05.18.2011 02:19 PM

Those Senate appointments

They’re disgusting, despicable and the basest of cynicism. For sure.

But, personally, I’m surprised how many people are surprised.

Did you really think things were going to be any different, after these clowns got a majority? Did you really think they would take it as anything other than a licence to do whatever shit they wanted?

Did you?


  1. I must admit; I was hoping.

    Between the senate appointments and this:

    … I’m worried. My cautious optimism is gone. πŸ™

    • W.B. says:

      Do you think persistent critics on these blog comment boards could face repercussions?

      • Northbaytrapper says:

        They needed to add 3 to control the chairs at committees.

        With the NDP in opposition, look for a sweeping overhaul of the Upper House with the blessing of the opposition.

        The groundwork will be laid and will become a major plank in the next election.

        To not appoint anybody would simply mean relinquishing their majority in the Senate and their ability to affect change.

        • Attack! says:

          But that completely misses the point, crapper, which is about Harper deliberately appointing demonstrably UNelectable Senators despite stumping for an Elected Senate all these years. It’s a big FU to the people in those ridings, to the old Reform base that got him to where he is, and indeed to the country as a whole. But the faithful have gotten so used to being buggered by him in the middle of the night that they can’t even remember that’s not normal or recognize what’s right, anymore.

        • Philip says:

          It’s always nice to see the latest PMO talking points taken out for an airing on this proto-blog.

  2. AP says:

    I see these appointments and keeping Bev Oda in cabinet as one big Go F*** Yourself to anybody who has criticized the way he governs.

    • E. Lindsay says:

      Yup. I`m sure it won`t be the last. Heh heh heh.

    • Dave says:

      Good, cause I thought for a few hours I was the only one.

      I had a brief flirtation with Reform back around 1996-97, and remember meeting Harper, thinking that guy could be PM some day, and it might not be all bad. Yikes.

    • Pushing Oda out would be an admission. You don’t see Harper admitting anything.

      Besides, she was doing his bidding, so why would he fire her.

      Don’t be surprised. I’m certainly not.

  3. TofKW says:

    Wondering how much longer the ex-Reform Party types will continue to think the Harper government is serious about senate reform?

    He has an upper chamber now full of obedient political hacks and bagmen to rubber-stamp all his legislation without delay.

    Additionally, the CPofC will have a big majority in the senate for a long time to come, something to antagonize any future opposition party that may come to power in future elections.

    Why jeopardize any of this by reforming the senate?

  4. Blair says:

    In his defense he does have a pretty weak bench. Wouldn’t you want ot keep anyone of moderate competence around you?

    • Garry says:

      The ‘weak bench’ line is getting a bit old. There are a dozen others who would be more than capable of performing admirably as very competent cabinet ministers once they become familiar with Ottawa and surroundings. The big moves will be the next shuffle.

      You wanna talk weak bench? Take a look across the aisle at the OLO. With all due respect (sincerely) to the platoon of rookies, it’s unfortunate that they may end up shooting themselves in the foot relentlessly, all the while undermining legitimate concerns they have as OLO. It’ll be interesting how/if the MSM provides cover or not.

      • Mandos says:

        The MSM is not only not providing cover, they’re going after the NDP full steam ahead. Look at the amount of attention given Ms. Brosseau, for example, when the CPC bench is full of do-nothing Alberta MPs who need only be a form of eukaryotic life to be elected.

        • Garry says:

          Have heard little recently of Madame Brosseau. I use ‘Madame’, as that’s how I heard her referred to recently on CBC or CTV and it stood out as usually someone who is an anglophone is usually a Miss, Ms., etc. Particularly on english televison.

          As for “do-nothing Alberta MPs”, not sure your point considering there are only 27 members from AB of a caucus of 166. Are you singling out Cons based on their place of origin or suggesting they should be under the mocroscope simply because Albertans refuse to vote left of the CPC? FWIW, even though it’s obviously pretty much a rubber stamp to get elected as a Con in AB, it’s not unusual for most voters to actually have an idea who is running in their riding. Hence the undeserved ridicule towards the aforementioned Madame. The voters in her riding (among others) are an embarrassment to democracy as far as I’m concerned. But I hope she and her fellow rookies perform well and show the younger generation they can contribute.

