Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Globe editorial

Better roads not travelled

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 4:17 AM EST 24/12/08

Stephen Harper's Senate appointments endorse methods he once deplored ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. Craig Anthony from Vancouver, Canada writes:

    Can't Harper try to do the right thing? Just once?

    He sometimes sounds smart, but his decisions rarely seem to be.

    From where is he getting his advice?
  2. Darcy Meyer from Canada writes: "The Prime Minister could have followed the lead of his predecessor, Paul Martin, by appointing representatives of other parties along with Conservatives. He could have engaged the provinces, even those unwilling to hold full-fledged Senate elections, in the process"
    ---------------------------
    Why?...If they are unwilling to allow the citizens to elect senators, why give them a say in the appointments? If they do not want to allow democratic reform, why accept THEIR patronage suggestions over your own?
  3. D JL from Canada writes: I actually expected a strong, right wing set of appointees. He actually didn't do that. Are his appointees strong eithere way..well...

    The big question is ...Are they going to make a difference? Quite honestly I doubt it.
  4. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: There is nothing legitimate about making appointments after proroguing Parliament. This should have been done before the Parliamentary crisis.
  5. T N from Canada writes: Before the crisis? In order to give the coalition more talking points? Come on Bobby.
  6. Raj Rama from Toronto, Canada writes: Harper had no choice, is it more balanced or more of the status quo...

    What happened to helping Mr. John Tory, by offering a post to Bob...

    I am glad to see the seats filled, now there is even more reasons for the Provinces to endorse an elected Senate and reform. Mr. McGuinty wanted 10 more seats in the lower house and he got them, what about the upper house or does he not want to rock the boat when it favors his friends....

    Given what an elected Senate did for Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton, how could we go wrong...

    So many questions, so few answers before X-mas....2009 needs a better plan...
  7. Les Caine from Canada writes: Mulroney used an archaic anachronism of the British North America Act to add senate seats hereto unknown to give Conservatives a majority enabling steamroller passage of his Free Trade agenda. These Senators were ringers in that they agreed beforehand to Mulroney's loaded agenda. His secretary has become Conservative Senate Leader, Marjory LeBreton. So much for sober second thoughts, eh!

    Harper loads the Senate, hanging by the slimest of threads provided by the Govenor General, with appointies who beforehand agree to serve and protect Prime Minister Harper's loaded agenda.

    What systemic checks can Canadians count on to rein in power hungry, ideologically driven political parties, seemingly incapable of restraining their leader?
  8. Andre Carrel from Canada writes: These appointments are a betrayal of anybody who participated in the last two elections hoping to bring about change in the country is govern, a change in the way leaders use their power. At this stage, giving up and not bothering to vote anymore is not an act of cynicism, it is being realistic and recognizing the facts of Real Politiks in Canada.
  9. KT Ocean from Canada writes: Harper still thinks money is the route to his majority. His fundraisers will have new opportunities being in Senate and he will figure out a way to handicap all his opponents financially. I suspect we will either be heading to an election or a coalition in January.
  10. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Same old, same old. Harper is just being himself. The CPC shills here talk about "democratic" reforms to the Senate, but refuse to acknowledge the requirement of a constitutional amendment to change the structure of the Senate.

    So much for that rule of law thingy.

    Meanwhile, Harper and crew continue antagonize and irritate the very people they need to get onside to reform the Senate.

    Oh, and let's see the detailed plan and proposed reforms while you're at it.
  11. D. Hall from Wpg, Canada writes: My only objection to the appointments is that I had to listen to the hypocritical BS from Harper for years before he behaved like every other politician in Canadian history on this topic at least.

    If he promises to stop sounding self righteous, I will stop mocking his senate appointments.

    Except, of course, for Duffy and Wallin, those paragons of the liberal media elite. I love the fact that that lie, told repeatedly by the conservative media elite, is now exposed.
  12. gary wilson from Calgary, writes: He could've done travelled a higher road like Paul Martin did, but there are few areas in Harper's track reacord where you could compare him to Paul Martin. The gap is enormous. Remarkably, it was Paul Martin we took down for political ethics.

