Sober second thoughts -

Sober second thoughts


Senators appointed by Stephen Harper with the expressed purpose of pushing through his reforms apparently aren’t entirely supportive of his proposals. And so Bert Brown, the nominally elected senator, steps in to remind his caucus mates to whom they should be absolutely loyal.

“Those of us who came to the red chamber were there to get a majority vote for reform. Those in the Senate before Harper became prime minister need to realize that, had he not made appointments, the Conservatives appointed by Mulroney would now be a very small group struggling to do anything!” Brown wrote in an email to all Conservative senators.

“Every senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple; our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform since he entered politics, the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper,” Brown wrote.


Sober second thoughts

  1. Guess what Mr. Brown?  You are absolutely wrong!  The loyalty of every senator, elected or appointed, is owed to the Canadian people.  The senate is there not to rubber stamp what Parliament does, it is supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought.  I’m not making any sort of claim that it actually is what it’s supposed to be, but it is most definitely not supposed to be a place where those appointed/elected blindly follow their party affiliation.  Sadly that seems to be the reality.  And it’s even worse that the cause of the current “sober second thought” appears on the surface to be self-serving as they try to protect their highly paid positions that are unaccountable and unrevocable unless you’re abusing your position to the extremes that Raymond Lavigne has.

    If the senate can’t exist as an independent entity to help temper the actions of a majority parliament, no matter who the party in power may be (because most majority governments can only claim about 40% of the coutry’s support), then it should not exist at all as it becomes mearly a patronage appointment to reward loyalty to the party in power.

  2. Shouln’t they be loyal to people of  Canada?   Aren’t they there to to vett laws and ensure they are good for the people of Canada?

    I also find it very odd that the only elected senator, elected by the people, is suggesting that senators should be loyal to “the man who put them in the senate” .  He should be ashamed of himself for thinking this way.

  3. Their loyalty is to Queen and country, not Harper.

    And Harper was naive in the extreme if he expected anything else.

  4. Excuse me but loyalty should be to the country not one man. I suggest you step down if that is how you intend to represent Canada.

  5. But the Government of Harper is not a Progressive-Conservative government. It is a Conservative government.

    Ergo: the should be no reform, because reform is progressive. I wonder if Dear Bean-Counter is sending a different message through the back-channel.

  6. Count on the maverick from Alberta to turn out to be the most craven authoritarian in the bunch.

  7. While I agree with the comments of the other posters as to where a Senator’s loyalty should lie, it seems to me that Brown’s letter merely demonstrates Harper’s expectations of where their loyalties would lie when he appointed them.  I mean really, have we forgotten how smelly some of these pathetically partisan appointments were?