        • Dave says:

          Do they HAVE to be eukaryotic?

  5. I would say that after today, any notion of a Triple-E senate is gone-con.

    • Jim Hanna says:

      Harper abandoned Triple -E as soon as he brought forward his reforms. If he did start holding Senate elections, to choose who is “appointed”; it would freeze the Senate into its current provincial representation; once they start being elected why would Quebec or Ontario give up their Senators? He doesn’t want a Triple E Senate.

      • Jim, Harper will just select Conservative candidates who lose a Senate election.

        in the 1990’s there was a joke about the Montreal C——– playing the Calgary Flames in a mythical Stanley Cup final game. Calgary won the game. When it came time to present the Stanley Cup, the prime minister of the day, Brian Mulroney, gave the Cup to Montreal for the sake of national unity.

  6. Mandos says:

    BUT! BUT! Jack Layton has no chance of being Prime Minister in this Parliament. That makes it worth it, right? Right?

    I don’t want ANYONE from the 905 belt complaining about this. Y’all will learn to shut up and LOVE IT.

    • JenS says:

      I would remind you that a great many of us in the 905 did NOT vote for this crap, even with the tantalizing prospect of casting a vote for Bev Oda.

      (Sorry . . . can’t remember what font we’re using to connote sarcasm these days.)

  7. Sean says:

    these guys are in for two more majorities by default and they know it.

  8. Jim Hanna says:

    Yep. Which is why the Liberals need to pick a leader they won’t chew up if (s)he doesn’t win the next election.

  9. Nuna D. Above says:

    Conservatives are using the same benefits of office that have existed since confederation, and the Liberals are saying, “Liberal patronage good, Conservative patronage bad.” No one cares. No one cared about Fortier being appointed to the Senate, no one cared about Harper setting a record with the most Senate appointments in a day. No one will care about these appointments.
    If the Liberals have a plan to abolish or reform the Senate, bring it forward. But whining from the sidelines because Harper acts likes the Liberals did when in power isn’t enough to re-connect the dying Liberal party with cynical voters.

    • Dude Love says:

      “Liberal patronage good, Conservative patronage bad.” sums up the situation at the the root of partisanship.

    • Ted says:

      On what planet does this have anything to do with the third place Liberals?

    • The Doctor says:

      I’m curious, by the way: what is the Liberal Party’s policy position on senate reform? Are they for it? Against it? In favour of the status quo?

    • Warren says:


      Were you paid for this post?

      • Windsurfer says:

        Warren, what amazes me about this blog is that rightfully, the Conservative have their majority for a number of years…..

        So why does this blog continue to look like the central communication wing of Blogging SupposiTories?

        Please just go away – the Liberal Party is rebuilding and your continued sniping will just solidify the rank-and-file to come back in X years bigger and stronger.

        I was not paid for this post except in street-wise blood and sweat.

        • Bruce Wayne says:

          The LPC is finished. And it was Harper that finished you off. That must make it hurt even more.

          • JStanton says:

            …you flatter Mr. Harper unduly. Actually, it was Mr. Martin and his hired guns, and, after him, just his hired guns, that gutted the LPC.

            No, the only thing that Mr. Harper has “finished off” is the PCofC, and all progressive advancements in Canada for a generation.

            It’s the latter that hurts.


    • Philip says:

      Keep this up boys! Keep on repeating the same tired “the Liberal Party did it” chant and maybe, just maybe you can forget that Harper dropped just a large steaming turd in your wide open mouths. A Triple E Senate was one of the foundations of the grassroots western conservatism which came out of Alberta in the 1980s. One of the principles which Harper, back when he called himself Steve, argued for, agitated for and wrote passionately about. For decades.
      Now Harper has exactly what he needs and he no longer needs conservatives like you. Fiscal conservatism gone. Personal freedom and liberties curtailed by the state and now the death of the Triple E Senate. What exactly is left for all you western conservatives who donated to the Reform Party, who really believed in those values? Harper knows the grassroots has nowhere else to go. You have no more value to the PMO until the next election cycle at which time they will ring the bell and you will all sit up and beg.
      I will get a tremendous amount of joy watching western conservatives tie themselves in knots trying to justify Harper’s betrayal of everything they hold dear. So keep it up boys. Keep on barking. Maybe one day your Master will throw you some scraps from his table.

