These will be the last ones appointed before Harpo resigns as PM and moves on in mid September.

“Despite the fine work of many individual Senators, the Upper House remains a dumping ground for the favoured cronies of the Prime Minister.”
— Stephen Harper Leadership Website, http://www.oneconservativevoice.ca, January 15, 2004

Now that Mulroney and Harper are apparently trying to kiss and make up, and with the upcoming 25th anniversary celebration of Mulroney's historic election victory, it is most appropriate to quote the former Prime Minister:

“”You had an option, sir. You could have said, 'I'm not going to do it. This is wrong for Canada.”

You wish!

But it's right for Canada,
reforming the Senate from the inside seems the only way Senate reform will happen.

tedbetts, I'm guessing you're a Liberal, so you put a high value on “equality,” right?

The only way to get “equality” in the Senate is for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to appoint more Conservative Senators, seeing as there has been an over-representation of Liberal$ in the Canadian Senate for a very long time. And, seeing as the Liberal Senators will not hear of an elected Senate, the only option left open to Prime Minister Harper is to appoint senators.

Those silly old Liberal Senators. They don't seem to want either equality or democracy.

OTOH, doesn't good governance have more to do with policies which benefit the most Canadians than the concept of “equality,” which usually turns out meaning that one group of (special, usually connected with the party in power) people are more equal than other groups?

'Just asking …

At least the last time he broke his promise on appointing senators, he made an attempt at appointing Conservative loyalists like Duffy and not personal cronies from his staff.

Great news. I would hope Runciman for sure.

As we see by the first two comments the Liberal apologists will have nothing to offer but slagging the PM for doing what he has to do within the system we have. In order for our elected government to function without political gamesmanship being played in the Senate, holding up legislation unnecessarily, he has to even the playing field.

You need a constitutional resolution with acceptance of 7 provinces and over 50% of the population of Canada to make those changes. Harpo hasn't the cojones to attempt that. and, he is currently in a minority government where his wishes will end up in the trash with him.

Right on, Liz.

liz… just asking. why is Harpo trying to govern for the religious right who are not a majority in this country. Why does he favor the rich with tax cuts tha tthe middle class majority will have to pay back some day? I could go on but you won't understand in any event.

Who is slagging the PM on this issue. Saying he is going to resign is not slagging per se and repeating his own words is just like the attack ads that you call truth ads. Funny thing about the shoe being on the other foot.

So if by referendum,
50% of the Canadian population in 7 provinces say YES to Senate reform,
what Premier is going to go against their people and so NO?
Would McGuinty refuse? Williams? Campbell?…….no.

So it's really that easy Terry.
Get a majority of people who can stay awake for a vote in the Senate to vote yes to reform,
ask the people by referendum,
the Premiers will follow.
Presto, PMSH goes in the history once again.

Yea, speaking of desperation; making up to a guy who took cash bribes while in office. Mulroney is even less popular in Quebec than Chretien so that should help harpo a lot

Wilson, you are full of crap. Ontario has already said they are against the reform Harpo wants. quebec won't go along and I'm sure Newfoundland won't either. Quit making up stories. You and puss face eden are born liars and very typical tories.

Ted, here's what a Liberal senator and a Liberal MP had to say about senate appointments last year.

http://www.hilltimes.com/html/index.php?full_pa…
“The Hill Times, May 12, 2008
Senator urges Prime Minister Harper to fill increasing Senate vacancies
Currently, there are 14 Senate vacancies, but there will be 30 vacancies by the end of 2009.

… Sen. Moore wants to address the number of vacancies in the Senate, currently at 14 and rising to 30 by the end of 2009, by forcing the prime minister to make appointments within six months of a Senate seat being vacated. …

Sen. Moore disputed Mr. Van Loan's assessment, saying that the Constitution requires that the governor general, traditionally on the advice of the prime minister, make Senate appointments when seats are vacated. He said until the Constitution is changed, the government should follow the existing law.

Liberal democratic reform critic and MP Brian Murphy (Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe, N.B.) said the government is not following the law by refusing to appoint Senators and is doing “a disservice” to provinces with vacancies. “I think it matters because you have a Senate that exists and it should be fully filled,” Mr. Murphy told The Hill Times last week. …” [my bolding]

What's the matter with you? Would you have the PM go against the Constitution by refusing to appoint people to the senate?
Tsk, tsk.

Sucks to be in opposition , eh.

Hard to watch the Senate take on a Blue hue,
hard to watch you party struggle with
'what cabinet positions do we offer Dippers' when we lose again.
Hard to watch your appointed man at the top fall short of every expectation supporters had.
I feel for yah.

