat.
The Conservatives have said they want an elected senate, but there is a major problem with achieving it. Forcing the change would require a constitutional amendment. Opening the constitution is not plausible with separatists still hanging around.
Therefore, the only practical route to an elected Senate is to have “elections” were the winners are the appointed by the Prime Minister. You could have convention without the force of law. (We have that for many things now. The GG isn’t actually legally required to sign bills into law, but she always does.)
There’s a catch though. This only works if you’ve got both the Liberals & Conservatives on board. Chretien ignored elected Senators. The route to an elected Senate isn’t “okay, let’s have the Liberals appoint all the Senators”.
There’s a lesson here.
We need the Liberals to get on board with an elected Senate and commit to it as well. It’s not going to work any other way.
Here’s a quick question Pat.
Did you vote Conservative in the last election?
I suspect you did. How you see it has a lot to do with one’s political leanings.
This thread has been really disappointing.
It seems so clear that the support Harper’s getting on this thread is based entirely on the fact that he’s a Conservative Prime Minister. I would be shocked if half his defenders here would defend a similar appointment by the next Liberal Prime Minister.
Blind partisanship is sad.
“Pick a side”?
Ugh. This isn’t a contest to get “your guy” in power. It’s a discussion about what is the right thing to do.
Pick a side. ugh.
Actually Issachar, If the same quality of this appointment was made by a Liberal Govt, I would not have a problem with it. I actually wasn’t thrilled with the Duffy appointment to the Senate. I do tend to look at this stuff on a case by case basis. I do want the Red Chamber reformed though, and if this the way to do it, the so be it. I do think that if the LPC had any sense at all they would be jumping on this band wagon now before xmas and the true majority changes so they have some input into what the final result is going to be, unless they truly believe they can win a general election in the fall and stop the whole process
And yet, it is still stacking the senate to get conservative legislation passed.
The only difference is that you like the legislation Harper is proposing. That legislation is widely believed to be unconstitutional, by the way, and for some reason Harper does not want to refer it to the SCC for an opinion…
And did YOU ever think the only real difference between the two is that you find the legislation Harper is proposing to be acceptable?
That is called hypocrisy. Look it up.
Chretien and Martin both appointed people qualified for the job. That did not stop the whining about the unelected unaccountable liberal dominated senate…
Chretien and Martin appointed people who would support their legislation. Your guys whined about that.
Harper appoints people who will support his legislation. You guys are cheering him on.
I do not think the liberals are at all worried about Harper’s attempts to “reform” the senate, because they know true reform requires a constitutional amendment.
Besides, Harper is just using this issue as a way to raise money.
By the way, what is Harper’s vision for the senate? What is it going to look like when he has it the way he wants it?
Gayle,
We’re not going to be reopening the constitution anytime soon. So we have two options:
1) We can give up on an elected Senate and just let PM’s stack it with yes men. If this is what we’re going to do, then we might as well stop our whining and just let Mr. Harper appoint whoever he wants.
2) We can demand that the Liberals support a convention of appointing senators already “elected”. (i.e. the precise opposite of what Chretien did when he appointed Senators from Alberta)
..
.
Senate appointments aren’t going to change anyone’s voting patterns, so anything else is just a waste of time.
..
.
To answer your question, I believe Harper’s vision for the Senate is an elected one. (He’s said so in the past anyway). Failing that, his preference is for a Senate full of Conservatives.
If you don’t like the second option, you really should hope as I do that Mr. Ignatieff discovers the virtue of an elected Senate and makes an issue of it.
It’s encouraging that you’re not a blind partisan Kingston, but I maintain my belief that this thread is a fine example of blind partisanship in many if not most of the comments.
And I share your hope that the Liberals will suddenly discover the virtue in promoting “elected” Senators.
Commenters have yet to explain why:
1. Appointing a guy who contributed $50,000 to your leadership campaign contributes to the goal of Senate reform.
2. How Senate reform is achieved by stacking the Senate.
If the Conservative government falls before this alleged attempt to reform the Senate comes to pass, then all Harper will have accomplished is stuffing it with Conservative Party hacks. No different than the Liberals did.
Senate reform has been a distraction for the Canadian political sphere for over a century.
The only significant Senate Reform actually occurred under a Liberal government when mandatory retirement laws came into effect in 1965.
Brian Mulroney’s greatest attempt for a legacy with Meech Lake was a legendary failed attempt at Senate reform. Charlottetown failed to a referendum.
Stacking the Senate doesn’t do anything but give control to the Conservatives briefly. Reform must still go through constitutional amendment and be approved by the provinces. At best, the Conservatives can guide the ship reform through stormy waters, but ultimately have no control over the sea.
1) It doesn’t.
2) It isn’t.
The argument that Conservative appointments somehow reform the Senate is without merit.
But no one cares. The partisans are just glad to have a Conservative doing the appointment or are upset that it’s not a Liberal doing the appointments.
Most people don’t care because it’s the Senate.
Harper can largely appoint whoever he wants because the Liberals don’t have any credibility to criticize him for partisan Senate appointments.