      • International Progressive says:

        An elected senate is also equally wrong because it would guarantee that Nazi Senators will get elected in KKKAlberta.

        I would support an elected Senate if KKKAlberta were not allowed to have any Senators.

        • International Progressive says:

          My apologies, Warren. I made a tongue-in-cheek post trying to be funny, but it comes across as a tad bit inflammatory.

          I in no way believe that Alberta is KKKAlberta. It’s a term of endearment I use with friends who now live in Calgary who then respond by calling me an effete Eastern metrosexual yuppie. We have loud, fun, drunken arguments when they visit.

  10. fritz says:

    To quote a well know Liberal cabinet minister from the past: “I’m entitled to my entitlements”

    We were expecting something different from Mr. Harper?

  11. AB Observer says:

    Sort of reminds you of governments of the past, doesn’t it?

    Can you say Jean Chretien?

    Personally I am P.O.’d by this, but no worse then other PMs. And no one will care in 10 days, never mind in 10 months.

    • Warren says:

      Were you paid for this post?

      • AB Observer says:

        It’s the truth. Harper learned from one of the best in tactics etc., your old boss. Philosophically, I lean way more towards Harper the Chretien, but that doesn’t mean PMSH gets a free pass.

        The only thing I hope is that there are enough votes in the Senate now to pass term limits. EEE will never happen, especially with Quebec guaranteed 25% of Senate seats.

    • Warren says:


      Were you paid for this post?

    • Ted says:

      Well there is a difference between carrying on a century old tradition that you never opposed, and promising to do things differently, to never appoint an unelected senator, to only appoint senators with a democratic mandate from the people (not the opposite), and then stacking it with cronies and candidates actually rejected by the people.

      Plus, how many non-Conservatives senators have been appointed by Harper? That’s a Liberal tradition too – appointing non-Liberals.

      • The Doctor says:


        Were you paid for this post?

      • Jason Hickman says:

        Plus, how many non-Conservatives senators have been appointed by Harper? That’s a Liberal tradition too – appointing non-Liberals.

        It was a “tradition” mostly ignored by Chretien, who appointed 72 Liberals against 3 Independents, and only followed by Martin after the Liberals had a comfortable majority in the Upper House – and even then, 12 of 17 Martin appointments were Liberals. If you go back as far as PET, 70 of his 81 appointments were grits – but again, that was once the Libs had a *comfortable* majority, thanks to Pearson and St-Laurent’s appointments.

        Source: http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/compilations/senate/Senate_NominationByPM.aspx

        …and nope, I wasn’t paid a nickel for this post!

  12. VH says:


    As I mentioned in one of your posts after the election, if there’s something Harper wants to do …. then he’ll do it if he wants it badly enough.

    The only people who expect that there is some sort of “public shaming” that will somehow stop Harper from reversing his campaign promises are the sort of people who are naive Liberals and don’t know how to “play this game”.

    There are no realistic brakes on the Harper Cons. Some will think this is a good thing and I suspect after the train wreck, they’ll still keep voting for the Cons by convincing themselves that “nobody could have predicted” it or blaming the victim. Just like the Repubs did after they killed the global economy.

    Buckle up.

    • Michael says:

      Actually the people that believe that some sort of public shaming will somehow stop Harper are call New Democrats. πŸ˜‰

  13. On2PlanB says:

    Thank God Chretien and Martin never appointed any party hacks or bagmen to the Senate.

    • JenS says:

      This isn’t a matter of appointing hacks or bagmen. Distasteful as that idea is, this is a matter of appointing people who have been out-and-out rejected by the electorate. That’s a whole bigger ball of patronage, as far as I’m concerned.

