[Patrick_Ross]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... hub=Canada

$1:

Harper to appoint Brown as elected senator

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will name a long-time senate reform advocate as his first elected senator.

Harper told the House of Commons towards the end of Wednesday's question period that he will name the "senator in waiting" from Alberta to the upper chamber.

Brown will replace Sen. Dan Hays, a Liberal who announced Tuesday that he intends to retire by the end of June.

Brown, a farmer from Kathyrn, Alta., once plowed the message "Triple-E Senate or Else" into a barley field. Triple-E means equal, elected and effective.

In Alberta's third Senate election in 2004, Brown captured the most votes.

Alberta has been holding senate elections since 1989, but the Liberal governments of 1993 to 2006 ignored the results when appointing senators from that province.

In 1990, then-Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney appointed Stan Waters as the first elected Senate nominee.

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach praised Harper's move, saying Brown is a "great Albertan and has been a tireless campaigner for western equality."

The province believes that the people and not the prime minister should choose Canada's senators, Stelmach said.

[Zoraja]

Umm I think I am missing something, how do you appoint an elected senator???

[hurley_108]

Zoraja Zoraja:

Umm I think I am missing something, how do you appoint an elected senator???

It's utterly stupid. The last three provincial elections, Alberta's been running seantor-in-waiting elections, to generate a list of people they want appointed to the senate. This guy's been on those ballots and won a couple times. It's a utter farce of an election because it's almost completely meaningless, there's no campaigning I've ever seen, and there's no party affiliation listed on the ballot. I spoil my senator in waiting ballots.

[Zoraja]

Thats stupid.

But I still don't get it, is harper supposed to appoint somebody to an elected position? Or is it not an elected position it is just that the guy was elected to soemthing else that it is referring to.

[xerxes]

The deal is that senators at he moment, aren't elected but appointed. So what Alberta has started to do is to hold elections for people who they feel should be in the Senate. But because the election is essentially meaningless, Harper has to appoint that person.

Hope that clears it up.

[hurley_108]

Zoraja Zoraja:

Thats stupid.

But I still don't get it, is harper supposed to appoint somebody to an elected position? Or is it not an elected position it is just that the guy was elected to soemthing else that it is referring to.

The second case. Senators are still appointment positions. Nothing has really changed, and he wasn't really elected. It's just that in filling a new vacancy (Harper's done nothing about the numerous old vacancies), he's gone to the list that Alberta made by election in order to fill that new vacancy.

[hurley_108]

xerxes xerxes:

The deal is that senators at he moment, aren't elected but appointed. So what Alberta has started to do is to hold elections for people who they feel should be in the Senate. But because the election is essentially meaningless, Harper has to appoint that person.

Hope that clears it up.

Not quite. Harper didn't have to do anything. He could have left the seat vacant. He could have appointed some other person. Harper chose, as is the prerogative of the PM, to appoint Brown.

[xerxes]

I know. Zoraja, if I understand correctly, was wondering why someone who elected had to be appointed.

[sasquatch2]

Senators must be appointed by the PM because the constitution has not been changed.....something the LIBRANOs avoid because they like most socialists are not big on democracy.

[baylee]

Yawn

[Rihx]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

xerxes xerxes:

The deal is that senators at he moment, aren't elected but appointed. So what Alberta has started to do is to hold elections for people who they feel should be in the Senate. But because the election is essentially meaningless, Harper has to appoint that person.

Hope that clears it up.

Not quite. Harper didn't have to do anything. He could have left the seat vacant. He could have appointed some other person. Harper chose, as is the prerogative of the PM, to appoint Brown.

Its just a start on senate reform. It happened the same way in the states. Originally, US senetors were appointed by the state. Then a couple of states decided to elect their senators, which eventually lead to a change in the constitution because people liked it better. The moral of the story is; People Like Democracy.

[Patrick_Ross]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Zoraja Zoraja:

Umm I think I am missing something, how do you appoint an elected senator???

It's utterly stupid. The last three provincial elections, Alberta's been running seantor-in-waiting elections, to generate a list of people they want appointed to the senate. This guy's been on those ballots and won a couple times. It's a utter farce of an election because it's almost completely meaningless, there's no campaigning I've ever seen, and there's no party affiliation listed on the ballot. I spoil my senator in waiting ballots.

So you're comfortable with the Prime Minister just appointing whomever the hell they want as senators?

[hurley_108]

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Zoraja Zoraja:

Umm I think I am missing something, how do you appoint an elected senator???

It's utterly stupid. The last three provincial elections, Alberta's been running seantor-in-waiting elections, to generate a list of people they want appointed to the senate. This guy's been on those ballots and won a couple times. It's a utter farce of an election because it's almost completely meaningless, there's no campaigning I've ever seen, and there's no party affiliation listed on the ballot. I spoil my senator in waiting ballots.

So you're comfortable with the Prime Minister just appointing whomever the hell they want as senators?

For the time being, yea. This "election" was a farce, and added no value to the process. Looking at the results, party affiliation is listed, but I don't recall it on the ballot (though that may just be my memory). Of the 10 candidates, 5 were PC, 3 Alberta Alliance, 2 independent. No Liberals. No NDP. No Green. This was hardly a fair vote. This was a vote for people whose sole interest is dismantling the senate as it stands.

There are several serious democratic deficits in this country. The senate, in my opinion, simply does not rank high on the list of them.

[Patrick_Ross]

Other than the fact that our system lacks checks and balances?

...BTW, I imagine if you looked for party affiliation on the ballot and couldn't find it, it probably wasn't there. Although, I agree it should have been.

[hurley_108]

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

Other than the fact that our system lacks checks and balances?

The only time a lack of check and balance actually caused problems I know about is when Mulroney overrode the senate when it tried to block the GST by adding 8 PC senators to make sure it passed.

My priorities, as far as democratic renewal goes:
1: Provincial Electoral Reform
2: Federal Electoral Reform
3: Provincial Separation of Powers
4: Federal Separation of Powers
5: Senate reform

I put provincial ahead of federal in both cases because the province affects my day-to-day life more than the federal government, and the Alberta goverment is not as open and transparent as the Feds.

Basically, the houses and the governments affect my life more than the senate does, so I just don't see the urgency to change the senate.

$1:

...BTW, I imagine if you looked for party affiliation on the ballot and couldn't find it, it probably wasn't there. Although, I agree it should have been.

That's what I was thinking, but it was two and a half years ago, and the results list the affiliation. I wouldn't put it past the Alberta government to be sneaky like that, but I just can't remember accurately.