Actually, we have a whole slew of options. You just want to make it a choice between doing it Harper’s way or not.
For example, there are a lot of risks to creating an elected senate without also addressing the disparity of provincial representation. An elected senate is one that would likely consider it legitimate for them to oppose legislation that passed in the House, even money bills. So now you give them more power than what they effectively have now, and yet because the provinces are not equally represented, what you are really doing is giving those provinces who have more seats more power.
Alberta is not fairly represented in the senate. Please tell me how we benefit by having an elected, powerful senate that gives disproportionate representation to Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.
But that does not matter, because Harper has not identified his final vision for the senate, and that is because senate reform is not truly part of his agenda. It is all about collecting donations. If he were serious, he would treat this issue seriously.
I disagree with you there. The Liberals can criticize Harper for his blatent hypocrisy.
Ignatieff came up with a plan for the senate that would involve a non-partisan meritorious appointment process. It is the only workable plan proposed by any of the parties.
Ugh. Issachar,
I was referring to Adrian first calling this appointment “borderline corruption”, then when pressed, saying “I didn’t say he bought his seat”. That’s two opposing statements and I think it’s splitting hairs to argue otherwise.
And who said anything about getting “my guy” in power (other than you, Issachar)? All I’m doing is holding Adrian accountable to his conflicting statements.
Ugh.
Another option:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100131/ignatieff_senate_100131/20100131
First of all, the word “corruption” appears nowhere in the National Post article. Secondly, I do use the word “borderline”.
Nevertheless, you seem to think that quid pro quo in this case depends on a mutual agreement between two parties. I don’t believe that’s the case here. I don’t think Harper made a deal with Mr. Braley.
But what I do know is that Harper “rewarded” a man who had given generously to his own drive to power. Mr.Braley does not have to been expecting anything in return for the act to be seen as favouritism based on patronage.
So I don’t believe Mr.Braley bought his seat, so much as Harper gifted it to him. Some people send thank you notes. Some send flowers. Harper sent him a Senate seat.
Then please tell me one of those other options. I cannot think of one.
I can think of only three.
1) Put up and shut up. (Do nothing.)
2) Have “elected” senators appointed.
3) Reopen the constitution and try to get the whole package fixed.
Option three is unrealistic and I will go out an a limb here and say it will not happen within the next 50 years.
So you have the two options I pointed out, although I suppose “do nothing, but don’t shut up and instead continue to complain ineffectively when a PM appoints someone you don’t like.
I really can’t think of another option. If you’ve got one, please go into detail.
And thank you for the link.
I think that’s a useless idea from Mr. Ignatieff though. It’s another form of reform that only works in a minority parliament. (Similar to the proposal to make prorogation require house approval. In a majority parliament, you’d simply stack the appointments commission as a means to stack the Senate.
It doesn’t solve anything, it only works in the short term against a minority. (i.e. it works for messing with Harper right now, but not much else)
Ridiculous. The appointment of elected Senators is completely workable as long as you get the Liberals and Conservatives both on board. The Reform party tried it and the Chretien Liberals peed all over the idea.
As I said in my other reply, it’s only “non-partisan” and meritorious in a minority parliament. In a majority parliament you simply stack the appointment commission with hacks.
My apologies James. I thought you were saying “pick a side” as in “Conservative or Liberal”.
I’m sorry for the mistake.
Issachar and Gayle,
Harper has said he wants to limit terms for senators to eight years. That proposed legislation was blocked by liberal senators when they had a majority in the senate. When Harper obtains his conservative majority in the senate, this legislation can and should pass.
I much prefer an eight year term to the cash-for-life lottery appointments senators now enjoy (until they’re 75). So how is this change a bad thing? It will work the same for all parties. Barring re-opening the constitution for full-scale reform, this at least is a step in the right direction.
And regarding hypocrisy, Harper intentionally avoided senate appointments for his first two years – instead hoping to create an elected system with the help of the provinces – until the coalition attempted their coup and spoke of filling the many empty positions in the red chamber. After that, Harper realized he had no choice but to go about his reform using the alternate route. And while many criticize him for being a hypocrite, they should wait until he has his senate majority and allow him a second chance to then get senate reform through. If he does nothing, I will be screaming “hypocrite” as loud as anyone. But so far, he has shown himself (in my opinion) to be a man of vision and a man of his word, and I expect him to follow through on this important part of his platform.
So many, including you two, do not want to allow him the time it takes to prove his intentions of reforming the senate… and instead take the short-sighted view that he’s just another patronage appointer, or worse, a hypocrite.
I’m quite sure my faith in Harper is not misplaced, and if it turns out that it was, I have no problem casting my vote elsewhere.
It is not useless if it is actually implemented. This is not much different than the appointment process for judges. It just depends on how you create the committee.
For example, judges are chosen by committees made up of representatives from the federal and provincial government, the Canadian Bar Association, the Crown Prosecutors office and the judiciary.
Of course, this may be a bad example since Harper politicized these committees by removing the vote from the judiciary (huh?) and replacing it with a vote from a CPC layperson who knows nothing about the law.