      • On2PlanB says:

        OK then – thank God Chretien and Martin never appointed any defeated MPs or candidates, like, say, Celine Hervieux-Payette, Lucie Pepin, Serge Joyal, Mobina Jaffer, Joe Day, David Smith, Pierrette Ringuette, Dennis Dawson, or Francis Fox – each and every one of them “rejected by the electorate” (in some cases, more than once).

        • The Doctor says:

          Yeah, but that’s different . . .

          • Philip says:

            You are right, it is different. Neither Chretien nor Martin spent decades writing and speaking against an appointed Senate. Steve Harper did. Stephen Harper, however, has done the exactly what his “outside Ottawa” self argued so passionately against. Pretty much the dictionary definition of hypocrisy. The Liberal Party has always been in favour of an appointed Senate, since Confederation. The NCC and the Reform Party, not so much.
            So Doctor, keep on chewing and swallowing, keep telling yourself that Harper still believes in small government, balanced budgets and a Triple E Senate. He doesn’t and he is laughing at those who still do.

          • The Doctor says:

            Yo Phillip, it’s clear that you really know nothing about my political views, so don’t pretend to, ‘kay?

          • Philip says:

            No I think I pretty much nailed your political views. Enjoy the next four years of being taken for granted. Yo.

          • Attack! says:

            so, what ARE your affiliations, then, Doc? Used to vote Lib, became disaffected at some point, now vote semi-reluctantly for the CPC … or maybe don’t vote at all… yet still hang around stalking a Lib. site and making bitchy comments therein, like some bitter old ex- who just can’t let go and move on with their life? Or are you just some punkass Rhinceros Party type who never grew out of the ‘it’s cool to be cynical and not support anything’ teenage years? Either way, your presence here is as useful and welcome as a creepy heckler at a funeral.

          • The Doctor says:

            A! I visit this site for the same reason lots of other people do. I’m a political junkie, as are many or most of the visitors and posters here. I enjoy Warren’s take and perspective on federal politics. I have my views on things, other people have theirs. I enjoy political discussion, and I think we all benefit when different viewpoints are offered up. I often learn things from other posters here. Personally, I think a comment board where everybody had the exact same set of political views would be unbelievably dull and intellectually stifling, like something out of North Korea. I enjoy diversity of opinion and think it’s something to be celebrated, rather than being condemned and suppressed. But apparently you have a different view.

          • The Doctor says:

            No Philip, you clearly know dick about my political views. The policies and positions of Harper and his government which I oppose would fill up a reasonably sized book.

            Certain posters on here seem to think that if your posts aren’t essentially regurgitated talking points from the Liberal War Room, then you must ipso facto be a Conservative. This may come as a shock to you, but the political spectrum is actually a lot wider and more complex than that.

          • Attack! says:

            Visiting is one thing, but leaving snarky comments every time you visit, like a dog marking its territory, is another: it’s quite possible to do one w/o the other. (It’s called ‘lurking’. And this isn’t a ‘comment board,’ BTW: it’s an individual’s website, an individual who advances certain political views, but who allows comments.)

            And unlike Harper, who’s about to try to bankrupt the other Parties, I’m not trying to squelch other political views: I’m just wondering why people with differing political views keep being wedding crashers on sites where they’re neither friends nor family. Start your own blogs, or talk amongst yourselves, or leave constructive criticisms, if you must, you’re genuinely interested in there being a viable opposition, but the heckling for heckling’s sake is pretty tiresome.

            Maybe that’s not fair to you in particular, for the whole history of your posts (but it is for your most recent output, so I’m only half sorry for bitching at you), but I’m kind of reacting to a composite of so many of the hecklers here, who all kinda blend together.

    • Warren says:


      Were you paid for this post?

      • On2PlanB says:

        Nope, just a citizen who finds it a bit rich that Liberals are accusing the Tories of hypocrisy when it comes to Senate patronage.

        • David says:

          I don’t think the Libs ever promised senate reform. This is yet another “say one thing, do another” from Harper. That is what shouldn’t be surprising about this.

        • AmandaM says:

          Nevertheless, two wrongs don’t make a right. So, defend your leader for what he has done. Ad hominem attacks don’t make what Mr. Harper has done right, morally or otherwise.

