I should have added–Hypnagogic Jerk, thank you for the info on French diminuitives. Merci!
Thanks **Lord Feldon **and **Hypnagogic Jerk **for those details. It certainly sounds like a very vexed issue.
This sounds interesting. So candidates put themselves forward not to be elected to the Senate, but to go onto a list of people who will be appointed to the Senate at some future date? When are these elections held? In tandem with the normal provincial electoral cycle for Alberta and Saskatchewan? Or separately, “as necessary”? How many people are on these lists, awaiting appointment? Hordes, or just a few? If they are “advisory” elections I assume that there’s no actual right to a seat in the Senate when one becomes available for the relevant province? Could the PM ignore the voters’ wishes and appoint someone else entirely to the Senate?
Alberta introduced this procedure in the late 1980s. At the time, the federal and provincial governments were discussing the adoption of a constitutional package called the Meech Lake Accord, aimed in large part at obtaining Quebec’s assent to the constitution, but which also included a reform of the Senate, which was part of the West’s demands. I don’t remember what the exact shape of this reform would have been (I was only a child at the time), if senators would be chosen from lists provided by provincial governments or elected in their province, but the idea is that the prime minister at the time, Brian Mulroney, had said that in prevision of the Accord passing, he would already start respecting the democratic will of a province’s voters when choosing senators to fill vacancies. So in the first Albertan Senate election, held I believe simultaneously with a provincial general election, voters elected Stan Waters of the Reform Party who was then nominated to the Senate.
The Meech Lake Accord fell through, leading to a resurgence in Quebec sovereigntist feeling and to the 1995 referendum, which is probably the main reason why support for further constitutional negotiations is almost nil today in English Canada. But Alberta didn’t repeal its law and kept on holding Senate elections, usually in conjunction with provincial elections, as vacancies occurred in Alberta’s Senate delegation, even though with the Liberals in power there was no expectation that the senator-in-waiting would actually be nominated to the Senate. Only with the Conservatives coming back into power in 2006 have senators-in-waiting (which, given the political orientation of Alberta, are almost always Conservatives) starting being appointed to the Senate again. Saskatchewan, I believe, introduced the procedure much more recently, sometimes after 2006.
So to answer your question, when there are N vacancies in Alberta’s Senate delegation and a provincial election is coming up, voters choose among a number of prospective senators, of which the top N get chosen as senators-in-waiting. There is no constitutional or legal requirement they actually be appointed, and for the period when the Liberals were in power (1993 to 2006), they weren’t. I’ll let someone who’s actually voted in such an election say more about it.
Prime Minister Harper has announced his cabinet, and has appointed three new senators, all Conservatives who lost in the last election.
Looks like the love affair between the Prime Minister and the press is over before it even began…
That was a fairly lukewarm love affair to start with. 
Not so much love affair as a quick fling while on vacation. Now Harper’s wondering why she keeps calling him…:smack: 
As I recall, the vote is not presented as the equivalent of “Whom do you wish to elect to the Senate?”; it is more along the lines of, “Whom do you recommend be appointed to the Senate if a vacancy occurs?” It is made very plain to us that the result of the “senatorial” vote is not binding, and we all understand that the person who gets the most votes will not necessarily become a Senator, now or ever. But while it may appear to be pointless, the process does seem to fulfil many Albertans’ wish for an elected Senate while not running afoul of the Constitution.
Looks like our security services have screwed the pooch yet again:
In short, this civilian infiltrated the Toronto 18 terror cell and broke it up, testifying and putting the members of that cell in jail. His reward was to be put in several terrorism databases in the US, meaning if he ever tries traveling there he may end up facing a rendition to some third-world shithole where his fingernails can be torn off. All because he’s “associated” with terrorists.
He’s a good guy. A no-shit good guy who broke up a terror cell. And CSIS says “Well, we have no idea how he ended up getting sold down the river… wasn’t us!”
I generally vote Conservative but I will be very surprised if the Conservative government helps this guy in any way. I’m worried about the message this sends. If you’re Muslim (or even just brown-skinned) don’t try to help out because you’ll be implicated too. And possibly tortured. Thanks for your service!
