[Newsbot]

Title: Liberals plan to ask Harper's patronage appointments to step aside: source | CTV News
Category: Political
Posted By: Delwin
Date: 2015-12-07 02:09:41
Canadian

[Delwin]

Just disgusting the way Harper did this. It's one final FU to the tax payers. It's now going to cost Canadians 18 Million to get rid of these guys. He appointed them and renewed their contracts all in the final weeks of office knowing fully well they would need to be replaced if the Liberals obtained power. One final golden handshake for his cronies. Good riddance to one of histories slimiest PM's.

[Freakinoldguy]

And just think. If the opposition parties had voted for elected Senators like Harper wanted this would be a moot point.

But, of course it's a Conservative plot because no self respecting liberal would ever do something like that and besides, it might just hamstring poor Justin in fulfilling his mandate from heaven.

$1:

However, former Liberal prime minister John Turner was accused of making last-minute patronage appointments before Brian Mulroney's Conservatives swept into power in 1984.

But now Liberals say that Harper's maneuvers put them in a difficult position because there are so many appointments, and many of them are long-lasting.

Many of the contracts extend into and beyond Trudeau's four-year mandate.

Some of these appointments might just have been made because the Conservatives thought they'd win the election or, better yet. Perhaps someone in accounting figured out how much money and how many promises Justin made that likely won't be fulfilled and decided they may as well get a head start on the process of appointing Senators since when it all came crashing down they'd be back in 4 years anyway.

But, look at it this way. It's only our money and up to know Trudeau has had no problem spending it so, what's a few million more to get rid of a minor headache given the billions and billions he's promised for everything else.

[martin14]

I agree, this selective outrage is quite funny.

When the outrage continues for John Turner, Chretien, and PET, for all the pork
they dished out, maybe we can take Delwin a little more seriously.

Until then,

[OnTheIce]

Delwin Delwin:

Just disgusting the way Harper did this. It's one final FU to the tax payers. It's now going to cost Canadians 18 Million to get rid of these guys. He appointed them and renewed their contracts all in the final weeks of office knowing fully well they would need to be replaced if the Liberals obtained power. One final golden handshake for his cronies. Good riddance to one of histories slimiest PM's.

Give me a break!

Your selective outrage is equally disgusting.

[Lemmy]

Partisan bullshit on both sides.

Liberals: You liberals don't get to rip Harper for appointing who he appointed. That's the way it's always been. If Trudeau wants to change this, fine, great even, but criticizing Harper for doing exactly the same as all the prime ministers before him is misdirected.

Conservatives: Harper had 10 years to do senate reform. He didn't. Therefore, you don't get to blame anyone other than yourselves for the senate not being reformed. And you don't get to rip Trudeau for spending money on the things he was elected to spend it on. Get over your fantasy that Conservatives are better at managing tax dollars. They aren't.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Conservatives: Harper had 10 years to do senate reform. He didn't. Therefore, you don't get to blame anyone other than yourselves for the senate not being reformed. And you don't get to rip Trudeau for spending money on the things he was elected to spend it on. Get over your fantasy that Conservatives are better at managing tax dollars. They aren't.

That's being disingenuous.

Look at how many times they made attempts to change the Senate. It's not just as easy as passing a bill in the HOC.

He needed provincial consent to introduce elections or term limits to the upper chamber and unanimous consent to do away with it altogether.

[Lemmy]

It's not disingenuous, but your points are valid. Constitutional reforms aren't easy to do. Nonetheless, Harper didn't even make an attempt at senate reform so it obviously wasn't a priority for him. By doing nothing, conservatives don't get to say "...elected senators like Harper wanted".

[BRAH]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Delwin Delwin:

Just disgusting the way Harper did this. It's one final FU to the tax payers. It's now going to cost Canadians 18 Million to get rid of these guys. He appointed them and renewed their contracts all in the final weeks of office knowing fully well they would need to be replaced if the Liberals obtained power. One final golden handshake for his cronies. Good riddance to one of histories slimiest PM's.

Give me a break!

Your selective outrage is equally disgusting.

There's a reason for his selective outrage.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

It's not disingenuous, but your points are valid. Constitutional reforms aren't easy to do. Nonetheless, Harper didn't even make an attempt at senate reform so it obviously wasn't a priority for him. By doing nothing, conservatives don't get to say "...elected senators like Harper wanted".

That's incorrect.

There were numerous attempts at Senate reform with C-7 going all the way to the Supreme Court.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

And just think. If the opposition parties had voted for elected Senators like Harper wanted this would be a moot point.

It requires a unanimous vote in the house to bring about elected senators? I didn't know that. I thought it only required a simple majority to pass legislation in the house.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Some of these appointments might just have been made because the Conservatives thought they'd win the election or, better yet. Perhaps someone in accounting figured out how much money and how many promises Justin made that likely won't be fulfilled and decided they may as well get a head start on the process of appointing Senators since when it all came crashing down they'd be back in 4 years anyway.

What does appointing senators have to with appointing heads of crown corps and agencies, which is what the op is about? If Harper thought he'd win the election, why were some people reappointed whose contract didn't expire until 2019? Jumping the gun a bit, isn't it?

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

There were numerous attempts at Senate reform with C-7 going all the way to the Supreme Court.

Sure, but limiting term is a different kettle of fish from having an elected senate or abolishing it altogether. And surely Harper knew C-7 wasn't going to pass a constitutional challenge. So it falls under the category of lip-service more so than a concerted attempt to change anything.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

And just think. If the opposition parties had voted for elected Senators like Harper wanted this would be a moot point.

It requires a unanimous vote in the house to bring about elected senators? I didn't know that. I thought it only required a simple majority to pass legislation in the house.

Apparently there are alot more hurdles than just a unanimous vote in the house.

$1:

The fundamental problem with any attempt to reform or abolish the Senate is this: It’s at the centre of the Canadian constitutional structure. “There shall be one Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons,” reads Canada’s original 1867 Constitution, the BNA Act. A government can’t pass legislation without the approval of all three parts of Parliament. So, absent a constitutional amendment unanimously approved by Ottawa and all 10 provinces, no government can govern without a Senate.

Good luck with that one. I don't see our current PM having anymore luck getting the Red Chamber reformed than his predecessor did because, given the disproportionate representation some provinces have they're not likely to give up that political advantage for the benefit of the rest of the country.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

andyt andyt:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

And just think. If the opposition parties had voted for elected Senators like Harper wanted this would be a moot point.

It requires a unanimous vote in the house to bring about elected senators? I didn't know that. I thought it only required a simple majority to pass legislation in the house.

Apparently there are alot more hurdles than just a unanimous vote in the house.

$1:

The fundamental problem with any attempt to reform or abolish the Senate is this: It’s at the centre of the Canadian constitutional structure. “There shall be one Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons,” reads Canada’s original 1867 Constitution, the BNA Act. A government can’t pass legislation without the approval of all three parts of Parliament. So, absent a constitutional amendment unanimously approved by Ottawa and all 10 provinces, no government can govern without a Senate.

Good luck with that one. I don't see our current PM having anymore luck getting the Red Chamber reformed than his predecessor did because, given the disproportionate representation some provinces have they're not likely to give up that political advantage for the benefit of the rest of the country.

And yet you started off the conversation with

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

And just think. If the opposition parties had voted for elected Senators like Harper wanted this would be a moot point.

The two don't seem to square.

It does not require a unanimous vote in the house to change the senate. To make major changes to it tho requires unanimous agreement of the provinces. Ie major changes are impossible.