  14. JH says:

    Doesn’t have legs though – 4 years from now this will be forgotten. That’s why new governments get this kind of thing out of the way early. Be prepared for lots of things to be outraged about over the next year. Quite frankly looking at Libby and Ralph today on P&P – not very effective on the issue, even with Evan pushing it. You could sense their hearts weren’t in it. One can certainly wish they are prepared to mount a more serious effort on the major issues of the day as we progress. Otherwise if we’re back to the nit picking of the last 5 years, Canadians will just tune out. Most simply ignore it except for the political junkies. The election results have already put the final nail in the scandal of the day coffin and proved the strategy is not a game changer, nor a vote generator.

    • Warren says:

      Hmmm Paid for this post?

      • JH says:

        Naw – but can you help with that? I used to get paid to write stuff, but I guess age has made me redundant. Then again, if you could get me paid, my tax guy would have to work harder and then he’d be po’d.

  15. Dave Roberts says:

    Good thing the Liberals have plans in place to elect senators or otherwise appoint persons of merit to the senate. Good thing.

    • Warren says:

      paid for this post?

    • Craig Chamberlain says:

      PM Harper, having eaten the wrong mushrooms:

      hello, as your pm I am going to irritate my new found best friends in ontario and talk about AN ELECTED SENATE ohh yeahh where ontario gets fewer seats I think I want to have another level of government with the legitimacy of being elected so whomever gets elected can campaign on a platform of telling me to go jump in a lake and block all of my cherished bills yes I want to elections so that the canadian people can have min-referendums of sorts on my leadership because you know I am a big champion of democracy and definately favour any measure to give canadians an opportunity to say that I actually don’t have the mandate I am taking from having been elected and of course i’m ok with giving up the power that goes along with paying off political debts by appointments to the senate and yes sir I am ready to roll the dice because you never know I might even get more senators if we had elections yes sir you never know.

      (Outside Ottawa Stephan Harper, meet I Like Ottawa Stephan Harper.)

  16. Ted says:

    I guess, two weeks ago when Larry Smith said about the senate ‘I have no place there’, he or we should have realized his statement was going to be Oda-cized.

    But I do love how, even with a majority, even with the Liberals in distant third place and leaderless… Conservatives can’t support Harper’s actions so they still have make it all about the Liberals.

  17. Bart F. says:

    So it’s “despicable” when the Cons do it? But not your former boss?

    K, got it.

  18. AB Observer says:

    Warren, Warren, Warren… time to check your keyboard.

    It seems to be stuck on just a few letters.

    It is so unlike you.

    I WAS paid for THIS post!

  19. Bill M. says:

    So the con defense is “they did it too”?

    Who campaigned on accountability and transparency in 2006?

    Larry Smith finished 3rd in Lac St Louis….even in 2008, the CPC candidate was able to finish second.

    Why should Smith be in the Senate when the riding clearly rejected him?

  20. George says:

    Ah WK “Did you really think things were going to be any different, after these clowns got a majority?”

    What you mean follow the in the big floppy footsteps of the Liberals when they made similar appointments?

    Just who was it who thwarted attempts by Harper to reform the Senate when it was put before the house and Liberal dominated Senate?

    Go ahead take a stab at it?

    The Coalition of Losers opposed it.

    I’m pretty sure that the NEXT attempt at Senate Reform will work out and we will get an elected Senate. Today’s appointees know that to.

  21. brent says:

    I sense an evil genius at work.

    Harper goes and re-appoints toadies, then public outcry starts up the bandwagon for senate reform, so he ends up getting what he (allegedly) wanted anyway.


    (I’m Not Serious.)

  22. Chris Mehrlein says:

    To all those on this message board who are whinning that “the Liberals did it first” or “the Liberals never wanted an elected Senate when they were in power,” that’s not the point. The point is that Jean Cretien and Paul Martin didn’t spend their early careers yakking about how useless and un-democratic the Senate was/is. Incidentally, I think that replacing the Senate was one of the only good (if highly problematic in practice) ideas that Harper ever had. Not only has he turned his back on it, he’s done so in a way that stinks of political favourtism.

