Moonlight Graham

Blow things out of proportion much? What exactly makes this man a fundamentalist Muslim?

Its not that simple. Equal, effective, and elected are very broad terms and different reform proposals show this. What kind of elections, what kind of voting system is used? How long are the terms? When are the elections held? What powers does the Senate retain and which do they give up? How do we resolve legislative gridlock? What should equal mean? How many Senators per Prov? Should ON and QC get more than the rest? How many should PEI and the 3 territories get compared to the other Provs?

Are you freaking kidding me?!?!?!? The PM has way too much power. Unlimited terms they can serve. Appoints the GG. Appoints all judges, appoints all Senators. In a majority government, has virtually ultimate control on policy/legislation (ie: controls how all MP's in their party vote or risk expulsion from the party...which has happened recently). If the PM went completely crazy they obviously wouldn`t last long, but a strong and not entirely corrupt PM can control so much in this country. I`m no fan of the monarch, but at least the GG serves as some kind of check on the PM`s power, as does the Senate (though each rarely use it).

We've been debating Senate reform for 100 years. This is far from a new issue. No single party is to blame for not getting this issue squared away. I blame all the ruling parties for doing mostly squat. Its sad though the CPC have done nothing since it seemed to be a legit concern for them when they 1st were elected.

1) It would be elected and actually accountable to the people. What if the next King/Queen is an arse and wanted to muck with Canada's policies? Not much we could do. 2) It would provide for a much needed democratic check on the PM's vast power.

Senate, Crown, courts. That's 3, are there even more i can't think of?

No they don't! They have power Constitutionally, but by convention they rarely use any of the powers they are given. Constitutionally, the Senate has equal power to the House of Commons minus the power to introduce money bills. Can you tell me the last time the Senate did ANYTHING other than investigate things through committees, fix legislative technicalities then rubber stamp those bills? How many times has the Senate vetoed a bill from the House in the last 100 years? The GG also has huge power Constitutionally, but by convention due to legitimacy reasons rarely goes against the advice of the PM. She didn't prevent Harper from proroguing in Dec. for a reason. You can't vote for everything. Completely direct democracy is unrealistic with a country this large and so many complex issues debated/voted on everyday. But in my opinion having the Senate and our Head of State elected is far from unreasonable. The U.S. does it. The U.S. system is far from perfect either but certainly isn't as inherently flawed as ours.

Because they aren't. The Crown and the Senate aren't elected and are very undemocratic. That's why each has squat for power, because each is seen as not very legitimate compared to the elected House.

Are you kidding me? I'll give it 10 years max in both Iraq and Afghanistan after U.S. troops leave when the "democratic" governments are overthrown and replaced with authoritarian regimes. At the very least they will be a corrupt authoritarian regimes disguised as democracies. Thanks to Bush and others, many in the middle-east view democracy as a detestful American/Western imperialist tool. Hearts and minds!

They don't do a very good job.

A 12-year limit is a pathetic start to reforming the Senate. The average senator serves 9.7 years (since 1975) as it is now. I can't see a 12-year limit having a huge impact on that number. Also, the OP brings up a very valid point. This would be a significant reform to the Constitution and won't go through without a bunch of Provinces kicking up a big fuss. There have been other bills introduced in Parliament the last few years that proposed 8-year terms limits, but i believe they were chopped when Parliament prorogued at different times.

Usually at least one senator sits in the cabinet. These senators are not elected.

I think this is a slippery-slope argument. Social programs = eventual socialistic totalitarian state is a definite reach. I think its true that people can get a feeling of entitlement from certain social programs, but its not true that a gov't can't scale back social programs and social spending. Canada's social spending grew much during the 60's and 70's, but then was significantly cut during the late 80's and 90's. Who knows, maybe there will be another era like the neo-liberalism of the 80's and 90's where Canada makes even deeper cuts and the debt needs to be reigned in. It wouldn't be very hard to privatize things like the LCBO and CBC.

lol exactly! I don't think Bush (or Obama) did it so he could surprise the troops. Tadaah!! But rather for security reasons. That usually isn't a decision a President makes, especially one of Bush's strategic brilliance.

Prove it was his idea

Wouldn't really be smart to let the insurgents know in advance that the the Prez is coming would it? I'm sure Bush thought that brilliant strategy up all by his lonesome.

lol true.

exactly

Does this mean i can't be a ghost for Halloween?

Right back at ya

that's so gross.

That's only 1 side of the story.

Sometimes government solutions are needed, as disdainful as they may sometimes seem. Its been very much shown that pure radical socialism/communism doesn't work well, and its been shown that laissez-faire doesn't either (ie: business-owner exploitation of workers pre-Great Depression, which led to the New Deal in the U.S. and govt enforced minimum wages and union rights etc.). If you look at the countries which rank at the top of having the highest standard of living, health etc. they strike a good balance between free open markets and gov't intervention/social programs. Clinging to some principle/ideal seems counter-intuitive rather that doing what actually works. The U.S. is by far the richest and most powerful country in the world. Yet they rank 13th on the U.N. Human Development Index, which ranks countries overall based on life expectancy, average standard of living (GDP-per-capita), adult literacy rates etc. With the resources the U.S. has they should be the #1 country to live in by a long shot! The U.S. certainly has the best healthcare in the world IF YOU CAN ACCESS IT. Canada has a doctor shortage, longer ER wait times, and longer wait times for surgery. Yet Canada, with its yucky social programs and gov't run healthcare system, ranks higher in average life expectancy and child mortality rates than the U.S. The U.S. also spends more per capita on healthcare than Canada, but the results are less, at least averaged across the whole population. Socialism oooh no such a scary word! What the concept of socialized healthcare basically means is that even though i may not know people from another city, i still give a crap about their health and well-being and i'm willing to give up a few bucks to ensure it.

Ocean currents won't stop, not unless all the oceans in the world freeze completely. Big difference in the ocean conveyor and in ocean currents in general. 99% of all life species that have existed throughout the history of the earth have gone extinct. That's nature. For sure that rapid climate change is not friendly to the survival of many species. Humans are a very adaptable species, and i think if the average global temp rapidly rose to 25C that our species would survive, though or course i'm sure many would also die as a result. I could move to the Yukon and likely do ok.

If the earth continues to warm at the rate its going there will certainly be negative (and some positive, but certainly a lot of negative) effects for humanity and many parts of the biosphere. However, i doubt the ocean conveyor will stop and cause mega disaster as Al Gore claims. During the vast majority of the Phanerozoic eon (last 500 million years) its been a lot warmer than it is now, over 10 degrees warmer than todays global average though 4 separate and a very long periods: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm There was no catastrophic disaster from the extended warm periods, in fact life thrived through much of it. There have been many times in the past where there was no major glaciation on earth, which was naturally followed by an ice age, and the cycle continued.