The Liberal trolls are still upset that Dion couldn't play the system well enough to take power, and appoint his sweetheart Lizzy May to the Senate.

Did McGuinty and Williams ask the people?

What they say isn't the last word.
The last word goes to their BOSS, the people.

I think Ontario wanted to abolish the Senate, right?

Look at New Zealand and their people uprising,
with no upper chamber,
Parliament made spanking a criminal charge.
Now the people want their say… by referendum
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/31/new-ze…

Hey, I thought quoting someone in their own words was being “truthful” and could not be slagging.

Who killed Meech lake….one MPP in manitoba and the Nfld legislature. Not the voters of those provinces. Same deal applies for the senate

Terry: Cry me a river – Your bunch of bunglers are getting scared now and rightly so.
Standing on the overpass and dropping boulders on passing vehicles is your favorite pastime.
And the plot thickens.

Tedbetts

These senators are not cronies. They are public servants who are working for Canada and not stealing taxpayer money like the Liberals.

Congratulations new senators!

Terry1: “Mulroney is even less popular in Quebec than Chretien …”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mu…
H/T National Newswatch
“… Mr. Mulroney still casts a long shadow in the party, particularly in Quebec.
There, he is revered by many as the man who achieved the historic feat of bringing both nationalists and federalists into the Tory tent — something Mr. Harper has tried to repeat, with limited success.”

Wrong again, Terry1.

In the next election during the leaders debate, Harper can look Iggy straight in the eye and ask why he signed the coalition agreement when he had the choice not to.

For someone who continuously complains about the press that quote is a hoot.

In a recent poll Mulroney was almost the lowest rated PM, just ahead of turner if I remember correctly, and by far the worst in Quebec. yhou can believe all you want but Muldoon won't deliver votes for the tories in Quebec and Charest will go with the wind.
harpo won't be running in the next election so that becomes the next question mark.

Unlike you, I don't make wild predictions nor unfounded assertions.

You said “Mulroney is even less popular in Quebec than Chretien …”
Jennifer Ditchburn and Tobi Cohen, two journalists with the G&M, a newpaper you often reference, say the opposite.

You were and are wrong. Point final.

The PM never broke a promise with regards to appointing senators Ted and you know this but don’t let that get in the way of your spin.

PMSH will get it done!

Let's work on reforming the upper house. You in?

I will delete every comments which reaches this level in abusive tone to others. On both sides

Hey, I'm a puss face. Oh, I'm just all agog with excitement. Parnel loves me – oh, I'm so thrilled. Oh baby, baby.

Religious right? I'm part of that group and as far as I'm concerned, PM Harper has not catered to us. Just another sockpuppet quote from Parney.

Here's two good articles on why harpo should be turfed:
http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/ar…

“The current government ran for election in 2006 on a platform promising integrity, accountability and transparency,” John Gomery said in a speech on Wednesday.

……………………………………………………………..

http://www.calgaryherald.com/columnists/patrona…

“An ideological politician who was disgusted at watching Parliament's upper house turned into a vote-stacking exercise, where only the faintest of serious or sober second thoughts actually take place, Harper has turned ruthlessly partisan in making his Senate appointments, elevating party loyalty into the sole consideration for the cushiest job on the Hill.”

Gabby, this one's for you…you can share this good ditty from gritgirl whom all reformatorts have come to love and admire:

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php

Thank you Stephen!

Where or when was it evidenced that Duffy was a conservative Loyalist?

Did you mean bunglers or burglars. I think you might have meant the latter. LOL.

And perhaps delete comments which call our PM Harpo or the leader of the Opposition Iffy. If Parnel/Terry1 stops with the insults and calling our PM Harpo. I'm all for restroring some maturity to the exchange. As for being called a puss face – well, when somebody calls me something like that it signifies to me that the person has lost control and that I have maintained control of the exchange.

You know, if PM Harper stuck to his original theme, he'd be derided for being a hard-headed dinosaur. He has adapted to the environment in which he finds himself and he is derided for “breaking” his promise. I do with the opposing side would pick a stance and stick to it. I have not heard one LPC supporter ever make a derisive comment about Chretien's broken promise re: scrapping the GST. Why is that?

Hmmm – I know that you are not singling out Christians because I know you are such a fair and reasonable person. Now, add all the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and all other faiths together and you come up with a fairly substantial number. So, are you implying that all people of faith do not count or are you just singling out Mr. Harper and those who belong to his particular faith community? Surely, you must be referring to all faiths – after all, to do otherwise would be un-democratic and could even be considered parallel to racist sentiment.