I could not help but notice you completely ignored my question about how an elected senate puts provinces like Alberta in a much worse position. Care to take that one on?
And I have addressed your other point. It only becomes a partisan process in the hands of a hyper partisan prime minister, and it matters not if he has a minority or a majority.
“And while many criticize him for being a hypocrite, they should wait until he has his senate majority and allow him a second chance to then get senate reform through.”
Do you really fail to see the hypocrisy in complaining about stacking the senate to get bills through, and then stacking the senate to get bills through?
In any event, there is something Harper could do to get all his senate “reform” policies through, right now, without forcing him to stack the senate. All he has to do is actually create a senate reform package (this piecemeal stuff is not really reform), and then refer it to the SCC for a ruling on its constitutionality. The reason the Senate has been delaying these measures is because they have received advice that the measures are unconstitutional, and at least 2 provincial AG’s have sent them letters asking them not to pass the legislation because the provinces believe it to be unconstitutional.
If the SCC says the measures are constitutional, there will be no reason for the senate to reject them. But Harper won’t do that, because his intent is not to reform the senate but rather to use it to fundraise. Once the senate is reformed, then what does he have left to rail against?
Thanks for the apology Issachar.
And not to belabour this Adrian… but I referred to the “corruption” line as mentioned in this blog – not in the Post article.
And using the word “borderline” with it, allows you a sort-of drive-by allegation. Is it corruption or not?
I DO understand the point you’re trying to get at, but I still contend it’s splitting hairs to try and argue both those statements I pointed out together (despite your good attempt).
And while I will admit the optics of this appointment may be bad, I would hope you’d admit, Braley’s history of service and generosity to community and Canadians is pretty impressive.
And optics are merely that, unless proven (not just speculated) to be corruption. Like the Jaffer-Geurgis affair, optics may have been bad and speculation was rampant, but in the end, the government proved it didn’t give this guy a cent.
I try not to get too worked up about optics, I DO get worked up about proof of corruption.
Good that you’re keeping an eye out for this stuff though. I certainly don’t want corruption in this government either.
“Do you really fail to see the hypocrisy in complaining about stacking the senate to get bills through, and then stacking the senate to get bills through?”
Yes I do fail to see that… when the bill they’re trying to get through is SENATE REFORM. Not sure how you fail to see that little factoid.
And c’mon Gayle, the reason the senate has been delaying these measures is because there was a liberal majority who don’t like Harper’s legislation. The “receiving advice” story is a convenient (liberal) diversion, but are you saying it would be unconstitutional to have unelected senators serve a maximum 8yrs?… seriously??
Regardless, as I said I’ll reserve judgment and take the prime minister at his word. If he proves to be a liar, I’ll help you vote him out.
The only real difference is that you like one bill, and did not like the others. Otherwise, no difference.
Whether or not the “receiving advice” is an excuse to cover up something else, the fact is that it looks like a pretty damn good reason not to pass the bills.
All Harper has to do is an SCC reference, and this excuse no longer exists. After that the liberal senators are either going to have to pass the bills, particularly given that they have cited the potential constitutional issue as a reason no to, or look like liars. If the latter is the case they will lose any shred of credibility they have left. At the same time Harper looks pretty damn smart. But that will only happen if Harper really wants those bills passed.
If you want to take the PM at his word, how about asking him what the senate should look like when he is done. Personally I am a strong supporter of senate reform, however I think it should be done right, and we should have an honest conversation in this country about what we want at the end of the day. Right now all Harper is managing to do is screw Alberta.
Liberal Senators losing shreds of credibility!!?
Too funny.
Adrian, do you have a list of people you feel are more qualified to be Senators? I think declaring the appoinment as corruption without discussing Braley’s qualifications is wrong. Should donating to a political party/leader automatically disqualify EVERYONE from being elected to the Senate?
Harper will move to a full EEE Senate the second the Conservaatives for a majority government.
Given that the Senate is an entirely political body, any committee to appoint Senators will be political in nature. This is quite different from appointing judges. There is no non-political organizations with the credibility to appoint members to a Senate that can overrule a democratically elected house of commons. That’s the rub.
Hi Gayle,
Sorry I didn’t answer your question sooner, but the May long weekend was calling. But I’ve got a few minutes of coffee break today.
So you were asking what I thought about elected Senators in relation to Alberta having fewer Senators than they should.
Elected senators would give the Senate more credibility. Since Alberta doesn’t have Senators proportional to it’s share of the population, it would have less influence in a revived Senate. That’s a given.
But there’s a couple of things to note about this:
1) Albertans favour electing Senators despite the facts about representation.
2) It’s not a given that a Senate should be rep by pop.
The first point is self explanatory, but the second is worth noting. We already have a largely rep by pop legislative body. It’s the House of Commons. Why would we duplicate it and call it a Senate?
Senate’s generally serve one of two purposes.
1) Representing regions equally (more or less). Example: the US Senate.
2) Representing “the establishment” as opposed to the commons. This is our Senate for the most part. Government by “your betters” has no credibility these days. I have no time for it.
We really only have the first purpose as a legitimate reason for a Senate. Rep by pop is therefore not the goal.