Anyone have insight on the possible Canada Post strike? Do people care that much about snail mail delivery anymore? I remember the last time there was some kerfuffle about it was only because it was close to Christmas season.
I’d miss saying good morning to the person who delivers the mail at my office.
Anybody have any special plans for this weekend?
My kids are at my in-laws’ house, enjoying fireworks and generally running amok. I have a show tomorrow and a concert on Tuesday, so I’m stuck in the city rehearsing. I’ll get a May 2-4 next weekend.
Hoping the rest of you have a fantastic weekend!
Remember these people ?
Denis Dawson, Joseph Day, Francis Fox, Celine Hervieux-Payette, Mobina Jaffer, Serge Joyal, Lucie Pepin, Pierrette Ringuette and David Smith were appointed to the Senate? All Liberals , all of them were rejected by voters, some as many as three times in the past.
I don’t want to play they well they did it too game. With that aside, keep in mind Harper has been advocating Senate reform since they’ve been in power from the beginning, and some of those bills they tabled were defeated back then in the Liberal dominated senate.
He needs control of the house and the senate in order to change it. As a person who voted conservative in the last election I am expecting him to seriously take on senate reform within the next four years. If he doesn’t, I will not be impressed next time around an election comes calling.
Telus is trying to scare me into signing up for email delivery of our bills. I would go for this except Telus has been utter shits about recognizing me as a valid adult separate from my husband and any time we need to do anything with them, my husband is the only one they’ll talk to. Since I’m the one who does the bill paying in our house, they can keep sending me a paper bill.
Yes, and the PCs cried ‘Foul’ and swore up and down that they were better than that. Then Brian Mulroney increased the number of senators and stacked it with PC hacks so that the GST could pass. The Reform Party jumped up and said that wasn’t fair play, and the senate needed reforming. Before he was in power, Stephen Harper claimed that he was above partisan appointments. Now, in power, he has shed his principles faster than you can say ‘Four legs good, two legs bad’.
It’s that kind of hypocrisy that disgusts me about the Conservatives.
What is he suppose to do stack it with non-conservatives so they can turn down more senate reform bills ? He tried it the right way first with bills, it didn’t work because it was a Liberal dominated senate. He’s going to change it from within.
I don’t like the partisan appoinments anymore than you but I think you maybe suprised by the time the next election comes around when it comes to the Senate.
I hope there’s a change anyways. I don’t like the way it operates either.
Telus is … shall we say, not really anything recognizable as a commercial enterprise by a normal human being.
Telus has an interesting approach to customer service: we’re right , you’re wrong, so sit down and shut up.
Telus, call me wrong. With cites, please.
I want to send postcards to friends back home, so it certainly could affect me.
Especially since Harper has only been appointing Conservatives for now, while the Liberals did appoint independents and Conservatives to the Senate when they were in power. (Yes, I know it wasn’t out of the goodness of their hearts, but because the Senate was already reliably Liberal anyway. Perhaps Harper will start doing the same when he’ll have been in power long enough.)
Prepare to not be impressed then.
What if your wrong ?
Rhetorical question by the way since you’ve evidently prepared yourself for four years of doom and gloom, sky is falling etc…
Sorry to hear about your Bloc Québecois btw. /sarcasm
When you claim to be a man of integrity and principle, you are held to a higher standard of behaviour.
What is Prime Minister Harper supposed to do? Let’s see - seek consensus among all the legitimately elected members of the House of Commons to create legislation that will pass in both the House of Commons and the Senate? That sounds better than his constant assertion that he has the only right answer. In my experience, the guy who says he has the only answer is the guy who doesn’t understand the question.
I won’t be, of course. Reforming the Senate is all risk and no reward. Why would Harper try to do that? He’s not stupid.
Well, I’m currently in Italy, which doesn’t seem all that gloomy despite the fact Berlusconi is still prime minister. And whatever we may say of Harper, he’s definitely not as bad as Berlusconi. So I’m quite “meh” about the whole thing. I know this government’s priorities won’t be the same as mine and sometimes will run counter to mine, but they’re not going to put us against a wall and shoot us, so there’s that.
“My” Bloc québécois? I don’t own them. Who says I even voted for them?