Finding it hard to believe anything...

[Kip Powick]

...this guys says.

First the "Fixed Election Dates" now this..

Supreme Court Appointment by Harper today..

(snip from paper)It was announced in September, just before the last federal election, that Cromwell was the prime minister's choice for the top court

But the appointment was put on hold pending a public hearing by an all-party parliamentary committee – a process Harper had promised to follow for all his nominees to the Supreme Court

18 Senators Appointed by Harper to-day

(snip from paper)Chistopherson also said Harper had promised to reform the Senate by only appointing elected people.

“New Democrats are joining constitutional experts in calling for the Governor General to reject Mr. Harper’s recommendations for appointment to the unelected Senate,” Christopherson said.

The advocacy group Democracy Watch criticized the appointments as a continuation of Harper’s practice of "patronage politics as usual, in violation of his promises not to do so."

[Moon The Loon]

...methinks to give the guy a break.

A true elected Senate requires a constitutional amendment.

Who's got the heart for one of those things!

Regardless, elected or not: They're all crooks...

[Canus Chinookus]

Give the Conservatives a majority, and the changes will follow. Pretty simple.

[Guest rattler]

I agree with his move, otherwise there was a slim chance that the Liberals could form a minority gov. (coalition) and appoint their folks instead.

[Mitch Cronin]

I agree with his move, otherwise there was a slim chance that the Liberals could form a minority gov. (coalition) and appoint their folks instead.

Rattler... I'm afraid you've made it appear obvious that you'll agree with absolutely everything Harper does. ...no matter what that might be.

It's disgustingly clear to me this Conservative batch of liars and cheats is hardly any different than the last bunch of Liberal liars and thieves. How they continue to hold their golden glow for you card carrying Conservatives is a mystery to me.

[GDR]

Hi Mitch

Harper is working towards a reformed senate. His main goals are to have senators elected and then for only a single 8 year term. (Right now they are appointed for life or age 75 whichever comes first.)

Harper has made this known and asked provinces to hold senatorial elections. There was only one election held and that was in Alberta. Harper has appointed the winner of that election, Bert Brown, to the senate. The only other appointment Harper made to the senate was Fortier as he wanted him in his initial cabinet. At the time Harper said that Fortier would resign from the senate at the time of the next election and would run for a seat in the house. The election came, and Fortier did as promised. (He lost). So as it stands there is only one Harper appointment in the senate and he was elected.

The only reason that there are so many appointments all at once is that Harper has delayed making them in order to encourage provinces to run elections. Also, I would add that during the last election Harper stated that he was likely going to make these appointments because of opposition intransigence and the failure of provinces to hold elections.

So Harper wants senate reform. The provinces haven't complied by holding elections and all legislation has been blocked by both the opposition and the senate itself. Any senate reform is going to require the support of both the house and the senate. If Harper never appoints any senators then we can be assured that whenever the Conservatives are no longer in government that the senate will then be quickly filled by Liberal appointees who will have no interest in senate reform and nothing will change. Now at least we will have 18 senators that will support senate reform.

Alright Mitch. You are the PM of Canada and you want to see senate reform. Under the circumstances that I have outlined, what you would do.?

Merry Christmas to you and your family including the new 4 legged addition.

Greg

[Mitch Cronin]

Hi Greg..

Alright Mitch. You are the PM of Canada and you want to see senate reform. Under the circumstances that I have outlined, what you would do.?

I'd make it extremely clear to the entire country what my intent was, I'd get commitments from each of those I was going to appoint, stating their support for my intentions, and I'd make that very well known... But that's evidently something Harper could never do... he wants everything he does to be hidden... and it's costing him big!

Now moves like this make him appear ever so much less trustworthy.... Reminds me of that biggest of phoney buggers we've ever seen in Ottawa -Brian Mulroney, when he said to Trudeau in the televised "debate" _"you could have said no, sir!" ...and then he proceeded to make Trudeau's "patronage" appointments look like nothing in comparison to his own!

Your man is a dud. He'll never get the Conservatives a majority... why can't you guys see that? You've had what, three tries now with him? ..or is it only two?... in any case, DUMP him and you might have a chance at that majority.

Anyway, that's my opinion... such as it is.