I don't get the “religious right” label either. There's none of that evident but just being Conservative is all it takes for those who have little else to rail about. Many Liberals share the same religious beliefs, do they pin the same label on people like John Manley or John McKay who are evangelical Christians?

Funny how Ignatieff was making nice with Mulroney a few weeks ago. And Lib supporters were siding with poor Mulroney being betrayed by that evil Harper.

Why? Because it's the biggest boner ever pulled. The GST was the most hated tax at the time and when asked if he would get rid of it if elected his answer was “It's gone”. He later said he didn't say it even though it was on video tape.

Sheila Copps believed him as did millions of Canadian voters. Sheila ran her campaign on that promise and had to resign and run again to win her seat without the promise to scrap the GST.

Can just hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth, and the whinging from the Bald Commie Dwarf, and the Unibrow Carpetbagger. The MSM of course, will give them all the airplay they want to criticize, and not once, no not ever mention, how the CPC has been pushing for Senate reform, and how the opposition tools continue to block it every chance they get.

Oh, Liz, you silly girl, you. Of course, when non-Conservatives are religious, it's okay. But let one Conservative believe in God and all heck breaks loose. After all, we would not want to practice such Christian beliefs as charity, not murdering, not harming children, not stealing…being good stewards of what God gives us, being responsible for our lives,etc. Oh no, we would not want to have that kind of country, would we?

I have always felt that Sheila was not well-treated by her party. I'm not her biggest fan but she is intelligent and I believe that she was dedicated to her riding. Now, I have no proof of this but my impression had always been that she was the token female to be trotted out to make the LPC look progressive. PM Harper, on the other hand, appoints female Ministers and allows them to actually do something meaningful. Can anybody justifably criticize our Health Minister, for example?

Oh, and speaking of female Ministers, what was done to Mme Robillard in order to give Stronach a seat was disgraceful.

Terry1, try to diversify your reading material and your sources.
Instead of limiting yourself to WK’s blog, widen your horizons, let in some fresh perspectives!

You said (probably quoting your preferred source): “You need a constitutional resolution with acceptance of 7 provinces and over 50% of the population of Canada to make those changes.”

But here's a more credible source:
“Legislative Committee on Bill C-20
EVIDENCE
Wednesday, April 16, 2008 …
Mr. Fabien Gélinas (Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University, As an Individual):
    As a constitutional lawyer, I naturally asked myself if the bill [Bill C-20, An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate] is valid constitutionally. In legal terms, the answer seems quite simple. The bill does not seem to change any provision of the Constitution within the meaning of section 52 of the Constitution Act of 1982. The constitutional amending procedure in section 38 of the act and those following does not come into play. It simply does not apply.…

    The Bill under study organizes the mechanisms of an optional consultation process that might well look like an election for senators. These provisions in no way require the Governor General to appoint the senators receiving most popular support at the end of the consultations. They do not even require the Prime Minister to accept the result of the consultation when formulating his advice to the Governor General. In fact, no requirement is placed on the Governor General or even on the Prime Minister. There is therefore no impact on section 24 of the Constitution Act of 1867. …

…. If we consider the bill in isolation and in its current form, I believe that no fault can be found with its constitutional validity. …” [my bolding]

Sorry, I decline your invitation to visit your idol's site.

Well, thank you so much, Terry, for providing us with enlightening material. I do appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration. It always warms my heart when some highly intelligent, well-read, enlightened and informed person takes pity on my poor limited vision and tries to help me. Respectfully, however, I decline your kindness. But it was really sweet of you to think of us.

The slur about Prime Minister Stephen Harper catering to the religious right is laughable and reveals the desperation of the Liberal supporters on this blog.

Both east of eden and Liz have answered this slur very well, but I'd like to add that, last time I looked, the right to freedom of religion was protected in Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As we know, however, from grim experience, is that rights and freedoms are protected only for me (Liberal$) but not for thee (Conservatives) in this Deranged Dominion engineered by too many years of the LPC in power.

Either rights and freedoms exist for ALL Canadians, regardless of race, nationality, religion, or political views, or it's a complete sham. Remember that, Liberal apparatchiks, next time you make disparaging and dissembling remarks about others' religious affiliations — because, when you do, you make a farce out of your hero PET's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Addendum to above post: When I referred to “nationality” in this sentence, “Either rights and freedoms exist for ALL Canadians, regardless of race, nationality, religion, or political views, or it's a complete sham,” I meant original nationality if one is an immigrant to Canada.

One other thing: I don't understand the order in which these comments have been posted. A reply I gave to a comment by Liz J last night, and which originally posted under hers — which made sense — has now been posted after two other comments — which makes no sense. What's up? Can't comments be posted in sequence, so we can make sense of them?

Well said, Batb!

Batb, you and I seem to be the only ones who have voiced any concerns re: the format, both here and at Janke's – apparently to deaf ears.

I particularly find the ever-narrowing space allotted to threaded conversations really annoying, as well as the fact comments are not listed chronologically. Whenever I return to this site, I have to reread from the top to see which new comments have been added, since a commenter may have recently responded to a comment made 12 hours ago.

Steve J and Stephen T, you can improve your own site. Yes you can!

Me, too. Last year and this year, I've made comments to that effect on his blog. I don't know why Steve uses that format – it's highly cumbersome and following threads is challenging.

I guess we conservatives like to see user-friendly and sensible organization of things – be they the senate, or blogs, eh?

Bribes. Hmm. Bribes. Why does that word ring a bell. Oh, I know. AdScam.

Hahahahaha. Good one, my friend. Since about a month ago, this blog is asking for a sign in for each comment. Very annoying. I like Joanne's design the best – everything is in sequence. With this site and Janke's, the threads move to the right with each comment – kind of annoying. Great content in both blogs but the format kind of…well…bites.

One consolation, East … “the threads move to the right with each comment”!

I hear you, Gabby and eoe: 'highly annoying the format here and at AGWN; if the content wasn't so good, I'd say fawgettaboutit. Like you, Gabby, I have to reread ALL of the comments to see if there are any new ones — and if there are, they often don't make sense in the position they're in.

Yikes. With all this techno razz-ma-tazz, surely it shouldn't be difficult to put comments in sequence so we can make sense of them … or am I being too much of a Luddite …?

One other comment to add to the Liberal supporters' disparaging remarks about the religious beliefs of politicians on the right:

These slurs only serve to support my suspicions that Trudeau and his Liberal$ had no intention, when they brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CRF), of actually protecting the rights and freedoms of all Canadians, only of certain groups — those who were in lockstep with their agenda.

It's clear that with the institution of the CRF, they intended to use the judiciary, which they crammed with their guys, to ram their socialist agenda down the throats of the hapless Canadian electorate. They knew they couldn't use the elected Parliament to enact most of the changes to our laws they had in mind, because they knew that the majority of Canadians wouldn't buy it.

So, they erected a Trojan Horse to do the job instead. Some democratic process. Some “rights” and “freedoms.”

Gabby: “One consolation, East … 'the threads move to the right with each comment'!

LOL!!!!

You're right, Batb. The lofty intentions set down in the Charter appear to apply only if the people involved have views congruent with the Liberal mindset.

BTW, chafing at the format doesn't make you a Luddite, IMO!

I love the selections for Senate!!! Well deserved for all. And all are True Conservatives. Thank goodness!

RM99

Trudeau's CRF sounds so protective of our stipulated rights and freedoms. However in a Democracy governed by the rule of law it seems more like stating the obvious. We have challenges sent to the Court for interpretation and damn any government who disagrees with their decision. Like the Senate the Court is appointed, like the Senate the deck can be stacked there as well. Surely Judges having such power to interpret our laws and Charter should be elected along with the Senate.

Democracy is supposed to be about political, legal and social equality but if you start ceding to all challenges, special interest groups, some become more equal than others.

Then we have the HRC's to add insult to injury……

rm99, would you like to tell us who the new senators are?!

I just Googled “Harper's new senators” and came up only with old stories and no new list.

I'd love to know who they are, and apparently, Google ain't saying …

And all are True Conservatives.

Which not to be mistaken with the similarly spelled but completely different species “true conservatives”. The capitalized “c” makes a big difference, sort of like adding a “u” to Iqaluit. One is a real, identifiable absolute and the other is a dirty bum.

Holey smokes – good catch, BatB. Good stuff – I can now embrace the comment thread shifting to the right. Thanks for this – to the right, to the right, to the right. Yesssss.

Yawn. Heard all that drivel before. Move along and let somebody with at least half of a wit get into place. Next, please.

Sorry – I meant good catch GABBY.

So Stephen, you don't supposed we can trade up from “terry1″ and get a liberal troll who actually has something intellectually stimulating to say? Being a little fish trying to navigate those blue rivers can be a bitch.