  13. Just the Facts, Jack from Canada writes: Stephen Harper said he would never appoint unelected senators. He failed his principles. He failed on his promises to each Canadian.
  14. Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes: One foolish man who thinks himself very smart, has to go.

    After that, Canada's chances of surviving our economic and environmental challenges will improve significantly.

    As for the Senate, I propose that a lottery based on the voter list would be superior to elections. BTW Thomas Jefferson favored lotteries because those so elected would be more representative of the voter demographics and attitudes. It is not a completely screw-ball idea!

    Senate elections will inevitably result in a partisan Senate - definitely not a step forward.
  15. richard sharp from Gatineau, writes: Mr. Martin was a remarkable man for appointing the Gomery Commission to investigate his own party. He could have swept things under the carpet. The Liberals have never fully recovered.

    The Senate appointments are pretty lackluster, but within Mr. Harper's rights. But, geez, Mike Duffy? Is that the best PEI has to offer?
  16. Fa Chili from SW ONTARIO, writes: It really doesn't matter what the PM did. The newspapers are always there to dump on him. They have become the 4th opposition party.
  17. Bill Harrison from Canada writes: The activist media in this country, including the G&M;, continually holds Harper to a higher standard than they ever held his predecessors including Chretien and Martin. One could go through a whole list of their appointments and probably not find one who was be smirched in the way you have these appointments.
  18. Cameron Jantzen from Halifax, Canada writes: The Senate does play a role, whether you like it's structure or not, and here Harper has weakened the quality of our government. He seems to hold our democracy in contempt at every turn. I've never said this before, but I can't help myself. He's a weasel.
  19. Murray Richardson from Canada writes: Bill Harrison from Canada writes: The activist media in this country, including the G&M;, continually holds Harper to a higher standard than they ever held his predecessors including Chretien and Martin. One could go through a whole list of their appointments and probably not find one who was be smirched in the way you have these appointments.

    Sorry, Bill, but it was The Leader Himself, Stephen Harper, who claimed that he was going to hold to a higher standard than his predecessors, and create a "new" government that was open, transparent, and accountable. Instead, he has created a government that is secretive, obstructionist, and, as for accountability, he has run away from Parliament instead of facing a confidence vote. And on top of all that, he has just made this odious slew of patronage appointments. One thing is clear: Harper's brand of government is different; he's beginning to make all of his most recent predecessors, including Mulroney, Chretien, and Martin look like paragons of integrity!
  20. Kevin Allan from Vancouver, Canada writes: Does Mr Harper believe in an elected Senate ? I suggest he does if at the moment it is convenient for him (i.e. like did he really believe that the Separatists were going to destroy Canada last month when he basically told Canadians that to save HIS neck ? or was it just convenient for HIM ?).

    Why have we never had a debate on this issue in Canada ?

    Why would we have an elected Senate ? We already have elected MPs in the House of Commons. Why not just get rid of the Senate if they are to be elected.

    An elected Senate could never of produced the report on marijuana in 2002 that recommended (correctly in my opinion) to legalize marijuana. Thus there may be an important reason (s) to have this 2nd look at issues and laws by those not beholden to the next election.

    Some reform may be identified if we have an actual debate, perhaps the way we choose Senators (to disallow stacking of the deck like Mr Harper or that is King Harper has chosen) and perhaps shorter terms.

