harper and the senate

[bigbrother]

PM Harper has oftenly criticized the Senate (both before and after taking office in 2006).

so why is he cooperating...why it is easier in the short term to work with the Senate than to reform it.

[Alta4ever]

Major senate reform takes an amendment to the constitution.

Edited November 27, 2008 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[Michael Hardner]

Major senate reform takes an amendment to the constitution.

And the Conservatives have always known this. So why was EEE always a major selling point for Reform ?

The answer may be that it was a cynical attempt to gain a foothold in western Canada.

The same could be said by the Reform party grandstand of rising in parliament to say that they wouldn't accept pensions. Remember that ?

[Topaz]

PM Harper has oftenly criticized the Senate (both before and after taking office in 2006).

so why is he cooperating...why it is easier in the short term to work with the Senate than to reform it.

I think its because with the retirements within the senate, he can have the Cons have the greater number and HE can appoint them. BTW, I'm for the senate because they are there for us Canadians against the seating government.

[Alta4ever]

And the Conservatives have always known this. So why was EEE always a major selling point for Reform ?

The answer may be that it was a cynical attempt to gain a foothold in western Canada.

The same could be said by the Reform party grandstand of rising in parliament to say that they wouldn't accept pensions. Remember that ?

The reform was campaigning on reopening the constitution to do this.

BTW the Topaz, the EEE senate wasn't going to remove it, the purpose is to make it more accountable and democratically elected instead of the partisan appointments that happen now.

Its too bad their are few in this country who have any poiltical will, they all seem to want the status quo to carry on.

[g_bambino]

Its too bad their are few in this country who have any poiltical will, they all seem to want the status quo to carry on.

That might just be because there's nothing wrong with the status quo; or, is political will just the drive to change things for the sake of changing them?

[Alta4ever]

That might just be because there's nothing wrong with the status quo; or, is political will just the drive to change things for the sake of changing them?

So you see a problem with having an elected and accountable senate?

[Michael Hardner]

The reform was campaigning on reopening the constitution to do this.

BTW the Topaz, the EEE senate wasn't going to remove it, the purpose is to make it more accountable and democratically elected instead of the partisan appointments that happen now.

Its too bad their are few in this country who have any poiltical will, they all seem to want the status quo to carry on.

It's not that they want the status quo to carry on - it's that they want more for their region. That's how Reform got their toehold in the first place - by promising to push for something that has no prayer of succeeding.

Who will give up power for the greater good ?

David Peterson offered up some Ontario senate seats for Charlottetown but would Quebec do it ? Would Alberta ?

Highly doubtful.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Michael Hardner

[g_bambino]

So you see a problem with having an elected and accountable senate?

Yep, I do.

[Smallc]

That might just be because there's nothing wrong with the status quo; or, is political will just the drive to change things for the sake of changing them?

Couldn't have said it better myself. The senate serves its purpose. I see no reason to change things.

[blueblood]

Couldn't have said it better myself. The senate serves its purpose. I see no reason to change things.

An undemocratic and unaccountable body in gov't serves no purpose except to waste taxpayers dollars. Time to swing the axe. We have elected officials to make and pass laws. We have the GG as the rubber stamp, why do we need all those senators that do the same thing as the GG?

[Smallc]

An undemocratic and unaccountable body in gov't

That describes almost every body within government. There's a reason we don't elect everything. Democracy needs to have limits in order to work.

[blueblood]

That describes almost every body within government. There's a reason we don't elect everything. Democracy needs to have limits in order to work.

That's called the constitution, which can also be changed by democracy (although very hard to do). Why do we need an unelected, unaccountable, and expensive Senate? Our country would work fine without senate, but being a flag waver anything that cuts out anything "Canadian" you have a problem with.

[Smallc]

Our country would work fine without senate, but being a flag waver anything that cuts out anything "Canadian" you have a problem with.

Our country works fine with a senate too. And yes, being a flag waver (when you live in a country this good, why wouldn't you be?) I don't want to cut out anything that makes us who we are, especially when it works just fine the way it is.

