Jump to content

Senate appointments


mjp

Recommended Posts

Existing appointees would have to be grandfathered. New appointees would not have a choice.

Legislation would still have to pass through the Senate. Think they might be opposed. It would not be a pure economic change in legislation since it would, as you say, depend on new members accepting it.

And here's the rub: if someone was independently wealthy, they could stay in the Senate and there is nothing to prevent them from doing so under the scenario you outline.

I agree with most of your points about the difficulties inherent in senate reform, however, I think you overlook the power of unwritten convention within our constitutional framework. For example, we now have an unwritte convention that constitutional changes must be put to a public vote and that every province has a veto. A future government would find it very tough to ignore these conventions even if they are not written into constitution. For that reason, I think that it is possible to change some of the conventions surrounding the senate without opening the constitution.

It is only possibly if you get a very large consensus for making that change. I don't it see it, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 356
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And John Turner was born in England. You point is you would rather make someone look bad by ignoring the facts then actually act Canadian. Great. Turner was our PM only 25 years ago now you are saying anyone born outside the country should not even be allowed to hold a Senate seat?

Dooood... nevermind all that! Did you know Harper was born in Toronto (GAAAAAAAAASP!!!!!)

In some peoples minds, this makes him unsuitable for the office....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is only an issue because there will be some conservatives in the Senate. It has been Liberal dominated for decades and now the tide is turning. IF it was more Liberals being appointed you all would be applauding it. Get off your high horse please guys, the tide is turning and there's not much the Liberals or the left can do about it.

Typical Liberal-Left arrogance imo. You feel that only you know what Canadians want and the Tories are unfit to decide and are out of touch. Perhaps you're upset because the centre-right is the pulse of Canada whereas the Liberal-Left only has the guilt stick to wield and no substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is only an issue because there will be some conservatives in the Senate. It has been Liberal dominated for decades and now the tide is turning. IF it was more Liberals being appointed you all would be applauding it. Get off your high horse please guys, the tide is turning and there's not much the Liberals or the left can do about it.

Typical Liberal-Left arrogance imo. You feel that only you know what Canadians want and the Tories are unfit to decide and are out of touch. Perhaps you're upset because the centre-right is the pulse of Canada whereas the Liberal-Left only has the guilt stick to wield and no substance.

No it is an issue becuase Harper railed against Senate appointments for the last 8 years and now is doing it. Making him a liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it will be a drawbridge for some time to come. And the bridge is up and the moat below is full of snapping crocodiles.

The reason he cannot change the Senate as yet is because the Liberals keep blocking him. It is silly for the Liberals to be out of power but to have control of the Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason he cannot change the Senate as yet is because the Liberals keep blocking him. It is silly for the Liberals to be out of power but to have control of the Senate.

That's the only reason that he can't have a triple E Senate? I think you need to read the amending formula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason he cannot change the Senate as yet is because the Liberals keep blocking him. It is silly for the Liberals to be out of power but to have control of the Senate.

No the reason is he killed his own plan when he called an election in October. Remember that? He had started the process of reform then called an election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Tories will have control of the Senate after decades of Liberal control. Get used to it.

Really? Going to take many more years of Harper in power for that to happen.

It still won't get him a triple E Senate even if he has a majority in both houses. You need the provinces on board and they just aren't.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Going to take many more years of Harper in power for that to happen.

Now you're getting the picture dobs. Next election the Tories will have a majority. That will last three to four years into 2011 or 12. Canada needed change, Harper represents that change. Can't you just be happy we have a PM who has Canadians best interests at heart?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you're getting the picture dobs. Next election the Tories will have a majority. That will last three to four years into 2011 or 12. Canada needed change, Harper represents that change. Can't you just be happy we have a PM who has Canadians best interests at heart?

Harper couldn't even get a majority with Dion as the main threat... What makes you think he will be able to get one next time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper couldn't even get a majority with Dion as the main threat... What makes you think he will be able to get one next time?

Because now he can say that if I don';t get a majority, these guys will form a coalition and bully parliament into having a PM that you didn't vote for. Propped up by the separtists who will have veto power.

Don't forget 60% of Canada was against a coalition.

Edited by Mr.Canada
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because now he can say that if I don';t get a majority, these guys will form a coalition and bully parliament into having a PM that you didn't vote for. Propped up by the separtists who will have veto power.

Don't forget 60% of Canada was against a coalition.

Harper will never win over Quebec.. Also, with Ignatieff leading the Liberals, who knows what will happen to the coalition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper will never win over Quebec.. Also, with Ignatieff leading the Liberals, who knows what will happen to the coalition

He doesn't need any more seats in Quebec. He needs 12 seats. He will win more seats in the 905 and will win seats in the 416, likely 2. 2 seats in St. Johns and Vancouver.

Even though his numbers rose in Quebec. He's at what? 32% there in Quebec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,732
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Videospirit
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...