    And no I was not paid for this post.

  23. brent says:

    And I’m guessing that some people are clueless that maybe our beloved moderator can see your IP address.

  24. Lipman says:

    Wow, Gord!

    You must really be in the know! When is health care getting privatized?

    • Jon Adams says:

      “What we may very well see is delivery of those services by privately owned and operated entities.”

      Soooo… Privatization.

      • Lipman says:

        And Gord, it has worked so well in the United States…

        Who would have thought wireless minutes and my neighbour’s dialysis treatment could have so much in common.


  25. jeffm says:

    I guess these were the first senators appointed who lost an election for MP. Until the Provinces put up some names for Senate appointment there isn’t much Harper can do. I actually prefer Jack’s idea of getting rid of the senate entirely.

  26. The Doctor says:

    Which separatist movement?

  27. Bruce Wayne says:

    GAME CHANGER!!!!!!!

    • The Doctor says:

      Absolutely. Goverment falls next week, Liberal Majority in 2 months. Fer sure.

      Even though, stragely enough, the LPC apparently favours an appointed Senate.

  28. Joey Rapaport says:

    The Canadian Senate is a freakn’ Joke, but anyone reading this would kill for the 132k/yr job, gold plated pension, to sit back and scratch yourself!

  29. R says:


    10 women 37 member plus Harper is 38 seat so far but I think it said 39 seat

    do we need all those people to hire
    are they have right background to do their job or we are microbial mouse for 4 years for them

    can they in future cut or may increase more seat for more need for public demand or issues

  30. smelter rat says:

    What a strange world you live in Gord.

    • Scott Tribe says:

      You’re really believing that, Gord? Check Section 42 of the Constitution – you need 7 provinces with 50% or more of the pop to change the Senate.

      I’ll even quote it for you so you don’t need to go look it up:

      Section 42 specifies that amendments with respect to the following matters in particular must be made using the general amending formula:

      1. the principle of proportional representation of the provinces in the House of Commons;

      2. the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;

      3. the number of Senators representing a province and the residence qualifications of Senators;

      4. the Supreme Court of Canada (except for its composition);

      5. the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and

      6. the establishment of new provinces.

  31. student501 says:


    Did anyone expect anything different from them ? They were the only government to receive a non confidence vote over a contempt of parliament charge, EVAR !

    Canadians deserve what they got, they elected them.

  32. patrick Deberg says:

    PMSH is just warming up. Look at Rusty Baird in charge of FA !! Who’s gonna take PMSH wife to all the Galas in Ottawa now??

    • Reality.Bites says:

      Jason Kenney. All they need is a living, breathing Reformer who’s guaranteed to never, ever have a living, breathing girlfriend.

  33. Philippe says:

    Had he said from the beginning he believed in stuffing the senate – I wouldn’t mind… would be par for the course and expected (hey we Libs did it). But in view of his past comments, I find this act repulsive & disgusting … the kind of garbage that turns non-political people off politics. It’s the reason regular Joe on the streets despises politicians. It’s not the act, it’s the contradiction and the lies. What a self-serving piece of s*it.

    It’s going to be a long 4 years… Jesus what will things look like at the end of this ride.

  34. Africon says:

    This is great BECAUSE it is so outrageous.
    When will the Provincial Governments begin to co-operate by having elections for Senate vacancies in their Province ?
    When all 100 senators are Conservative bagmen ?

    I wonder how many Libs that just lost in this election would refuse a Senate appointment ?

    Just saying.

  35. Bart F. says:

    Chretien appointments to the Senate:


    and during the Martin months:


    Serge Joyal, Francis Fox, and others, were defeated Liberals. The Liberals have opposed Senate reform at almost every turn.

    Federal Liberals are the people with the least moral standing in the world to complain about Harper larding the Senate with hacks, including defeated MPs.

    (No, I haven’t been paid for this post – if someone knows how I can get paid please provide contact info, tks)

    • Philippe says:

      That’s such a typical Conservative response… they did it so we do it! The logic of A 5-year old. The difference is your guy promised he WOULDN’T do it… capiche?

