Harper sneaks three election losers into the Senate! Pension time

In politics, there seems to be an unwritten rule about being up front and transparent. Unlike the rest of us who lead pretty much private lives, politicians live in the spotlight and must be squeaky clean. They are in the public eye and that eye is scrutinizing their every move. They must avoid the slightest whiff of impropriety never mind scandal. (Hello Dominique Strauss-Kahn!)

 

Just today, Stephen Harper announces three appointments to the Senate. No big deal, right?

 

Larry Smith, a former Canadian Football League commissioner, is appointed to the Senate on December 10, 2010. He resigns to run as the Conservative candidate in Lac-Saint-Louis in this past election. He loses. Harper re-appoints him to the Senate.

 

Fabian Manning loses his riding of Avalon in October 2008 to the Liberal candidate and is subsequently appointed to the Senate by Harper on January 2, 2009. He resigns on March 28, 2011 to run in the last election once again for Avalon. He loses. Harper re-appoints him to the Senate.

 

Josée Verner is elected in 2006 in the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent and becomes part of the Harper cabinet. She runs again in the last election. She loses. Harper appoints her to the Senate.

 

No big deal?

 

NDP Leader Jack Layton says Canadian voters just rejected these three people two weeks ago and Harper is making an anti-democratic partisan move. "This is wrong. This is completely undemocratic. It’s a slap in the face of Canadian voters," Layton said. "Mr. Harper talks about Senate reform but he’s doing things in the same old way, in fact, even worse … The ink is barely dry on their rejection notices and they’re being appointed to the Senate." Layton said there is a "culture of entitlement" in politics that breeds cynicism in voters. "You should earn your place in the Senate and, if you can’t get elected, you shouldn’t be appointed to the Senate two weeks later, that’s for sure." (CTV)

 

There is no appointment to the Senate that sits well with me. The patronage chamber is an affront to democracy no matter who gets to ride its gravy train. But to appoint individuals who have only just been rejected by the voters in an election, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper did today, compounds the insult. (John Geddes, Macleans)

 

Even though Canadians decided they didn’t want these three politicians in the House of Commons, Harper clearly wants them around in some capacity, said Gerald Baier, assistant professor of political science at the University of British Columbia. "Obviously these are people he wanted close to him in Parliament," he said. "The prime minister must be thinking, ‘Well, these individuals still have valuable advice to give us. And if this is what the unreformed Senate is going to be, then better to have some people with profile and history of the institution are there.’" Still, Harper’s move paints the Senate in a bad light, Baier said. "I guess it’s the same brush it’s always been painted with, but it’s not a good one," he said. "The Senate is basically a place where prime ministers put people who have trouble getting elected in the first place, or have been party loyalists. These actions are hard to defend." (Edmonton Journal)

 

Duff Conacher of the advocacy-group Democracy Watch called for a police investigation into whether Smith and Manning were promised they’d get their Senate seats back if they lost in their bid for a seat in the House of Commons. The Criminal Code says it’s illegal to entice parliamentarians to resign for reward or profit, he said. (CTV Ottawa)

 

Is it a big deal? I remember the president of a Canadian company said to me that he never declared his expenses when he travelled in the United States. When I asked him why he went on to explain that when the annual audit took place, there was a risk of having these seemingly innocuous but legitimate expenses put under a microscope and have people start questioning whether they were, in fact, business expenses or for pleasure. The best thing to do was to not do it.

 

Yes, technically Harper can appoint these people to the Senate. Unfortunately or fortunately, the public eye which scrutinizes his actions seems to be taking a dim view of a decision that can be easily interpreted as a patronage appointment. The issue in these situations is whether the best thing to do is to not do it.

 

 

Wikipedia: Larry Smith

 

Wikipedia: Fabian Manning

 

Wikipedia: Josée Verner

 

Wikipedia: Democracy Watch

Click HERE to read more from William Belle

Article viewed at: Oye! Times at www.oyetimes.com