Don Martin: Mike Duffy jumps the shark

[punked]

Perhaps you never noticed, but none of the provinces are federations.

How are they not a federation of municipalities? You might not notice this but Ontario is actually 1/3rd of Canada has 1/3rd of our economy and has diversities from the GTA to the North to French speaking east side. It does not have a Senate and no one cares. Know why? The Senate doesn't do anything but waste our money.

[msj]

That Senators don't spend any more than MPs (often less). His point was lost because he's a terrible human being who can't be civil it seems.

So now my questions is: is it reasonable for a Senator to spend "as much as" a MP?

I wonder what Preston Manning would say? Or Stephen Harper if this were, say, 1998 (i.e. when he was not directly in politics) and Duffy was a Liberal Senator.

[Smallc]

I'm not fan of Preston Manning, So whatever he'd say, I'd probably disagree with it. The fact is, the Senate is a Constitutional necessity whether people like it or not, and their jobs involve things that cost money. It's reality.

[msj]

I'm not fan of Preston Manning, So whatever he'd say, I'd probably disagree with it. The fact is, the Senate is a Constitutional necessity whether people like it or not, and their jobs involve things that cost money. It's reality.

I would likely disagree with Preston, too. Doesn't mean he wouldn't have an interesting answer to the question I posed.

And that question had nothing to do with whether or not the Senate is a Constitutional necessity, etc...

The question is: is it reasonable for a Senator to spend "as much as" an MP.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The only "say" that really matter is yours and mine and all of the rest of the voters in this nation. It is well past high time to change the way things are done in this nation.

My suggestion is to tell everybody I meet to vote against the current representatives. Fire the entire batch of them and make the point that these people are indeed accountable to us.

Forget the partisan makeup of government, forget about what party anybody wants in power and simply fire them all and start with a fresh slate of people who got the message during the election process. The only reason they got elected was to be accountable to the citizens.

[punked]

I'm not fan of Preston Manning, So whatever he'd say, I'd probably disagree with it. The fact is, the Senate is a Constitutional necessity whether people like it or not, and their jobs involve things that cost money. It's reality.

So put it too a referendum and change their Constitutional roll to nothing or their salary to nothing. They are a waste of time and money.

[Smallc]

A referendum is useless also. If Harper wants reform, he should make an effort. I may even agree with it if it's good. Right now, he's not trying, an we need to have Senators.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

A referendum is useless also. If Harper wants reform, he should make an effort. I may even agree with it if it's good. Right now, he's not trying, an we need to have Senators.

So why not just have the provinces elect candidates and then have Harper rubber stamp the choice of the people. You don't need to open the can of worms to know that there are in fact worms in there, just read the freaking label.

[Topaz]

Here's a thought, why not make public every year the expenses of each member of Parliament and each member of the senate, so we, the taxpayers can see were our money is going. I've watched many senate committee meeting and I say, it would be a mistake to get rid of them. It would be one step closer to a republic of united provinces. I also, noticed how Duffy is disowning the Progressive Conservatives, as if it was a dirty word. He's also putting his weight back on and the old heart could give him problems again. That's one thing that's noticable with the Conservatives, most of the men are putting on the weight! Gotta watch that beer!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Here's a thought, why not make public every year the expenses of each member of Parliament and each member of the senate, so we, the taxpayers can see were our money is going. I've watched many senate committee meeting and I say, it would be a mistake to get rid of them. It would be one step closer to a republic of united provinces. I also, noticed how Duffy is disowning the Progressive Conservatives, as if it was a dirty word. He's also putting his weight back on and the old heart could give him problems again. That's one thing that's noticable with the Conservatives, most of the men are putting on the weight! Gotta watch that beer!

Actually confederation was designed to make all of the provinces and the federal government equal partners in confederation. That little fact seems to have evaded most folks. The Premiers have a lot of clout, but most folks don't know that.

[jdobbin]

And, right on cue comes the frothing and growling; another thread hijacked by the rabid, but baseless, anti-Senate pack.

One wonder what would happen if the NDP ever got into power. They would be constitutionally obligated to fill the Senate in the absence of a change in the Constitution. Or would they defer to the Governor General?

I'd love to hear the question posed to Layton. He probably call it hypothetical although if party policy comes smack into the wall of the law of the land, it deserves an answer.

Perhaps Layton knows for a certainty that he can get the change done in a year and never have a senator named in his government.