  36. Mike says:

    It is pretty shit that individuals rejected by the electorate only two short weeks ago have been affixed so quickly to senate seats…but hey, politics is a partisan patronage world.
    Good on Harper for stacking the deck in his favour. And good on Chretien and Martin when they did it with Libs. When us Grits take the House back someday we will swing the pendylum back our way.

  37. R says:


    sometimes people must accept win and lost


    just have to watch conservative more closly and prevent them for some do and do not if they go above limit

    main problems of Harper I think he drink so much alchole his brain is ko ko now

  38. R says:

    i recommanded Harper to hire
    human resources of conservative company to help him
    find new staff in senate
    the best company would be Loblaw human resources
    or Allan Leighton president of Loblaw is firing end of july can work for Harper
    the best job of UK man Allan Leighton to fire so many and made board of director to few people
    do not trust me see before and after of people hire and fire and board seat of Loblaw

    loblaw.ca and /or weston.ca

    because harper is really despeart who can help him in politic world

  39. Appointing senators is one thing. Re-appointing senators who step down to run for office, only to fail, is quite another. Any one with common decency would properly conclude that the people they purport to represent do not want them anywhere near government and therefore would step aside.

    This move was something of a continuation of the contempt for voters that Harper showed in 2006 when he appointed the Liberal David Emerson to his Conservative cabinet. Negotiations for that floor crossing started less than 24 hours after the votes were counted on January 23. Electors only found out on Feb 6 when Emerson stepped out of a limo in front of Rideau Hall.

    Despite promising to Montrealers on TV in campaign 2006. Harper appointed Fortier to cabinet via the senate. It was wrong for Harper to appoint Emerson and Fortier to cabinet 2006, and these latest appointments are no better and are in fact worse.

    At least Harper got something tangible out of Emerson for all the trouble his appointment cause them both.

    Smith, Manning, Verner – none of them is a David Emerson.

  40. I thought the plan for Senate Reform would have been drafted a long time ago, proposed legislation sitting on a shelf ready to be introduced as soon as a majority was achieved. They’ve talked about this since the inception of the Reform Party.

    I don’t see how you can appoint so many new members to the Senate only to have their lives disrupted again in several months. Think of the hardship.

    No, first things to get to are prisons to fund, jets to buy, long gun registry to dismantle and health care.

    The Senate in its present state is here for a while.

    • Reality.Bites says:

      You do realize of course that they have every legal right to tell Harper to get stuffed.

    • You mean PMSH doesn’t trust that elected representatives of the other 60% of the country that didn’t vote for him, could by appointment to the Senate, actually do the right thing when it comes to Senate reform? I would think it smart in the long run for PMSH to throw that 60% an olive branch- missed opportunity.

      Heather MacIvor’s pre-election analysis is looking very prescient now.

  41. Pete says:


  42. International Progressive says:

    As with my post above, I really don’t believe that Harper is an actual Nazi. My apologies, you can delete my post if you like.

    Is Harper a hypocrite? Yes πŸ™‚

    • Attack! says:

      It’s not that the critics don’t under_stand it: they just can’t stand it.

      And which one of Tulk’s many last posts valiantly trying to apologize or even blame the media for his massa’s latest sodomizing abuse of democracy and the Reform ideals did you mean?

      ‘Sniff, he needed to push though an absolute majority to rig the Senate committees to ensure they’re not headed by Liberals…’

      to, what — prevent them from doing their job, of actually taking a good hard look at what could well be flawed legislation that would be overturned in the Courts or cause a lot of needless grief due to things that hadn’t been thought through? Wayta be. That’s like a contractor’s bribing safety inspectors to look the other way. With our money.

      And, given his alleged commitment to an elected Senate, shouldn’t the allegedly reluctantly appointed new CPC Senators needed to, um, cripple the ‘sober second thought by those not being whipped by the current gov’t’ function of the Senate BE people who at least theoretically stood a chance of BEING elected?