Merry Christmas to you and your family too Greg!

Cheers,

Mitch

[GDR]

I'd make it extremely clear to the entire country what my intent was, I'd get commitments from each of those I was going to appoint, stating their support for my intentions, and I'd make that very well known... But that's evidently something Harper could never do... he wants everything he does to be hidden... and it's costing him big!

Hi Mitch

He has made it extremely clear what his intentions are for the senate. He has received an agreement from all of his appointees that they support his intentions for the senate. It isn't hidden, and as I posted earlier he even mentioned it during the election that this is what he would do.

What is different about what he has done as compared to what you said you would do?

Here is an excerpt from the CTV web site. (A Liberal leaning network I might add.)

Harper's plans for senate reform

Harper's decision to fill empty seats with Conservative appointees is a controversial one, given that he has long expressed his desire for an elected Senate, whereby each province would send their own representatives to Ottawa.

Under the current system, the prime minister chooses senators.

Harper has also said he would like the current 45-year term, which carries a mandatory retirement age of 75, to be reduced to just eight years.

"Our government will continue to push for a more democratic, accountable and effective Senate," Harper said in a news release. "If Senate vacancies are to be filled, however, they should be filled by the government that Canadians elected rather than by a coalition that no one voted for."

Harper said all of the senators support eight-year term limits and other proposed Senate reforms.

Here is the entire link:

Senate Appointments

Cheers

Greg

[Thebean]

You think for a second the Libs / NDP / Bloc wouldn't have done the same?

Gimme a break. They'd have appointed their 18 in a New York Minute.

Until the rules are changed, the rules are the rules. Get over it.

[Guest rattler]

Rattler... I'm afraid you've made it appear obvious that you'll agree with absolutely everything Harper does. ...no matter what that might be.

It's disgustingly clear to me this Conservative batch of liars and cheats is hardly any different than the last bunch of Liberal liars and thieves.  How they continue to hold their golden glow for you card carrying Conservatives is a mystery to me.

Ah Mitch, you are becoming very predictable in your judgement of my politics. If you read my previous posts or perhaps remembered what you read, you would have noted several actions by PM Harper that I didn't like. However you are, as always, entitled to your opinion but now that you have made your case....

Merry Christmas.

[handyman]

Rattler... I'm afraid you've made it appear obvious that you'll agree with absolutely everything Harper does. ...no matter what that might be.

It's disgustingly clear to me this Conservative batch of liars and cheats is hardly any different than the last bunch of Liberal liars and thieves. How they continue to hold their golden glow for you card carrying Conservatives is a mystery to me.

Ya but I think blue is pretty ... and besides, we know these cheats!

[Mitch Cronin]

You think for a second the Libs / NDP / Bloc wouldn't have done the same?

Gimme a break. They'd have appointed their 18 in a New York Minute.

Until the rules are changed, the rules are the rules. Get over it.

Exactly! They all talk like they're bigger than that, until it's their turn to play Santa Clause. Then they show they're all made of the same cloth. Just as is Harper.

Greg,

I guess his mistake this time is he hasn't avoided the obvious appearance of hypocracy. One can't claim to be opposed to something very convincingly, while taking full advantage of it in the meanwhile.

[Mitch Cronin]

My apologies then Rattler, if you've ever actually said you didn't support something he's done... I thought I'd heard you excusing his last blunder...

Anyway, all that nonsense aside.... Merry Christmas to you and yours as well!

Cheers,

Mitch

[GDR]

I guess his mistake this time is he hasn't avoided the obvious appearance of hypocracy. One can't claim to be opposed to something very convincingly, while taking full advantage of it in the meanwhile.

Hi Mitch

Not meaning to belabour the point but I don't agree that he hasn't avoided the appearance of hypocracy. I fully understand the opposition are going to try and make as much hay out of this as they can.

His goal is to reform the senate. If he doesn't make these appointments then senate reform is doomed. Making these appointments is the only possible way forward to senate reform if it is to happen in this generation.

Yes I'm a Conservative. Harper has done things I don't agree with and that have put my teeth on edge at times. (If you want I can give you examples. ) On balance however, I believe him to be the best PM in my life time.