[Smallc]

Only thing I would like to see is an equalization of the number seats in the atlantic provinces to 6 each. As much of a problem as that would cause though, I'm fine with things the way they are.

[g_bambino]

That's called the constitution.

What is it with this American-esque myth that a piece of paper is somehow an omnipotent protector of the populace? Constitutions are but documents that can be changed, whether through democratic means or by any self-interested individual who has used a weak system to attain a position where he can do so. In the Canadian Westminster parliamentary model, constitutional change is very hard to do, as it should be, and is that way because both the excess of democracy and the ambitions of potential totalitarians are held in check by certain unelected bodies. Governance isn't just about a popularity contest and a hope that the winner abides by the rules.

[ed. to rm. excess word]

Edited November 28, 2008 by g_bambino

[blueblood]

Our country works fine with a senate too. And yes, being a flag waver (when you live in a country this good, why wouldn't you be?) I don't want to cut out anything that makes us who we are, especially when it works just fine the way it is.

Even if it is an unnecessary waste of money that can either be used for social programs or tax cuts. Is tradition worth that much to you?

[blueblood]

What is it with this American-esque myth that a piece of paper is somehow an omnipotent protector of the populace? Constitutions are but documents that can be changed, whether through democratic means or by any self-interested individual who has used a weak system to attain a position where he can do so. In the Canadian Westminster parliamentary model, constitutional change is very hard to do, as it should be, and is that way because both the excess of democracy and the ambitions of potential totalitarians are held in check by certain unelected bodies. Governance isn't just about a popularity contest and a hope that the winner abides by the rules.

[ed. to rm. excess word]

Whose to hold in check the unelected bodies. can they be fired? I trust someone who can be fired than some appointed hack. Get rid of this unelected and unaccountable dinosaur. We have a medical system in shambles, yet Senators who don't do anything can ritz it up in Dubai?

[Smallc]

Even if it is an unnecessary waste of money that can either be used for social programs or tax cuts. Is tradition worth that much to you?

The senate has an important function. It really still is the chamber of sober second though. It is less partisan than the commons, acts for the provinces, and acts for what it believes is the good of the country as a whole. It serves a purpose. The way I view it, that purpose would be perverted by having senators elected.

[blueblood]

The senate has an important function. It really still is the chamber of sober second though. It is less partisan than the commons, acts for the provinces, and acts for what it believes is the good of the country as a whole. It serves a purpose. The way I view it, that purpose would be perverted by having senators elected.

that "sober" second thought costs too much money. The GG is sober second thought enough. Why we have unaccountable individuals running the country is a smack to the face of democracy.

[Smallc]

that "sober" second thought costs too much money. The GG is sober second thought enough. Why we have unaccountable individuals running the country is a smack to the face of democracy.

I disagree.

[Alta4ever]

Yep, I do.

Glad to see that you like the decree from on high.

The senate will fall, the way it sits is an out date antiquated body that has no place in a democracy. If they cannot be elected then they must be removed.

I prefer to vote for my government not have it appointed.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Alta4ever

[Smallc]

The senate will fall, the way it sits is an out date antiquated body that has no place in a democracy.

Democracy always has limits. The senate is such a limit on our democracy.

[Alta4ever]

Democracy always has limits. The senate is such a limit on our democracy.

The senate was never ment as limit on democracy it was ment as a chamber of sober second though. That second though should still come from the people of Canada not partisan appointments.

You knows whats very funny I know a number of liberals from around town who agree with the need for a eee senate, but since their party doesn't listen to its grassroots it falls on deaf ears.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Alta4ever

[Smallc]

The senate was never ment as limit on democracy it was ment as a chamber of sober second though. That second though should still come from the people of Canada not partisan appointments.

That's one opinion I suppose. Election would probably politicize the chamber to a much greater degree. The soberness of the thought would disappear. Not everything needs to be elected to serve its purpose.