      Rather than people who had demonstrably just been proven to be un-electable: not only _because_ they were CPC, but also because two of them had apparently betrayed the CPC ideals:

      Smith, who showed the worst sort of elitism by bitching about the pay cut he had to take to _become_ a Senator, and who also indicated he saw nothing wrong about porkbarreling, when he said in his campaign that if he didn’t become MP his riding would be far less likely to get any gov’t funding for new projects, that that’s just the way things are done in Ottawa;

      and Verner, who not only tried to bribe QC’ers with the ROC’s money to help build a new NHL arena for the Nordiques (which appeared to be okay with many in that area, but certainly not all), but also failed to deliver: so, both a hypocrite to (what the others eventually decided were) fiscally Conservative principles, but also someone with rash judgment for leading the charge in the first place seemingly w/o the boss’s approval, and then an under-performer for failing to deliver.

      But, gee, their promise to only stay in place for 8 years (to do nothing, just long enough to collect a rich pension for the rest of their lives) makes it all A-OK for the Harper loyalists…

      (“This hurts me as much as it does you, junior; but don’t fret, I’ll only sodomize you for 8 more years, and it’s all part of some master plan; trust me, I know what I’m doing.”

      “Okay, Daddy.. you know best.”)

  43. Pedro says:

    Dirty deed done early.
    Many days for it to be forgotten.
    Again, misunderestimating a now experienced politician.
    My, he’s got the Musings crowd positively foaming at the mouth.
    Problem is, most Canadians have gotten over politicians baiting and switching and deceiving.
    Low expectations and all.
    Look for good optics appointments late in the term before the election.
    No Senate reform soon. Pick an unwinnable fight when you have few provincial premiers in your pocket? Suicide!
    I’ve said it before – patience. Some are playing a long game while Liberals continue to run around like chicken little.

  44. Pedro says:

    May I add another thought?
    Senate reform, as with anything that involves constitutional changes, requires a statesman, or stateswoman for that matter.
    Say what you will about Harper’s arrogance, he’s not silly enough to think he is able to wear that mantle (yet?).
    We will see such a statesperson arise in the future.
    Progressives might as well get working to find that individual amongst their ranks before conservatives find one amongst theirs.
    Because just as the Trudeau Liberals were able to subtly shape the political culture through many years of governing, the Conservatives may just re-balance that culture so Canadians don’t fear the hidden-agenda boogeyman anymore.

  45. Ed says:

    They couldn’t ask them. The presser about the appointments was sent out minutes after PMSH left the cabinet shuffle. LeBreton took some questions, but do you really think she wouldn’t shuck and dive around a straight answer like the one above?

  46. Philip says:

    You do realize Harper had a majority in the Senate before these appointments? So with both your fake (see Section 42, as noted above) pre-conditions for Senate reform met as of May 3rd. So why appoint the three now? Because your Master is rewarding three failures with a turn at the trough, on the taxpayers dime. Which used to be something conservatives cared about. Not so much now apparently.

  47. Patrick Hamilton says:

    For all ReformaTory, aka Reformer hypocrites……”A bountiful providence fashioned us holler, so that we could our principles swaller”-J.S. Woodsworth

  48. The Doctor says:

    A!. it’s Warren’s website. As far as I know, you’re not Warren. I totally understand and respect the fact that it’s Warren’s website, and those of us who leave comments do so entirely at Warren’s discretion. WK has the right and power to boot off anyone that he likes.

    But as far as I know, you are not Warren’s enforcer, or the official administrator for this site, or anything like that.

    The fact that you’d be going after someone like me is, frankly, amazing to me. At “worst”, I’d be officially classified as a Blue Liberal, blurring into Red Tory territory on occasion (although as has been pointed out, Red Tories seem to have gone extinct, along with Dodo Birds). I’m very far from a Harperite. The Libs I’ve supported in the past were John Manley, Roy McLaren, Paul Martin and Iggy. I would have been quite comfortable with Iggy as PM. The recent Tories that I’ve been able to live with are the now-departed Jim Prentice, and James Moore. So why you’d train your guns on me, rather than some of the far-right fire-breathers that regularly visit, is rather puzzling to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *