Ten days ago, I suggested four criteria by which to judge Mr. Harper’s senate appointments.  The criteria were as follows: 

•  independence of mind
• outstanding service to the country
• reputation for fairness
• commitment to a united Canada

 Today, the Prime Minister announced 18 new Senators – five women, one Korean-Canadian, one Aboriginal and 11 other men.  In his news release, he stated all 18 of them have “pledged to support eight-year term limits and other Senate reform legislation.“  Say that again?  They’re not even sworn in yet, and they’ve promised to vote according to the PM’s dictate?  So much for independence of mind.   

Mr. Harper also says each of the new Senators has “declared his or her unwavering commitment to support Canadian unity and oppose the coalition.”   How very curious.  The PM appears to think the coalition threatens Canadian unity.  Yet it was his rhetoric which fanned the fires of disunity in early December, thereby causing a resurgence of Parti Quebecois support in the provincial election.  Appointing Quebec Senators pledged to the PM’s version of senate reform will hardly promote unity. Premier Charest has repeatedly warned he’ll go to the Supreme Court of Canada if Mr. Harper’s reform package is passed by Parliament. 

Which brings me to the 19^th appointment – this one to the Supreme Court of Canada.  Once again, Mr. Harper has reneged on his promises, this time to hold public hearings into judicial nominations.  All in all, regardless of the merits of some of the individuals (Nancy Green, for instance), I think December 22, 2008 might well go down in history as the day of 19 Disappointments. 

These Senate appointments were "gun to the head" appointments. Either Harper acted or the threat of a Coalition government acting was even more frightening.  Liz May? Are you kidding?

Great tactical move Prime Minister!!

These Senate appointments were "gun to the head" appointments. Either Harper acted or the threat of a Coalition government acting was even more frightening.  Liz May? Are you kidding?

Great tactical move Prime Minister!!

I am new to this blog and find that it sounds remarkably like so many LIBERAL blogs I visit. Are you sure that this Senator is a Progressive Conservative and not a Liberal in sheeps clothing?? Wow, not a bad appoinment by Paul Martin.

Senator - I respectfully disagree with you.  Stephen Harper has long said he wants Senate reform.  My question to you is; why don't you?.

  Why do you think that Senators should be appointed for life?

Do you disagree that the Senate is overworked because of the lack of senators being appointed? 

Did you disagree with several of your colleagues writing earlier this year that Harper should be appointing senators?

It was not Harper that threatened national unity, senator;  it was an unelected coalition, including a separatist party, that rose up to try to take power, that sparked any unity crisis.  Before the coalition tried to take power; there was no unity crisis.  The coalition was in the works long before Harper made his economic statement.  A statement; by the way; that many Canadians agreed with once they found out that political parties are actually subsidized by our tax dollars. 

So Senator, Harper "reneging" on his promises is simply a matter of circumventing the obstruction of senate reform by you and your colleagues.  Perhaps you could now do what most Albertans want you to do and that is vote for senate reform.  After all - you say that you work and speak for Albertans.  Please do it.

For years, we've heard Stephen Harper and the Reform party complain about the Senate, that it is not elected, effective or equal. Then, he chooses to appoint 18 Senators. This is an appalling example of hypocrisy. Today, Nancy Green said that Stephen Harper had no choice but to appoint Senators. She's got that wrong. The Senate is working fine and a commitment to an unworkable kind of reform that is opposed by many provinces is not something that appointing 18 Senators will fix. Instead of listening to serious ideas, Stephen Harper chose to go the easy route, much like is simpleton bills to change the Senate. Some people why there is such an outcry about these appointments, well, its mainly because of Harper's usual double standards. If they Senate is to change, we need to appoint different people who are free from party ties to apply their knowledge to real solutions. Hasty term limits, elections to a post that the Constitution Act indicates is appointed and Mike Duffy are the wrong answer.

Even Don Martin in the National Post (by no means a liberal leftie) is cynical about Harper's selections.  Here's an excerpt of what he had to say:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/22/don-martin-harper-appointments-confirm-senate-role-as-payola-heaven.aspx

Stacking the Senate with members of the national press gallery and assorted political partisans is hardly the sort of reform Conservatives wanted from their prime minister, who always vowed to nudge the Senate toward the election of quality representatives from provinces with vacancies.

This one-day pile-in does nothing more then solidify the Senate’s image as payola heaven and harden its reality as a partisan divide under the control of respective party leaders.

Surely Mr. Harper could’ve found reform-minded Canadians with gold-plated public service records that voters in the respective provinces might’ve elected, if given the option. Yet he opted for the wearying same-old, same-old mentality of the Senate as the official clearing house for partisan IOUs.

Would Saskatchewan voters elect upper crust Pamela Wallin as their Senate representative? Not a chance.

Would the voters of Newfoundland elevate former Conservative Fabian Manning just nine weeks after they voted him out of an MP’s job? Would the B.C. electorate choose Yonah Martin for an appointment when she couldn’t even land a winnable seat last Oct. 14? Would Ontario voters embrace Irving Gerstein, whose only political claim to fame was serving as Canada’s top Conservative fundraiser? Would Quebec pick former Canadian Alliance candidate Leo Housakos, best friend to a PMO communications official, who was tainted earlier this year by allegations of meddling in a public works file? Hell no -- to all of the above.

Nicely said Mr. Martin. 

And let's not forget the timing. Almost every Canadian is too busy to respond to this or notice the extreme partisan gamesmanship that is going on here again.

So much for Harper's renewed pledge (on CBC TV, after proroguing) to be collaborative and non-partisan and think of the country first.

He must think we are all asleep. 

MIKE DUFFY???? Oh say it ain't so. 

He's the Don Cherry of journalism -- just another good old boy.  I'm unbelievable disappointed.

I expected some partisan nonsense -- but Mike Duffy? That's just an insult to Canadian intelligence.

Yes, he's fine as a shock jock ideological journalist talking head, but a Senator?  Oh please.  I think of the HUNDREDS of fine Canadians who daily go beyond the call of duty in the interest of public service (beyond partisan infighting), and to think that Mike Duffy gets to be there instead of them is just too much to bear.

And that's just the tip of the whole ugly iceberg -- what a terrible list of appointments, for the most part. 

Harper has shown that he's far more prone to 'stacking' the Senate with cronies and payoffs than either Chretien or Martin, who at least (for the most part) chose talent and diversity above partisan loyalty.

What a shameful day.

runesmith, that's the first laugh I've had around this whole sorry business.  I'm very glad to hear you (and hopefully most Canadians) respect our institutions.  If that puts you further to the right than Stephen Harper (on this issue), at least it's an honourable position.

What we really need to do here is broaden the public dialogue on changes.  Our choices for the Senate are so much broader than just abolition or election, for example.  The most important question of all -- what do we want the Senate to be? -- has yet to be addressed in any fulsome manner.  Until we form a national consensus on the answer to that question, it's premature to discuss solutions.

I just had a disturbing thought.  In terms of 'respect for the institutions of this country' - the Senate, parliamentary tradition, the role of the Governor General - I'M more of a conservative than Stephen Harper.

I guess that Anglican private school education paid off.  My father would be so proud.

Surely he has to quit, runesmith.  I certainly hope so.  It would be a relief not to see that little man on TV ever again.  What I really hate about all this is Harper's obvious disrespect for the grand institutions of our Canadian government.  Insult after insult he throws us, and we seem to swallow them all here in Alberta.  Never mind, these people are all free to stay or go once they get into the Senate, and maybe some of them will be so disenchanted with Harper when they see him up close and personal that they'll quit his caucus and sit as independents.  Wouldn't that be a grand finale?

As far as I'm concerned, the only good that could possibly come out of all this is if Duffy will have to quit CTV.  Will he?

I can't find a good thing to say about Senator Mike Duffy.  Pamela Wallin's done some interesting stuff.  I gather she was quite good as a rep in Washington.  But I just heard she's promised to run in Sask's senate elections, so I kind of doubt her judgement.  But maybe that was a precondition to her appointment, which would support your argument re a lack of independence.  The only one I could say might be a good choice is Nancy Green.  At least she's been an outstanding citizen in her field.  The really disappointing thing is that, while many of these folks might actually turn out to be good senators, Harper has poisoned the well with his posturing, insinuations and flagrant rejection of his own principles.