CPC Hijacking The Senate?

[Shakeyhands]

Glad that the CPC have the time for this foolishness while unemployment steadily climbs. I'm also glad that they have their priorities in the right place. Can't wait til fall and this group gets kicked to the curb.

http://www.thestar.com/article/661331

[CAMP]

Glad that the CPC have the time for this foolishness while unemployment steadily climbs. I'm also glad that they have their priorities in the right place. Can't wait til fall and this group gets kicked to the curb.

http://www.thestar.com/article/661331

So please explain?

I prefer an elected Senate with limited terms.

[ba1614]

So they found a way to use the system to their advantage, like forming a "coalition" is using it to get what you want.

It's a BS game that ALL parties are well versed in.

[CAMP]

So they found a way to use the system to their advantage, like forming a "coalition" is using it to get what you want.

It's a BS game that ALL parties are well versed in.

All that needs to be done is make sure everyone knows where the bill originated.

[Molly]

Doh.

[punked]

So they found a way to use the system to their advantage, like forming a "coalition" is using it to get what you want.

It's a BS game that ALL parties are well versed in.

Not ALL parties support the Senate. The NDP thinks the Senate is a waste of time and money.

[Molly]

And the NDP is wrong. Interesting that the NDP and CPC seem to think alike in so many ways....

[ba1614]

Not ALL parties support the Senate. The NDP thinks the Senate is a waste of time and money.

No, but they do get involved in the ridiculous political "games", which this is about.

[punked]

And the NDP is wrong. Interesting that the NDP and CPC seem to think alike in so many ways....

They aren't wrong though. What does the Senate do besides give cover to those parties which control it now to vote one way and hold legislation up in the Senate? You should own your vote if the majority passes legislation, then it should go through that is democracy.

[Dave_ON]

They aren't wrong though. What does the Senate do besides give cover to those parties which control it now to vote one way and hold legislation up in the Senate? You should own your vote if the majority passes legislation, then it should go through that is democracy.

Well I would encourage you to do some research on the senate or perhaps watch some senate committee meetings if you don't understand their role in our parliamentary democracy. In short the Senate is a sounding board for legislation and they serve a key role in our government. You'll find many that think the senate should be triple E and many that think it should remain the same. However, you won't find many that think it should be abolished in its entirety; Those who do have probably not taken the time to understand their role.

As an aside the senate is still largely controlled by Liberal apointees. This is not to say they are liberals, there are a few NDP, and independant senators that were appointed by the liberals. Honestly though, once you're appointed you're their until 75, would you really feel you needed to vote along party lines if you had that type of gig for life? I somehow doubt it.

[Molly]

I'm glad you jumped in there, Dave. Well said.

I was wondering whether I really wanted to get deeply into it...

That old description of the Senate as the house of Sober Second Thought is very accurate, and the value of it is stunningly underestimated. They save us being governed by high-profile whim du jour.

It's not their only function by a long shot, but it's the most valuable, IMO.

[punked]

Well I would encourage you to do some research on the senate or perhaps watch some senate committee meetings if you don't understand their role in our parliamentary democracy. In short the Senate is a sounding board for legislation and they serve a key role in our government. You'll find many that think the senate should be triple E and many that think it should remain the same. However, you won't find many that think it should be abolished in its entirety; Those who do have probably not taken the time to understand their role.

As an aside the senate is still largely controlled by Liberal apointees. This is not to say they are liberals, there are a few NDP, and independant senators that were appointed by the liberals. Honestly though, once you're appointed you're their until 75, would you really feel you needed to vote along party lines if you had that type of gig for life? I somehow doubt it.

There was one NDP appointee and she was kicked out of the NDP and sits as an independent because we stick by our morals. Many provinces don't have a Senate and they seem to run fine why do we need one for the country? Their only job is too prolong legislation, Liberals seem to think it is great because it is their firewall when they aren't in power however it is bad policy.

Yes I do think you vote along party lines becuase you appoint the most Liberal or PC, or Conservative so to make sure they do what they can to serve the party. Come on you think Mike Duffy is going to side with the Liberals becuase now he an appointment? I live in the real world sorry to tell you. Forget an elected senate the provinces run fine with out a senate and the country would too. It might make the Liberals and Conservatives own their votes in the house.

Edited July 6, 2009 by punked

[Dave_ON]

There was one NDP appointee and she was kicked out of the NDP and sits as an independent because we stick by our morals. Many provinces don't have a Senate and they seem to run fine why do we need one for the country? Their only job is too prolong legislation, Liberals seem to think it is great because it is their firewall when they aren't in power however it is bad policy.