Cheers

Greg

[Guest rattler]

Certainly the best PM in a long, long time but as to my lifetime, I liked Pierre better despite some of his faults.

PM Harper's move to fill the vacancies is not a blunder, it is a very smart move to possibility set up the ability to change the Senate in the future. If the seats had been left vacant and if the Liberals had filled them instead, any ability to change the Senate would have been dead of a very long time (20 years or so) based on the numbers.

[mo32a]

Hi Mitch

Not meaning to belabour the point but I don't agree that he hasn't avoided the appearance of hypocracy. I fully understand the opposition are going to try and make as much hay out of this as they can.

His goal is to reform the senate. If he doesn't make these appointments then senate reform is doomed. Making these appointments is the only possible way forward to senate reform if it is to happen in this generation.

Yes I'm a Conservative. Harper has done things I don't agree with and that have put my teeth on edge at times. (If you want I can give you examples. ) On balance however, I believe him to be the best PM in my life time.

Cheers

Greg

You should know that on this site you can't change peoples opinions by providing them with factual information.

[Mitch Cronin]

You should know that on this site you can't change peoples opinions by providing them with factual information.

The day I'm not open to listening is a day I hope never comes.

[GDR]

The day I'm not open to listening is a day I hope never comes.

Amen Mitch

Merry Christmas

Greg

[Guest woxof]

Very nice, reasoned, intelligent posts GDR based on facts rather than emotion and insults. Your statements are very credible(in my opinion) and reflect my thoughts exactly with the exception that it is much too early to say if Harpers record will make him the best PM of our lifetime.

[BoomerPete]

Hi Mitch

Not meaning to belabour the point but I don't agree that he hasn't avoided the appearance of hypocracy. I fully understand the opposition are going to try and make as much hay out of this as they can. 

His goal is to reform the senate. If he doesn't make these appointments then senate reform is doomed. Making these appointments is the only possible way forward to senate reform if it is to happen in this generation.

Yes I'm a Conservative. Harper has done things I don't agree with and that have put my teeth on edge at times. (If you want I can give you examples. ) On balance however, I believe him to be the best PM in my life time.

Cheers

Greg

Greg,

How you can say that after bearing witness to the last few months just beggars belief, especially given that you've seen a fair few Prime Ministers.

Whether one supports Harper or not it is undeniable that he has just lead us to and through:

1) The single most unneccesary and valueless election in recent history, $300 million on a gamble and what did he or we get? Nothing.

2) The most unbelievable response to the credit crisis imaginable. I mean, jeez, if you can say with a straight face one week that you project a surplus and the turn around a week later and say, "ok, just kidding, it'll be a $30 billion deficit" you really have no handle on what you are doing, and you clearly have no well thought out plan.

3) A Constitutional crisis triggered by petty partisanship in the midst of the previously mentioned crisis that now sees our parliament unable to sit simply because the PM is afraid of being defeated in the House. And,

4) A potential reignition of the unity debate and significant escalation of the politics of regionalism at a time when the nation more than anything needs its political instutions to work for common cause and national well-being.

If you ask me, this man is doing more damage to the country than any Prime Minister in the nation's history, so obviously I don't share your viewpoint. But Greg, come on, the best PM in your life time?

Pete

[GDR]

Whether one supports Harper or not it is undeniable that he has just lead us to and through:

1) The single most unneccesary and valueless election in recent history, $300 million on a gamble and what did he or we get? Nothing.

The opposition parties had made it clear they were going to bring down the government this fall. We were going to have an election anyway. Why go through the exercise of bringing down a throne speech just to be defeated in parliament and then go to an election. At least now there is a new mandate, and what it has accomplished is that there is a more effective leader of the opposition which has to be good for the country.

2) The most unbelievable response to the credit crisis imaginable. I mean, jeez, if you can say with a straight face one week that you project a surplus and the turn around a week later and say, "ok, just kidding, it'll be a $30 billion deficit" you really have no handle on what you are doing, and you clearly have no well thought out plan.

The surplus he projected was for this year and that will be the case. We are going into deficit next year which makes me unhappy but can you imagine the uproar in this country if he hadn't come up with a stimulus package?

3) A Constitutional crisis triggered by petty partisanship in the midst of the previously mentioned crisis that now sees our parliament unable to sit simply because the PM is afraid of being defeated in the House.