    Let's have the debate.
  21. gary wilson from Calgary, writes: Cameron Jantzen: Harper hasn't only weakened the quality of our government from these Senate apporintments. He has done so through lowering the bar of discourse to previously unthinkable levels. He has done so by expanding attack ads and political campaigning from strictly election time into a year-round blood sport. He has done so by incorporating as his first critieria for policy strategy setting cold political gain over and above actual sound policy. He has done so by putting himself ahead of his party and his party's survival ahead of good government. In hindsight, this damage to the quality of government was predictable. This happens with almost every leader of any party anywhere in the world when that leader is an idealogue. It infects right wing or left wing parties equally. Ideology has always, and always will make for poor decisisons. Putting ideology first was the root of the financial crisis in the U.S. (Alan Greenspan and the current crop of neo-Conservative Republicans). Ideology over reason is going to continue to do great damage and increasing damage in Canada over the next two or three years. Harper must go. Jim Prentice is a level-headed pragmatist who's judgment doesn't get clouded by ideology. That's the kind of leardership and direction our country needs. The Conservative party could save themselves and Canada in general by making a move now.
  22. Darcy Meyer from Canada writes: "Ideology over reason is going to continue to do great damage and increasing damage in Canada over the next two or three years. Harper must go. Jim Prentice is a level-headed pragmatist who's judgment doesn't get clouded by ideology. That's the kind of leardership and direction our country needs. The Conservative party could save themselves and Canada in general by making a move now. "
    ---------------
    Harpers ideology is for an elected senate. But he made a level headed pragmatic decision to appoint senators who support reform. Otherwise, not filling those seats would end the opportunity for any progress towards reform for a generation. It was also limiting the effectiveness of the upper house to be short so many members. It was pragmatism over ideology.
  23. Trillian Rand from Canada writes: From the article: "Yesterday's appointments may prove successful in that regard. But to those outside his party, it was hardly the way to project strong and principled leadership."

    And perhaps to those inside the party. To ascribe these appointments solely to Mr Harper is to misunderstand the nature of group dynamics. It is difficult to believe Mr Harper woke up one morning and decided his best course would be to do something he has always refused to do. These appointments can be nothing less than a desperate act to appease an increasingly dissatisfied party apparatus.
  24. Michael Manning from Mississauga, Canada writes: Darcy Meyer from Canada writes: "If (the provincial governments) do not want to allow democratic reform, why accept THEIR patronage suggestions over your own?"

    A very good point.

    Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes: "Thomas Jefferson favored lotteries because those so elected would be more representative of the voter demographics and attitudes."

    As a Loyalist, any idea put forward by such an arch-rebel is immediately suspect!

    Seriously, Thomas Jefferson is one of those people who peak early and then go into a long, slow, sad decline. His Declaration of Independence was brilliant. His governorship of Virginia was adequate. He lost President Washington's confidence as Secretary of State. He set a new high in low cunning as John Adams' Vice President. His two terms as President were marked by a string of self-inflicted disasters with little but the Louisiana Purchase, the War on the Barbary Pirates and Lewis and Clark's expedition in the win column. He was the eminence gris to Madison's presidency, promoting the disastrous war with Britain.

    In short, any suggestion by Thomas Jefferson that post-dates 1783 should not be adopted on the strength of his reputation.
  25. May Loo from Calgary, Canada writes: Harper did this because he was tired of the provincial governments not going along with his agenda to hold senate elections. I think we need Senate reform-just not the type that western Canadian conservatives, ie ex-Reform/Alliance types, want. Unfortunately, for non-Liberals like myself out here, the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives still believe that they actually speak for me as a western Canadian.
  26. wilfrid sabourin from Canada writes: I have yet to read an article in the G & M since Mr. Harper became prime minister that is favourable about anything he has tried to accomplish. On the other hand wd have had deplorable liberal governments yet they are portraid as a party that can do no wrong. Thank goodness he did not appoint any former or current NDP'ers
  27. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Darcy Meyer, there is no hope for Senate reform of any significance. It requires a constitutional amendment and is opposed by a sufficient number of provinces to eliminate the possibility that it will take place at all. We could have a Double E Senate but all that I can say about that is be careful what you ask for Western conservatives.
  28. Conspiracy Theory from Cambridge, Canada writes: Murray Richardson from Canada writes:Sorry, Bill, but it was The Leader Himself, Stephen Harper, who claimed that he was going to hold to a higher standard than his predecessors, and create a "new" government that was open, transparent, and accountable. Instead, he has created a government that is secretive, obstructionist, and, as for accountability, he has run away from Parliament instead of facing a confidence vote. And on top of all that, he has just made this odious slew of patronage appointments. One thing is clear: Harper's brand of government is different; he's beginning to make all of his most recent predecessors, including Mulroney, Chretien, and Martin look like paragons of integrity!
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It's apparent that one who spouts about morals, ethics and integrity are least likely to abide by it.