[punked]

One wonder what would happen if the NDP ever got into power. They would be constitutionally obligated to fill the Senate in the absence of a change in the Constitution. Or would they defer to the Governor General?

I'd love to hear the question posed to Layton. He probably call it hypothetical although if party policy comes smack into the wall of the law of the land, it deserves an answer.

Perhaps Layton knows for a certainty that he can get the change done in a year and never have a senator named in his government.

The answer is easy have a referendum and ask the Canadian people what they want. If they come back in favor of getting rid of the Senate the Senate should go.

[Smallc]

So why not just have the provinces elect candidates and then have Harper rubber stamp the choice of the people.

Because simply electing people doesn't fix anything that is "wrong".

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Because simply electing people doesn't fix anything that is "wrong".

Really, and here I thought dmocracy was the way to go. You seem to like the empire approach.

[g_bambino]

Really, and here I thought dmocracy was the way to go.

If only you understood what it meant.

[g_bambino]

How are they not a federation of municipalities?

Because there's nothing that constitutes them as such. Could you point to where in the provincial constitutions it states otherwise?

[Smallc]

Really, and here I thought dmocracy was the way to go. You seem to like the empire approach.

Democracy's don't simply involve voting.

[punked]

Democracy's don't simply involve voting.

That is true although most democracy's do need a voted in representation to feel their voice is being heard, Newfoundland for instance got Fabian Manning a Conservative Senator in 2008 with out voting in one Conservative MP in 2008 in fact the Cons only got 16% of the voter there in 2008 yet they have a nice Conservative Senator.

[Smallc]

The people already have their representatives. That's what was meant by the quote from Sir John A. That I posted earlier. The people have their house, and there is another house not chosen by the people for balance.

[g_bambino]

That is true although most democracy's do need a voted in representation to feel their voice is being heard, Newfoundland for instance got Fabian Manning a Conservative Senator in 2008 with out voting in one Conservative MP in 2008 in fact the Cons only got 16% of the voter there in 2008 yet they have a nice Conservative Senator.

Well, then perhaps the answer lies somewhere in our mess of party-dominated politics; its structure has led to the presidentialisation of the Prime Minister and has caused issues of partisanship in the Senate. Rather than politicise the Senate further by electing its members, we need to do the opposite... somehow.

[punked]

The people already have their representatives. That's what was meant by the quote from Sir John A. That I posted earlier. The people have their house, and there is another house not chosen by the people for balance.

Taking choice away from the people is not the way to foster democracy. If we wanted that we could have just kept the monarchy. An oligarchy of those in power keeping their power by appointing their friends to the Senate should be behind us by now. We are more evolved then that.

[g_bambino]

Taking choice away from the people is not the way to foster democracy.

Sometimes it is; let popularity run to far and you end up with an ochlocracy in which minorities are squashed under the will of the majority. All long-lasting democratic systems have managed to find a balance between the elected and unelected, so that each cancels the other out in terms of personal ambitions.

[punked]

Sometimes it is; let popularity run to far and you end up with an ochlocracy in which minorities are squashed under the will of the majority. All long-lasting democratic systems have managed to find a balance between the elected and unelected, so that each cancels the other out in terms of personal ambitions.

That is why we have the Charter and the Constitution, we don't need unelected Members of Parliament to protect the rights of people we need to the courts to up hold the Charter. It is like I am talking to the wall, I keep saying the samething and no addresses it. The Senate doesn't have a function in todays Canada.

[g_bambino]

That is why we have the Charter and the Constitution, we don't need unelected Members of Parliament to protect the rights of people we need to the courts to up hold the Charter. It is like I am talking to the wall, I keep saying the samething and no addresses it. The Senate doesn't have a function in todays Canada.

Why should the courts be overloaded with unconstitutional legislation when the Senate can - and was indeed intended to - serve as a filter between the House of Commons and Royal Assent? The courts are not a part of parliament.

[punked]

Why should the courts be overloaded with unconstitutional legislation when the Senate can - and was indeed intended to - serve as a filter between the House of Commons and Royal Assent? The courts are not a part of parliament.

That is the courts job. Like it or not they are the ones who are too address legality, now with out the Senate I think MPs will have to do a better job in committee with bills but that is their job. Right now the Senate only plays politics it is no longer the house of sober second thought and it will make MPs and their parties own up to their legislation and voting record unlike they do now. No more scape goats, live and die by your vote.