I think Harper went overboard and was overly partisan. I agree with the policy but don't agree with the timing. It also could have been left for a year and then phased in. Two of the three opposition parties had this all planned out prior to the mention of the elimination of the federal subsidy to political parties. Dion was happy to climb on board as at this point he had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

The Conservatives pulled the proposal from the economic statement in one day and removed from the table completely in 2 days. The opposition had won. That is how a minority parliament is supposed to work. They had forced the government to change the legislation. Did that stop them? No. After that it just became a raw grab for power.

Parliament was only due to sit for another week anyway so it isn't as if there was going to be much more business done except for the vote of non-confidence. It isn't as if the work of government has stopped.

4) A potential reignition of the unity debate and significant escalation of the politics of regionalism at a time when the nation more than anything needs its political instutions to work for common cause and national well-being.

It is highly debatable as to who is responsible for that. The idea of giving the Bloc a yes or no on any government legislation didn't sit all that well in certain parts of the country.

If you ask me, this man is doing more damage to the country than any Prime Minister in the nation's history, so obviously I don't share your viewpoint. But Greg, come on, the best PM in your life time?

I wish that Harper was sometimes less partisan, (although I think he may be after recent events), and I sometimes think that he is too slow at admitting mistakes but even Boomer probably has his faults. On balance I do believe that he is the best PM we have had in my life time.

Merry Christmas to you and yours

Greg

[BoomerPete]

Greg,

The opposition parties had made it clear they were going to bring down the government this fall. We were going to have an election anyway. Why go through the exercise of bringing down a throne speech just to be defeated in parliament and then go to an election. At least now there is a new mandate, and what it has accomplished is that there is a more effective leader of the opposition which has to be good for the country.

Frankly, that's empty hypothesizing. Opposition parties always position themselves accordingly in minority situations, just as the Conservatives did in their time on the other side of the aisle. As our present situation proves it's the vote in the House that counts, not the bluster that precedes it.

It was Harper himself who commited his party to fixed election dates, so if an election needed to be held it should only have occurred after the government had been defeated in the House, not just because Harper decided, wrongly, that his odds of a majority against Dion and the green shift were too good to pass up.

The justification for the election explicitly provided by the PM was that it was needed because parliament was dysfunctional. And yet the record over the period in question shows that the Conservatives were able to govern and enact many elements of their platform. Having had the election, it is only now that parliament has truly become dysfunctional, so much so that it isn't even sitting.

The surplus he projected was for this year and that will be the case. We are going into deficit next year which makes me unhappy but can you imagine the uproar in this country if he hadn't come up with a stimulus package?

The point is not about the need for a stimulus package that requires deficit spending, but the fact that the fiscal update didn't reflect that need at all. The incredulous reaction to it from the business and economic communities was pretty clear. The economic situation has now decayed to the point that the need for large financial stimulus is obvious probably even to a fifth grader, so yes there would be an uproar if one was not proposed. Better late than never I suppose, but there are no marks here for action instead of reaction.

I think Harper went overboard and was overly partisan. I agree with the policy but don't agree with the timing. It also could have been left for a year and then phased in.

Well at least we can agree that it was an overtly partisan move. As for the policy itself, it was interesting to note that a recent comparison undertaken in the wake of events showed that nearly every advanced democracy provides financial support to its political parties. This includes Britain, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand, the countries we consider ourselves most comparable with in the democratic sense. The countries that don't provide aid generally fall into the category of developing democracies, or worse. Think of Khazakstan and you'll have the comparison about right. Certainly, a proposal to change a fundamental part of how parties support themselves had no business being slipped in the back door without any constructive discussion. And, removing the right to strike from federal employees? What exactly was that about?

Two of the three opposition parties had this all planned out prior to the mention of the elimination of the federal subsidy to political parties. Dion was happy to climb on board as at this point he had nothing to lose and everything to gain. The Conservatives pulled the proposal from the economic statement in one day and removed from the table completely in 2 days. The opposition had won. That is how a minority parliament is supposed to work. They had forced the government to change the legislation. Did that stop them? No. After that it just became a raw grab for power.