Hmmm, disguising ‘patronage’ as ‘reforming from the inside’.
Well, it seemed to work when Reformers got themselves elected by promising to opt out of the ‘goldplated parliamentary pensions’ (and are of course now enjoying those very pensions they railed against!)
Yes, reforming from the inside it is! We’ll all beleive!

Hmmm, disguising ‘patronage’ as ‘reforming from the inside’.
Well, it seemed to work when Reformers got themselves elected by promising to opt out of the ‘goldplated parliamentary pensions’ (and are of course now enjoying those very pensions they railed against!)
Yes, reforming from the inside it is! We’ll all beleive!

Hmmm, disguising ‘patronage’ as ‘reforming from the inside’.
Well, it seemed to work when Reformers got themselves elected by promising to opt out of the ‘goldplated parliamentary pensions’ (and are of course now enjoying those very pensions they railed against!)
Yes, reforming from the inside it is! We’ll all beleive!

Hmmm, disguising ‘patronage’ as ‘reforming from the inside’.
Well, it seemed to work when Reformers got themselves elected by promising to opt out of the ‘goldplated parliamentary pensions’ (and are of course now enjoying those very pensions they railed against!)
Yes, reforming from the inside it is! We’ll all beleive!

And you're a true progressive liberal, I suppose?
If you've got nothing of substance to say, revert to talking about people's nether regions, right?
How droll. How clever.

My boss just gave me a rather frightened look as I burst out laughing at your comment. Excellent, Cat. Absolutely excellent. Gotta watch out for them thar blue rivers. LOLOLOL.

Well count yourself lucky, you learned a new word for dirty bum. If this mistake hadn't been made you never would have known about it and wouldn't be able to make such a comparison. However, do try to make your comparisons relevant.

I was reading the love in mesages on this blog today as I was driving as a passenger between several meetings. Some of the travel was across farm country and the smell of fresh manure made me feel like it was coming right from this blog.

Holy cow what a bunch of garbage.

cat, have you read the latest EKOS poll that shows reformatort numbers down almost 8% from the Ipsos reid poll you all raved about. This one has much less factor of error also.

Your boss is an idiot for keeping you on the payroll….must be a kind boss.

Terry, I've warned you. Please do not make your comments personal. I've warned others as well

you were hearing Iffy's speach about how wonderful it was and what a good thing they closed the Asbestos mines in Quebec…. right afterwards he managed to alienate hiimself from 1/4 of Eastern Quebec townships that survive off of the Asbestos mines

Gabby. Some people seem to forget or deliberately distort the facts. Mr. Mulroney was never charged with ” taking a bribe” If that had been the truth you can bet he would have been charged.

It appears Mr. Harper would not have needed to appoint any Senators if the Liberal Senators had not been going into a massive filibuster. Not to mention the disgusting display during the Mulroney/Schreiber investigation. The Liberals were only to glad to trott out any garbage Mr. Schreiber came up with. You have only the Liberals to blame for Mr. Harpers change regarding Senate Appointments

I think your statistics are very wrong as is your opinion of Iggy's popularity there.

Omanator… so instead of “sober second thought” you are saying the senate should just stay asleep and pass anything the Harperites want to get through the house.Your Mulroney example was very weak as he himself admitted to taking cash from Schreiber while still in office. That commission was very weak and was there simply to try and discredit schreiber whom we all knew was a crook.

Ih Harper wa sserious about the senate he would have also appointed some independents as the Liberals had done in the past as there are 6 of them there although at least one is still listed as a Progressive Conservative.

The Senate for the last few years has been anything but a cchamber of second sober thoughts. It has been a battle ground for the Liberals since they lost the elections.

That's the way it works in a democracy isn't it. There needs to be two sides to a debate or we would all be under one party rule, something Harpo drools about.

Omanator… so instead of “sober second thought” you are saying the senate should just stay asleep and pass anything the Harperites want to get through the house.Your Mulroney example was very weak as he himself admitted to taking cash from Schreiber while still in office. That commission was very weak and was there simply to try and discredit Schreiber whom we all knew was a crook.

If Harper was serious about the senate he would have also appointed some independents as the Liberals had done in the past as there are 6 of them there although at least one is still listed as a Progressive Conservative.

The Senate for the last few years has been anything but a cchamber of second sober thoughts. It has been a battle ground for the Liberals since they lost the elections.

That's the way it works in a democracy isn't it. There needs to be two sides to a debate or we would all be under one party rule, something Harpo drools about.