Senate Reform

[Baz]

[Sport-Touring]

[Mac]

It'll never work as long as they keep letting the Senators out first.

[blkhrt81]

What I find kind of interesting about this, wasn't Duffy a long time Ottawa news reporter before he got tapped for the Senate? You'd think a guy with that background would know better.

[Baz]

What I find kind of interesting about this, wasn't Duffy a long time Ottawa news reporter before he got tapped for the Senate? You'd think a guy with that background would know better.

Are you kidding me? It is my life long dream to get "appointed"   Hell I won't even break any expense rules!

[Kootenanny]

[birdrunner]

It'll never work as long as they keep letting the Senators out first.

Getting them in is the more difficult part.

[Baz]

Getting them in is the more difficult part.

Good point!

[bubba zanetti]

Good point!

I think you need to reform the party that promised to reform the senate. In fact they campaigned on it. Triple E anyone ???  

[Kootenanny]

I think you need to reform the party that promised to reform the senate. In fact they campaigned on it. Triple E anyone ???  

Heard Harper on the radio, claiming that they're currently reforming the senate just as they'd promised...

[GetFuzzy]

Harper needed to clarify what reform meant. Sending senators to reform school isn't quite the same.

[blkhrt81]

   The concept of Senate reform is a fascinating can of worms. Really, exactly what is the Senate supposed to do? As I remember high school social studies, the Senate was supposed to be a chamber of sober, second thought, long term members who, because they didn't have to worry about elections, could avoid being swept up in popular but not wise decisions.
   Of course, over time, because it is an appointed position, it becomes a reward doled out by the governing party. Because of the length of service though, it is rare for a party to be able to stack the Senate to the point where it rubber stamps legislation. Note, I said rare, not unheard of.
   Would elections for Senators dilute the authority of the Commons? Is that a bad thing? Election of Senators by province has a certain appeal, but it does take us closer to the American form of government, do we want that?

[mugwump58]

Do me a Duffy,eh. Sorry, you have my sympathy, wanna trade I think we have a few at state level that aren't under indictment, yet.

[Flyer]

Harpo knew intimately that Ol' Duff lived in the hedges outside the doors of the Parliament building when he "elevated" him.
Are we to believe that there wasn't ONE worthy and wise, truly, PEI resident that could have fit the chamber.
Gimme a break, Harpo.
You're as phony as the best of 'em.
Kick 'em all to the curb...

[Baz]

Heard Harper on the radio, claiming that they're currently reforming the senate just as they'd promised...

That actually was their intent. It's just that the people they appointed said screw you, this is a great job.

Do keep in mind the person most likely to get elected to reform the senate (twinkle toes) has stated it is a great advantage for them to have a skewed number of appointed senators from Quebec to give them a political advantage. He see's no reason to reform the senate.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/05/27/justin-trudeau-again-reveals-anti-west-feelings

On Sunday, the son of former Liberal prime minister Pierre Trudeau defended keeping the Senate just as it is because doing so is advantageous to Quebec. “We have 24 senators from Quebec and there are just six from Alberta and British Columbia. It's to our advantage,” he said, meaning it is in Quebec’s self-interest to keep things just as they are.

Trudeau is a neither a fan of reforming the Senate, as the federal Tories want, nor abolishing it outright, as the NDP advocate. Rather, the Liberal boss wants to “improve” the Senate by appointing better quality individuals.

[blkhrt81]

More and more I am beginning to lean towards the NDP position on the Senate. While I can understand the rationale for its existence, it seems to me there is no real concrete way to ensure it operates in a beneficial way. Plus, it just is one more entity that can be used to deflect criticism from the government of the day.
Theoretically, it is to prevent abuses by the government but I don't know that it ever really has. Did the Senate fight internment of Japanese during WW2 for instance. Because legislation has to pass both Houses, it does add some time to the process, but really would we be served the same if there was a defined transition time before new legislation took effect. Or perhaps, a probationary period so after a year for instance, legislation had to be reassessed and voted on to become permanent?

[Baz]

I am all for eliminating the senate. I see absolutely no use in an unelected vehicle that can veto anything the person I elected into office voted for democratically. (If my elected official does something I don't like, I can fix that during the next election).

I do not believe that an appointed person should be able to dictate policy. Plain and simple.

On that note however, It would be a cold day in hell before I voted NDP. Socialism does not work.

[mugwump58]

I've heard the story on the CBC on why you have a Senate, certain provinces concerned about representation, how did it come about that your Senate is appointed?

[Baz]

I've heard the story on the CBC on why you have a Senate, certain provinces concerned about representation, how did it come about that your Senate is appointed?

I believe that Senator's were appointed since it's creation.

Here is a brief Senate for dummy's site..

http://www.craigmarlatt.com/canada/government/senate.html

[blkhrt81]

I am all for eliminating the senate. I see absolutely no use in an unelected vehicle that can veto anything the person I elected into office voted for democratically. (If my elected official does something I don't like, I can fix that during the next election).

I do not believe that an appointed person should be able to dictate policy. Plain and simple.

On that note however, It would be a cold day in hell before I voted NDP. Socialism does not work.

The Senate cannot veto Commons legislation, all they can do is suggest revisions and return it to Commons for a new vote.  Even at that, I think they can only do it once. If the Commons rejects the revisions and sends it back, the Senate has to accept it. There may be a little more to it than that but I'm pretty sure the Senate can only delay, not kill commons legislation.

[Kootenanny]

That actually was their intent

   Yeah, you go right on believing that...