[herbie]

Honest question #2
WTF does "the other guys did it" have to do with it when you're the one proposing changes and then slap the whole country in the face appointing three hacks just voted down by the electors a couple weeks ago?

[andyt]

The guy I like best is the one who quit his senate seat to run in the election, saying the senate was no place for him. Guess where he wound up after he got his ass handed to him in the election?

[martin14]

Hawkes Hawkes:

martin14 martin14:

Because they are patronage postings, nothing can make it appear otherwise.


The Libs are just pissed off cuz it's not their guys getting in, they had no
problems doing the same before.

Honest question, have the Liberals put people into the senate who failed to win their own election?

And then there was Martin's government who gave a few seats to the opposition. Was this a rare thing to do or do most governments give at least a nod to the other parties once in a blue moon?

Serious questions because I admit I don't know the answers to them.

I don't do bios of Liberal senators, so I wouldn't know.


However, I do remember the election of 1984, with Trudeau's 300 patronage jobs,
and Turner losing the election because of it.

You had a choice, sir....... remember ?

Also, the Libs have had power since the middle 60's, so their list of patronage is very very looooooooooong.

I'm sure if you wanted to dig you could find a couple of professional losers in there somewhere.

[Caelon]

True senate reform cannot happen without opening up the constitution and that has so many pitfalls that I cannot see any government taking the risk. Every province would come with their wish list for perks for their individual benefit and senate change would be lost in another round of failed talks.

Change can still happen in small steps. It could be a policy to only appoint individuals that have been elected within their province. They would be senators in waiting for the appropriate vacancy. The PMO then could pick from the elected list. It would be non binding on future governments, but with enough precedence it would be politically hazardous to go back to patronage appointments.

Limiting terms and having existing senators stand for periodic re-election is more problematic.

[stokes]

"Mr. Smith and Mr. Manning had served in the Senate, resigning their seats to run in the May 2 campaign"

I suppose all of you glorious better than thou posters just skipped over this little tid bit of info in the article, it was only buried in the third paragraph. Mr. Harper giving someone their job back is not patronage, it is the right thing to to.

A lot of people didnt complain when he put forth money to bailout gm and chrysler, all those voters still working must be patronage appointments too!!!

I think he should move as quickly as possible to not only begin the process of senate reform but also ensure that Ontario, Alberta and BC get their extra HoC seats as well. Just my two cents.

If anyone is offended please have a beer at my expense

[Hawkes]

I didn't skip over that part stokes. It doesn't change how I feel about their selection to the senate. There are plenty of others that could have been selected who would be interested in doing the job of a senator and not trying to win a seat in the HoC until after any changes to the senate take place. They resigned knowing that they might not win their seats.

Since I don't agree that these two were "given their jobs back", I don't see the connection you're trying to make with the bailout then. I know what you're trying to do, but I don't think it exists. These two were patronage appointments to begin with, with Manning losing his HoC seat in 2008 prior to being appointed the first time around, and Smith being appointed to give him time to get ready for this past election.

My issue has never been about Harper filling the seats. He's the PM and has the right to do so. I don't think he'll get too far on the reform aspect of the senate because of the provinces so stacking the senate won't accomplish much on that front. My issue is that these appointments were given to people who didn't have the support of those in their own areas. The voters decided they didn't want them to represent them on the hill...so let's go ahead and make them representatives in the senate anyways. I know this isn't the first time for Harper either, as I do believe there is at least one from the GTA that failed in his bid to win a seat and was then appointed as a senator.

Not offended in the least, but I'll still take the beer and offer one in return.

[andyt]

$1:

Two weeks before Senate appointment Larry Smith said: 'I have no place there'

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/two-weeks-senate-appointment-larry-smith-said-no-195951639.html

[Proculation]

andyt andyt:

$1:

Two weeks before Senate appointment Larry Smith said: 'I have no place there'

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/two-weeks-senate-appointment-larry-smith-said-no-195951639.html

In fact, he said that he "did not expect to get there again". He never said he would not accept another nomination.

[Canadaka]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

And you know very well that you can't just leave the Senate empty until that time comes.

You know exactly why the changes to the Senate didn't take place and you know very well you can't leave the Senate empty in the hopes that one day reform will take place.

He has had 5 years to try and change it, no serious attempt was made that I know of. Even in minority he could have got support from the NDP and some Liberals. You know if he actually tried to talk and work with the other parties. But they haven't they've just been playing politics with the issue. Now that he has a majority we'll see if something actually happens, but these 3 senate appointments weeks after the election done in the shelter of the press and questioning is not a good start or sign!

[OnTheIce]

Canadaka Canadaka:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

And you know very well that you can't just leave the Senate empty until that time comes.

You know exactly why the changes to the Senate didn't take place and you know very well you can't leave the Senate empty in the hopes that one day reform will take place.

He has had 5 years to try and change it, no serious attempt was made that I know of. Even in minority he could have got support from the NDP and some Liberals. You know if he actually tried to talk and work with the other parties. But they haven't they've just been playing politics with the issue. Now that he has a majority we'll see if something actually happens, but these 3 senate appointments weeks after the election done in the shelter of the press and questioning is not a good start or sign!

Wow, you couldn't be more incorrect.

The Government brought forth numerous bills to tackle Senate reform ALL of them defeated.

[Canadaka]

they were playing political games, if they consulted the other parties in the bills I'm sure something could have been worked out, but they showed little interest in working with the opposition during their 5 years of minority. I only know of 2 bills, not 5.

[weaselways]

It is somewhat confusing when it comes to Senate Reform & Bills introduced, tabled & defeated. It is safe to say there has been no all encompassing "Triple E" Bill passed. Senate Term Limits have not passed (C10 40-3). There has been a Provincial Consultation Bill (C20 39-2) that did not pass. So the reality is we are still working with the framework from the BNA & the 1982 Constitution.

[GreenTiger]

For the benefit of us uneducated and provincial yankees? What is Triple E?

[fifeboy]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

For the benefit of us uneducated and provincial yankees? What is Triple E?

ELIMINATE, ERADICATE, END

[weaselways]

The Cdn Senate as it is today is appointed, rarely introduces legislation of importance and has regional representation
24 in total from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick & PEI
24 from each of Quebec & Ontario
24 in total from the west Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta & BC
6 from Newfoundland
1 each from Nunavut, NorthWest Terr & Yukon
Another 4 to 8 in total can be appointed from any region in Canada at the Prime Ministers discretion
A Triple E Senate is viewed by some as a panacea to overcome some of what is considered a "Representative Democratic Deficit"
Elected - There is not a approved method of election as of yet. Some provinces elect from a slate of names and the Premier makes the choice of the province known to the PM. It is not incumbent on the PM to appoint the candidate.
Effective - The abilty to introduce important and effective legislation & also have the ability to effectively reject legislation (which is not the case today)
Equal- There is a Bill from 2006 never acted on increasing regional representation fom 4 to 5 Regions thus increasing western representation
West Manitoba=7 Saskatchewan=7 Alberta=10 & BC=12 or possbly 24 for a total of 48 max
All this would have to be done thru Constitutional Amendment, for the amendment to pass it would approval by 7 of 10 provinces with a population of 50% of Canada. This effectively gives Ontario approx 40% & Quebec approx 24% of the population a veto if they're on the same side vs the other 8.
Hope this clarifies it a bit for you, I'm sure others will more than pleased to add their two cents.