Yes I do think you vote along party lines becuase you appoint the most Liberal or PC, or Conservative so to make sure they do what they can to serve the party. Come on you think Mike Duffy is going to side with the Liberals becuase now he an appointment? I live in the real world sorry to tell you. Forget an elected senate the provinces run fine with out a senate and the country would too. It might make the Liberals and Conservatives own their votes in the house.

Do you honestly believe you can equate provincial and federal politics? Apples and oranges my friend; I thought you lived in the real world, tell me what colour is the sky there? NDP Orange no doubt.

Be that as it may, another important function of the Senate is to represent the regions directly. This is one of the main drivers behind senate reform and why so many, especially Westerners are so in favor of a Triple E senate. While I can agree all provinces should have equal representation in the upper house, I don't believe they should be elected. As Molly pointed out it protects the rest of us from being governed by the latest fad.

We have a house that is responsible and accountable to the people and that is where the lion's share of the power resides. However, we also have the upper house which doesn't have to worry about re-election or party backlash and can vote their conscience.

I'd site the equal marriage bill as a prime example of this, many of the "liberal" senators voted against it. Liberal MP's didn't get that chance as they were bound by party lines. The senate and the commons are quite separate and in all honesty, they are not beholden to the government that originally appointed them in the least. Are Liberal appointees generally liberal minded? Yes, the same can be said of the Conservative appointees; however, the beauty of the senate is there are no parties. It's essentially a number of independents voting on legislation free from outside or party interference. As a senator you’re a free agent, you can vote for or against anything you feel like and there is nothing the current PM or his party can do about it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Do you honestly believe you can equate provincial and federal politics? Apples and oranges my friend; I thought you lived in the real world, tell me what colour is the sky there? NDP Orange no doubt.

Be that as it may, another important function of the Senate is to represent the regions directly. This is one of the main drivers behind senate reform and why so many, especially Westerners are so in favor of a Triple E senate. While I can agree all provinces should have equal representation in the upper house, I don't believe they should be elected. As Molly pointed out it protects the rest of us from being governed by the latest fad.

We have a house that is responsible and accountable to the people and that is where the lion's share of the power resides. However, we also have the upper house which doesn't have to worry about re-election or party backlash and can vote their conscience.

I'd site the equal marriage bill as a prime example of this, many of the "liberal" senators voted against it. Liberal MP's didn't get that chance as they were bound by party lines. The senate and the commons are quite separate and in all honesty, they are not beholden to the government that originally appointed them in the least. Are Liberal appointees generally liberal minded? Yes, the same can be said of the Conservative appointees; however, the beauty of the senate is there are no parties. It's essentially a number of independents voting on legislation free from outside or party interference. As a senator you’re a free agent, you can vote for or against anything you feel like and there is nothing the current PM or his party can do about it.

As long as the Senate remains an unelected body it will hold no importance to me. It is indeed a place where the regions should have a voice, and could preform a useful function. It remains however the pinnacle of patronage until the day comes when reforms are instituted.

[Smallc]

If the Senate were to exist with the same powers as today and it were elected, it would be very bad. There would be legislative chaos. They have veto power that would make them far more powerful than the house and would possibly damage the chamber of accountability (the HoC). If you study the Senate, you understand why it's the way it is. As an aside, I'm mostly in favour of equal provincial representation, or at least fixing the problem in the east coast with that region having more senators than the rest because of Newfoundland being separate. I'm not sure that it's worth the Constitutional wrangling though.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Smallc

[punked]

Do you honestly believe you can equate provincial and federal politics? Apples and oranges my friend; I thought you lived in the real world, tell me what colour is the sky there? NDP Orange no doubt.

Be that as it may, another important function of the Senate is to represent the regions directly. This is one of the main drivers behind senate reform and why so many, especially Westerners are so in favor of a Triple E senate. While I can agree all provinces should have equal representation in the upper house, I don't believe they should be elected. As Molly pointed out it protects the rest of us from being governed by the latest fad.

We have a house that is responsible and accountable to the people and that is where the lion's share of the power resides. However, we also have the upper house which doesn't have to worry about re-election or party backlash and can vote their conscience.

I'd site the equal marriage bill as a prime example of this, many of the "liberal" senators voted against it. Liberal MP's didn't get that chance as they were bound by party lines. The senate and the commons are quite separate and in all honesty, they are not beholden to the government that originally appointed them in the least. Are Liberal appointees generally liberal minded? Yes, the same can be said of the Conservative appointees; however, the beauty of the senate is there are no parties. It's essentially a number of independents voting on legislation free from outside or party interference. As a senator you’re a free agent, you can vote for or against anything you feel like and there is nothing the current PM or his party can do about it.

Yes appointing people who have not lived in a certain province for 30 years is very good representation for said region. Is that the kind of representation I get in the Senate? Well no thank you for that.

