Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Three points:

1. After Harper gleefully accepted David Emerson into his cabinet and party the day after the election in 2006, I'm not surprised by anything Harper does. That one act was proof he's no different than all the other power-hungry bums in Ottawa, no matter what drivel his PR spokespeople and his supporters spout.

2. Harper might think the PMO is all-powerful, but it isn't. Senate Reform needs approval from everyone, not just him. The problem here is unlike previous PMs who were willing to work with the provinces and other stakeholders, Harper wants to to do it his way or not at all. Sorry, Stephen, but there are limits to who you can bully!

3. And you're wrong about Chretien (my guess is you looked at wikipedia)...Chretien appointed at least two independents (Lois Wilson & Madeleine Plamondon) and a PC MP (Douglas Roche). As I said, occasionally.

   

Like OTI said, he's only had a majority for a short time, let's wait and see before we decide it's a broken promise.

I think(hope?) that some of the delay is doing his due diligence. Take care of other more pressing issues first, and do the research on reform. Try to think of all the intended and unintended consequences, etc.

As for Boot's point about only conservatives running in the senate races... who's fault is that? I'm sure they were open to all parties. If the conservatives were the only ones who thought it was worth doing... more power to 'em.

   

Sorry boots, you ain't selling me on this one. I know you're doing your best to protect your boys, but it's not gonna fly.

Once out of 78 times isn't occasionally.

If you went to dinner once with the family to Boston Pizza out of the 78 times you went out last year, that wouldn't be considered an occasional visit.

The bottom line is, not one PM has been 'fair' or even when it comes to Senate appointments, so why should it be any different now? The Liberals and Conservatives of the past have been just the same.

   

Well instead of that (which is exactly what Harper promised) we've got a place to stick Tories when they fail at getting democratically elected.

   

I don't understand why anyone CARES whether senators are Liberal or Conservative or Communist or whatever. The senate is a rubber-stamping desk anyway, so what damn difference does it make? They aren't supposed to do anything but collect a paycheque. Half of the old coots don't even show up to the sessions. The senate is too useless and redundant to matter which party its members were affiliated with earlier in life...before they went senile.

   

I think the reason for caring is that if they do start putting elected senators in, it gives them a little more legitimacy to stop being a rubber-stamp kind of place. And of course, the rubber stampingdoesn't always happen as smooth as some governments would like either... remember the GST?

   

Why would we want the senate to be anything BUT a rubber stamper? We already have a legislature with 300 politicians in it. Why do we need more? Why do we need the senate to have "more legitimacy"? I guess it's the economist in me, but I don't see a purpose in having a second house. "Sober second thought" my ass. Once a law's passed by the house we elected to pass our laws, that ought to be it. Such moronic inefficiency just aggravates my sphincter.

   

Exactly. The entire Senate is a waste of time. It's a place for PM's to place their friends and supporters to give them a nice paycheck until they die with limited work.

   

That's not entirely true. If it weren't for the senate we would already have mandatory minimum sentencing for horticulture. Ocassionally the situation presents itself where they become useful.

   

Well, I'm glad smoking drugs is at the top of your priority list.

   

That's hyperbole. I'm as big a proponent of legalizing marijuana as anyone, but you don't get convicted nor sentenced if you don't get charged. And unless you're an idiot, you don't get charged for using marijuana. The people who get charged with possession are almost always charged with other offences. If you're drinking and driving or breaking into houses or beating on your wife and have pot on you, expect to be charged. If you're smoking it with your buddies while jamming in your garage, you have no worries. If you're smart enough to be discreet, you're not going to court.

But even if your gigantic stretch were valid, that "one instant in a thousand" doesn't justify the bureaucracy nor the cost of near-impotent second house.

   

It could just as easily go the other way, with the Senate holding up a bill you do agree with.

I think we have a totally poor system here. For a newly elected govt, they have brakes on them if the Senate has a majority of opposing members. But as the govts time in power wears on, and they get more corrupt and autocratic, as they all do, they're also able to stack the Senate with their cronies and have even less of a brake on them. If anything it should be the other way around.

   

There's really nothing to defend - just stating the facts (which are on record on the Senate website for all to see).

In the first five years of his time in the PMO, Chretien appointed two independents (the third was appointed in his third term), while Harper in the first six years in office has appointed ZERO. So while two out of 50 (in the first five years in office) may only be 4% of his appointments, it's light years ahead of Harper's 0%.

As I said originally, Chretien occasionally appointed people who were not Liberals, while Harper has never appointed anyone who isn't from his party. I'll fully agree that 3 out of 76 isn't perhaps 'fair', but it's far better than 0 out of 43. If I have a choice between 4% of meals at Boston Pizza and ZERO, I know which I'd prefer. And FYI, under many types of polling, a couple of times a year is considered occasionally.

But let's not stop there.

For shits and giggles, compare Harper with Trudeau. While in office, PET appointed 70 senators - guess how many came from other parties (or were independent)? Ten, or about 14%. Paul Martin appointed 5 out of 17, close to one third. Hell, even 2 of the 57 Mulroney appointed were either Reform or independents.

Like I said, Harper has a majority in the Senate (65 of 103) or close to two thirds - he hardly needs to keep padding the lead - especially when he's the only PM in decades not to appoint people from outside of his party. A pity appointment or two would go a long way to making him not seem like such an ogre.

   

Sorry boots, gotta correct you again.

Harper has 65 of 105, not even close to 2/3's. 61%

Pity appointments are worthless, symbolic gestures that people on either side will find a way to criticize. He'll take just as much heat for a pity appointment as he will stacking the Senate....so you might as well stack the Senate and take the heat.

   

I remember the GST.. When the Liberal senate tried to stop it, and Brian Mulroney created new senate seats so he could appoint rubber stamp senators to pass the GST legislation.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next