Come on Greg, stop playing to the myth that the Libs, NDP or Bloc are acting any differently in opposition than the Reform, PC or Conservatives did during their time in the same position. The parties had their contingency plans for such circumstances as well they should. That is how democracy works, especially with minority governments.

Yes the proposal was pulled, but the mask hiding how Stephen Harper might govern with power was also fully removed. Any politician with an iota of strategic sense could understand that, if given the chance in the future, Harper would (will) be back with more of the same and probably worse, and that the next time it is unlikely there would be the confluence of events necessary to allow for an effective defense. For the Bloc and the NDP promoting the coalition is a no lose proposition, but the Liberals took a huge political risk with a leader that no one wanted. There's only one reason why: Harper proved that he just cannot be trusted.

Parliament was only due to sit for another week anyway so it isn't as if there was going to be much more business done except for the vote of non-confidence. It isn't as if the work of government has stopped.

Again, an empty rationalization. First, votes of confidence on government policy are necessary to the work of government. Until the vote happens the policies cannot be implemented. Second, given the depth of the economic crisis, and the actions such as bailouts for GM and Chrysler, not to mention all of the other issues that surround the problem, do you not think it's possible that parliament might have had a little more work to do than usual over the 56 days in question? Until the end of the prorogation, all we get to hear from the government is that which they choose to disclose to the press. Not one of our elected members can ask a question or demand that government provide accountability to Canadians for what it is doing and what it proposes to do. That's not responsible governing, it's the Prime Minister attempting to shield himself from the fragments of his own hand grenade.

It is highly debatable as to who is responsible for that. The idea of giving the Bloc a yes or no on any government legislation didn't sit all that well in certain parts of the country.

It's not debatable in the least. The prorogation was sought be the Prime Minister. One might not like the Bloc's place or influence within parliament but their presence is entirely within the constitution and they legitimately represent those that voted for them, regardless of how that sits with some. There is nothing that came before the request to prorogue for which there is any debate on constitutional grounds. The prorogation itself is another question, which is open to some debate. Personally, I accept that, the PM having requested a prorogation, the GG was likely obliged to grant it. But, that the PM chose to ask to suspend the sitting of parliament instead of negotiating the terms of his government's survival or facing the confidence vote in the house and allowing the democratic process to run its course tells me all I need to know about what sort of leader he is.

I wish that Harper was sometimes less partisan, (although I think he may be after recent events), and I sometimes think that he is too slow at admitting mistakes but even Boomer probably has his faults.

Tigers don't change their stripes. Once you've been subject to one attack there's little likelihood that you'll turn your back on one and risk another. What you'll do is pull out the biggest, baddest shotgun you've got and shoot the thing straight between the eyes if you're given half a chance. To me, essentially that's what this whole thing is about, and I'll bet that the smarter Liberals, aside from that one reason, wouldn't be caught dead in the same room with the Bloc and NDP right about now.

As for the faults of Boomer, they are many. I suspect that Greg might have one or two as well, but neither of us is leading our country in perilous times. The circumstances demand more. Instead what we've received is less from all our leaders, most especially Stephen Harper.

On balance I do believe that he is the best PM we have had in my life time.

Merry Christmas to you and yours

Greg

We'll have to remain in disagreement on the first sentiment Greg, but the other we can share completely.

Have a Merry Christmas.

Pete

[GDR]

We'll have to remain in disagreement on the first sentiment Greg, but the other we can share completely.

Now we're in complete agreement.

Greg

[Guest DAS]

Ahhhh, poor Mike Duffy...

2 years of concentrated CONservative butt kissing and he still may not secure his coveted Senate seat.

A law expert on P.E.I. believes Mike Duffy’s appointment to P.E.I.’s Senate seat is unconstitutional.

Then there is the question of whether he will actually fit in the senate seat.

[Hadji Ramjet]

I'd make it extremely clear to the entire country what my intent was, I'd get commitments from each of those I was going to appoint, stating their support for my intentions, and I'd make that very well known..

Harper received commitments from all 18 appointees that should the process change such that Senators are elected, all 18 will resign and allow their seats to be contested.

Brian Mulroney, when he said to Trudeau in the televised "debate"

Mulroney never debated Trudeau on television.