As for your assertion that the provinces some how need to be run differently then the country I think you are being silly. Large and small provinces run fine with out it and they will continue to do so just as the country will. Although the will of the people might be enforced a little more, who needs people appointed 20 years ago at a different time in Canadian politics and who are well past their due date still making decisions for Canada.

Ohhhhh god I can not believe you are advocating that having a government body who is not indebted to the people and does not have to answer to them as the best form of democracy. That is all we need to go backward in time to an oligarchy. That is great they have to answer to no one. No thank you I would just as soon get rid of them.

[Smallc]

Ohhhhh god I can not believe you are advocating that having a government body who is not indebted to the people and does not have to answer to them as the best form of democracy.

That's part of our system. We have a Crown, an appointed Senate, and an elected House of Commons. They keep eachother accountable. Something doesn't need to be elected to have democratic legitimacy.

[punked]

That's part of our system. We have a Crown, an appointed Senate, and an elected House of Commons. They keep eachother accountable. Something doesn't need to be elected to have democratic legitimacy.

But they don't. They let the lower house not own their votes then prolong legislation until it dies. If the Liberals vote for something they should not be able to go back and say "yes we voted for it but we let it die in the senate" That is what happens now. It seems great if you aren't a conservative at the moment but it is not the way things should work.

[Smallc]

The Senate isn't obligated to pass legislation and it isn't obligated to do it quickly when it does. There are many reasons why a bill can be delayed. Partisanship is unfortunately one of them, but it isn't the only one.

[Smallc]

The Senate is the body of thought on legislation (among other things). PErhaps we need to find a new way to select them (other than election or appointment). Some kind of committee maybe?

[punked]

The Senate isn't obligated to pass legislation and it isn't obligated to do it quickly when it does. There are many reasons why a bill can be delayed. Partisanship is unfortunately one of them, but it isn't the only one.

It works in the provinces with out a Senate, it can work in Canada. 60% of the private member bills were from the NDP those that didn't die on the floor will no doubt die in the Senate. It just does not work, let's get rid of the and make those in parliament accountable. No one has given a good reason why we need them? They are good at a "sober" second thought is all I get? Well he have committees in the legislature for that there is a reason bills get three readings. So let's get rid of them all they do is make the process less accountable to those who own this country, the people. The conservatives need to get on the board with this it is something they can the NDP's vote with.

[Smallc]

Senators read every bill. They examine the bills and change the language if necessary to make it legal and constitutional. They examine the impact of legislation on various regions and provinces. They investigate issues of importance to the country. They are the chamber of study, something the house is not, and that's why they have to stay, and it's why the probably shouldn't be elected. They are an integral part of the system and it's pretty much impossible to remove them and very hard to change them. If we're going to change them, we'd better have a damned good reason, and it better have positive results. I don't even think that you could make the change given the constitutional requirements and the political dynamic in this country. There are more important issues than this non issue.

[Shakeyhands]

As long as the Senate remains an unelected body it will hold no importance to me. It is indeed a place where the regions should have a voice, and could preform a useful function. It remains however the pinnacle of patronage until the day comes when reforms are instituted.

and until that time.... is it really appropriate for the CPC to use this tactic to subvert the way our parliamentary democracy works?

[punked]

They are an integral part of the system and it's pretty much impossible to remove them and very hard to change them.

That is what they said when the provinces had them. But they were just a head ach and they got rid of them, and guess what? The provinces still make laws, they still get to check if they are legal, and constitutional. If they aren't they are taken to the supreme court whoa are the people who get ultimate say on that anyway. Seriously you have not given a real reason why we can not live with out a Senate. They do make it so no other party besides the Liberals and Conservatives can run the country though. Can you imagine trying to get even a budget past these guys if you were another party? I mean these political appointments who get their by being loyal for so long. It is just crazy. Go over their heads have a referendum and see what the people think. It is really the only way.

[CAMP]

Senators read every bill. They examine the bills and change the language if necessary to make it legal and constitutional. They examine the impact of legislation on various regions and provinces. They investigate issues of importance to the country. They are the chamber of study, something the house is not, and that's why they have to stay, and it's why the probably shouldn't be elected. They are an integral part of the system and it's pretty much impossible to remove them and very hard to change them. If we're going to change them, we'd better have a damned good reason, and it better have positive results. I don't even think that you could make the change given the constitutional requirements and the political dynamic in this country. There are more important issues than this non issue.

What is your reasons for not having them elected as a separate entity?

At least if they have a term of election then they would be obligated to show up.

A life time appointment is a license to abuse the system and create non accountability.

I believe they should be elected from regional boundaries so we have a good cross section of the country represented. Also have various professional designations represented to give intelligent discerning.