Harper names defeated Tories to the Senate

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has appointed three defeated Conservative candidates to the Senate, two of whom gave up their seats in the Red Chamber at the start of the election so they could run for office.

In naming the three newest senators on Wednesday, the Prime Minister said in a statement: “Our government will continue to push for a more democratic, accountable and effective Senate.”

But the announcement of the three new additions, which came immediately after the only opportunity reporters were given to question Mr. Harper had ended, was widely denounced.

www.theglobeandmail.com...

Surprise! Harper, the man who preaches about having a democratic Senate, appoints three failed candidates to Senate positions. And what's worse, his office sent out a press release after taking questions from the media about his cabinet shuffle. How did Canadians vote for this coward?

Before he was prime minister, Harper often railed against undemocratic appointments to the Senate and demanded reform.

Marjory LeBreton, the government's leader in the Senate, defended the move as she left Rideau Hall, saying until the Senate is reformed, the government will continue to fill vacancies.

"I am actually very happy that all three of them are in the Senate. They will contribute greatly to the agenda of the government. They've all had parliamentary experience," she said.

LeBreton denied the Conservatives were ignoring the wishes of voters who denied seats to the three new senators.

"We do respect the will of Canadians," she said. "We will bring in legislation at the appropriate time and we will reform the Senate and then once the legislation has been brought in and passed by Parliament we will have a new system. Until we have that new system we will work with the system we have."

www.cbc.ca...

So we need reform and we respect Canadians' wishes, but we go against them to appoint our buddies? Some democracy! It was bad when the Liberals did this and it's worse when Harper did it, because he is the one who promised change.

something real smelly about those last election results -
REAL SMELLY

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
Surprise! Harper, the man who preaches about having a democratic Senate, appoints three failed candidates to Senate positions. And what's worse, his office sent out a press release after taking questions from the media about his cabinet shuffle. How did Canadians vote for this coward?

Before he was prime minister, Harper often railed against undemocratic appointments to the Senate and demanded reform.

Marjory LeBreton, the government's leader in the Senate, defended the move as she left Rideau Hall, saying until the Senate is reformed, the government will continue to fill vacancies.

"I am actually very happy that all three of them are in the Senate. They will contribute greatly to the agenda of the government. They've all had parliamentary experience," she said.

LeBreton denied the Conservatives were ignoring the wishes of voters who denied seats to the three new senators.

"We do respect the will of Canadians," she said. "We will bring in legislation at the appropriate time and we will reform the Senate and then once the legislation has been brought in and passed by Parliament we will have a new system. Until we have that new system we will work with the system we have."

www.cbc.ca...

So we need reform and we respect Canadians' wishes, but we go against them to appoint our buddies? Some democracy! It was bad when the Liberals did this and it's worse when Harper did it, because he is the one who promised change.

I agree it was terrible to appoint people who had left the senate to run as candidates. Somebody who intentionally leaves the senate should be forbidden from returning. However, to blame Harper for using the PM's ability to appoint just because he campaigned against it is wrong. On two occasions the Conservatives introduced senate reform bills in the HOC, and on both occasions the either the Liberal dominated senate vetoed it or the opposition majority voted it down. What did you expect Harper to do, Not appoint anybody? Appoint Liberals or Dippers? I will gaurantee you that now that the Conservatives have a majority, senate reform will happen and the Liberals and NDP will be powerless to stop it.

reply to post by bronco73


Wether he does introduce senate reform or not...

It will never sit well with me, as an Albertan, to have him do this. He campaigned heavily in Alberta during his bid for Conservative leadership. He stated, very clearly and many many times, that he would advocate open, elected and accountable senate.

You can't state that, than appoint persons that the people obviously don't want (they did lose their elections).

reply to post by peck420


That's essentially my take on it as well, although I'm not an Albertan.

The Conservatives held the majority in the Senate already and there isn't any need to fill those seats. Anything that needed to be done by the Senate until some sort of reform is introduced could be done.

These appointments are nothing but the exact same thing he campaigned against several times now.

Get the partisan crap out of the way quickly. He's got 4 years for Canadians to forget this. Now IF he introduces senate reform, I'll not only be shocked, this will be forgotten. Side note, 2 Supreme Court justices are coming up for retirement. Wonder what's going to happen there.

reply to post by bronco73


He should have left them empty until reform was passed. As I said in my OP, it was bad when the Liberals did this, but Harper promised, again and again, that this would not happen. He broke his promise right after the election?

"Former senators Larry Smith, Fabian Manning and former cabinet minister Josée Verner"

So they gave up their Senate Seats, without a promise too get their Seat back if they lost?? There not idiots, there former Senators.

So how is this un-democracratic?

And does knowone here not remember P.E.T ? (

Originally posted by BobAthome
So how is this un-democracratic?

In Canada it isn't "undemocratic". But hypocrisy it is. Hypocrisy:

noun
▸
behavior in which someone claims to have certain moral principles or beliefs but behaves in a way that shows they are not sincere

www.onelook.com...

And does knowone here not remember P.E.T ? (

"behavior in which someone claims to have certain moral principles or beliefs but behaves in a way that shows they are not sincere"

Yes if he broke his promise too the former Senators,, i mean that is a no brainer right?
But you did make me spit coffee,, so,, ya , ok , but would he carry his canoe?? lol

Originally posted by BobAthome
Yes if he broke his promise too the former Senators,,

IF he made a promise to those people that's preplanned hypocrisy. Even worse.

Non-partisan X-man, not just for pointing out hypocrisy anymore.

reply to post by intrepid


Planning for the future is not "hypocrisy" ,,it's called life insurance. I think most people would understand that, self preservation maybe on the senators part's, sorry don't know where hypocrisy comes into play here. different levels of reality maybe? and senators are people as well as Canadians, hypocrisy no, foregone conclusion absolutely.

reply to post by BobAthome


The hypocrisy is between Harper and the people.

Harper promised to reform the senate. He also promised to provide an elected and accountable senate.

He has failed in his promise of elected and accountable.

Harper, if he had wished to keep his word, would have had the provinces that these senators represent make the decision.

reply to post by BobAthome


You may be falling to partisan politics. Meaning one sees what one wants to. Harper wanted an elected Senate, I agree with that but now, not so much:

After taking office in 2006, the Conservatives proposed a bill to limit senators' terms to eight years – which was to precede a bill that would establish Senate elections – but it died as Liberals in the Senate insisted there should be 12-year terms and that such a constitutional change must be negotiated with the provinces.

Now that the Conservatives are poised to gain more votes than the Liberals in the Senate, they are prepared to revisit the idea of an elected Senate.

www.theglobeandmail.com...

That my friend is hypocrisy.

reply to post by peck420


So your saying Newfoundland would say no too having a senator in parliment??
Why?

reply to post by intrepid


no my friend ,respectfully, thats politics.

reply to post by BobAthome


Umm, Newfoundland is entitled to 6 senator positions that should be fille by the people of Newfoundland's choosing.

Every province and territory is entitled to senators, what is so hard in letting us choose the people we want to represent us in the senate?

Originally posted by BobAthome
no my friend ,respectfully, thats politics.

Yes, it's politics but no matter how one cuts it, the dictionary still stands. It's hypocrisy. Live with it if you like but I'm calling a spade a spade.

reply to post by peck420


Mr Manning is a fine representitive of the people of Newfoundland, i'm sure he did speak on their behalf.