    Has anyone been watching Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's saga?

    He is the one who got into office spouting the same message as Steven Harper.

    There seems to be so much similarity between the two.
  29. Guy Smiley from Tories are Scum, writes: wilfrid sabourin from Canada writes: I have yet to read an article in the G & M since Mr. Harper became prime minister that is favourable about anything he has tried to accomplish.

    =================================

    Nothing he has actually tried to accomplish is worthy of favourable mention.

    Sure, some of his stated positions and principles might sound good, but he never followed thru on any of them (or worse, like fixed elections, he undermined them).
  30. Darcy Meyer from Canada writes: Bobby Dy .....Senate reform can occur as a matter of practice, without reforming the consitution. The PM could choose to only appoint senators that have went through some form of electoral process (at least for provinces that have elected Senators). This does not require constitution changes, and over time makes the process part of our unwritten conventions. Once the practice is in place, and the long evolution towards an elected senate is accepted, changing the constitution would be a formality (if needed at all). In the future, it is unlikely any PM will appoint a senator from Alberta that has not been elected. As this practice expands, and more commonplace it will develop into an unwritten convention. This is similar to the process that the US upper house went through in the evolution of becoming an elected (by citizens) house.
    In the end I like the idea of an elected senate and think provinces should get on board, but I won't lose sleep over it if the change doesn't happen.
  31. Paul Dieter from Canada writes: wilfrid sabourin from Canada writes: I have yet to read an article in the G & M since Mr. Harper became prime minister that is favourable about anything he has tried to accomplish. On the other hand wd have had deplorable liberal governments yet they are portraid as a party that can do no wrong. Thank goodness he did not appoint any former or current NDP'ers
    ----------

    New Democrats who accept Senate seats are expelled from the Party. The NDP has principles. Harper's only principle is that he has none.

    NDP POLICY ON THE SENATE: KILL IT...DON'T FILL IT!
  32. Michele K from Ottawa, Canada writes: Kevin Allen wrote re: Senate reform: "Let's have the debate."

    Oh, Kevin - surely you know that Cons aren't interested in debate - sadly, they already think they know all the 'right' answers.

    -----------------------

    Fa Chili wrote: "It really doesn't matter what the PM did. The newspapers are always there to dump on him. They have become the 4th opposition party."

    Fa Chili - you don't seem to understand the role of the press. They're called the 4th estate for a reason.
  33. Josiah Smith from Japan writes: You know how to tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving...
  34. Andre Carrel from Canada writes: May Loo from Calgary, Canada writes: "Harper did this because he was tired of the provincial governments not going along with his agenda to hold senate elections."

    May Loo, when was the Federal-Provincial Constitutional Conference on Senate Reform held at which the provincial governments refused to go along with the Prime Minister's agenda, and in what city was that conference held? Damned these bloody Globe and Mail editors anyway, they never report the important stuff!!!!
  35. wilfrid sabourin from Canada writes: Guy Smiley from Tories are scum writes, " Sure, some of his stated positions and principles might sound good but he never follows thru on any of them, well Before he was elected he promised to reduce the GST, which he did by the tune of 2 % to date. According to experts 1 % represents 5 billion dollars. That translates into almost 20 billion dollars that is in ordinary canadians pockets instead of being wasted by government. On top of that he promised to reduce income tax which he did. Contrary to the NDP's claim that he has reduced corporate taxes only, I wish to state I am not a corporation and my taxes during the last 2 years were reduced by 2700 dollars. My income is in the 40,000 range those are positive results not negative arguments.
  36. A Symond from Edmonton, Canada writes: F**K the G M
  37. Jon Winokur from Canada writes:

    MERRY Christmas CANADA

    BICAMERALism

    http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language;=E

    or

    www.facebook.com/pages/Michael-Ignatieff/7859776755 • Cached page

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top