Topaz Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 The only elected senator, wrote a letter today to the senators about senate reform and asking where their loyalties to senate reform lie? Then he goes on telling them it should be with the PM, who brought them there to help reform the senate. Of course he's talking to the 18 new senators and the PC senators but none like what they see about the reforming , especially the 8 year term. So sad. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/06/rallying-for-reform-senator-brown-writes.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 The only elected senator, wrote a letter today to the senators about senate reform and asking where their loyalties to senate reform lie? Then he goes on telling them it should be with the PM, who brought them there to help reform the senate. Of course he's talking to the 18 new senators and the PC senators but none like what they see about the reforming , especially the 8 year term. So sad. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/06/rallying-for-reform-senator-brown-writes.html The PM advised the GG. The GG put them there as the representative of the Queen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 The PM advised the GG. The GG put them there as the representative of the Queen. All of which no one (figuratively speaking, or at worst, a generality) cares about. I am pro-monarchy, but really, the GG is really irrelevant to real political factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 All of which no one (figuratively speaking, or at worst, a generality) cares about. I am pro-monarchy, but really, the GG is really irrelevant to real political factors. The point is that no Senator owes any Prime Minister a damned thing, any more than a Supreme Court judge does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 The point is that no Senator owes any Prime Minister a damned thing, any more than a Supreme Court judge does. That is about as naive a statement as I have ever heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 This one thing I agree with the Con's on..However,this letter sounds more like some Con slurper demanding everyone "kiss the ring".... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 I'm all about senate reform, but if you're not going to have the senate elected first, the 8 year term will destroy our government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 One down side to this is the tax payers. We'll to pay for pensions, every 9 years or whatever the time is, for NEW senators until they are 80? Am I right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) The only elected senator, wrote a letter today to the senators about senate reform and asking where their loyalties to senate reform lie? Then he goes on telling them it should be with the PM, who brought them there to help reform the senate. Of course he's talking to the 18 new senators and the PC senators but none like what they see about the reforming , especially the 8 year term. So sad. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/06/rallying-for-reform-senator-brown-writes.html I think it's appropriate that the "old" Conservative senators be encouraged to support one of the main planks of Conservative policy. It's not surprising that some of these dinosaurs might be resistant to change because they feel no particular debt or allegiance to Stephen Harper and several may still be stuck in the past as former Progressive Conservatives. Those in the Senate before Harper became Prime Minister need to realize that, had he not made appointments, the Conservatives appointed by Mulroney would now be a very small group struggling to do anything! Edited June 16, 2011 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 One down side to this is the tax payers. We'll to pay for pensions, every 9 years or whatever the time is, for NEW senators until they are 80? Am I right? Hmmm . . . That's a fact that I haven't seen mentioned before. With shorter terms there will be more turnover, more senators and more pensions to pay. I'm in favour of some reform, but I agree with ToadBrother that no Senator owes anything to the PM: That's why the system is set up the way it is, as a check on the power of the PM and the ruling party. Their responsibility is only to the best interests of Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Hmmm . . . That's a fact that I haven't seen mentioned before. With shorter terms there will be more turnover, more senators and more pensions to pay. I'm in favour of some reform, but I agree with ToadBrother that no Senator owes anything to the PM: That's why the system is set up the way it is, as a check on the power of the PM and the ruling party. Their responsibility is only to the best interests of Canadians. When has the Senate ever checked the power of the PM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 One down side to this is the tax payers. We'll to pay for pensions, every 9 years or whatever the time is, for NEW senators until they are 80? Am I right? There is more then one downside to tax payers when talking about the Senate. Easiest thing, have a referendum on it have three questions Keep the Senate, Elected Senate, Get rid of Senate and whatever the PEOPLE OF CANADA say goes. It is really hard to ask Parliament to reform parliament. It is just the nature of it, however it is pretty easy to ask Canadians. See what we want that is the NDP's position in a nut shell Referendum first so we know what Canadians want then our elected officials should all agree (from Provincial politicians and premiers all the way up to the PM and Senators) that they will do what the PEOPLE want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Hmmm . . . That's a fact that I haven't seen mentioned before. With shorter terms there will be more turnover, more senators and more pensions to pay. I'm in favour of some reform, but I agree with ToadBrother that no Senator owes anything to the PM: That's why the system is set up the way it is, as a check on the power of the PM and the ruling party. Their responsibility is only to the best interests of Canadians. Pensioning them off would likely be cheaper than some of the bills that the unelected Senators have run up over the years. As to "Their responsibility is only to the best interests of Canadians." - if they are unelected and owe nothing to the party or PM who put them there then what on Earth influence would hold them to such responsibility? Their fine character and the innate goodness of their hearts, perhaps? You seem an awfully trusting soul, Jacee... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 punked, I don't think the NDP would like the results of that vote. I find it highly unlikely that Canadians would vote to abolish the Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Of course he's talking to the 18 new senators and the PC senators but none like what they see about the reforming , especially the 8 year term. So sad.Are the Senators' duties to Canada or to themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 That is about as naive a statement as I have ever heard. How is it naive? The prime minister can't remove a senator, so why should the senator care what the prime minister wants? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 How is it naive? The prime minister can't remove a senator, so why should the senator care what the prime minister wants? It's naive because when someone gives you a six-figure job and a nice fat pension, you don't stab them in the back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 It's naive because when someone gives you a six-figure job and a nice fat pension, you don't stab them in the back. And then, a couple of weeks or years later, that PM is replaced, while senators continue. At that point, to whom are they indebted? Senators appointed by previous administrations outnumber newbies by a very wide margin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 The only elected senator, wrote a letter today to the senators about senate reform and asking where their loyalties to senate reform lie? Then he goes on telling them it should be with the PM, who brought them there to help reform the senate... So sad. So sad that we have parliamentarians who haven't a clue how Canada's system of government works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 And then, a couple of weeks or years later, that PM is replaced, while senators continue. At that point, to whom are they indebted? At any point, to whom or what are they indebted other than parliament? The prime minister can do nothing to a senator once the latter has been sworn in; senators are not obliged to agree with the prime minister who recommended their appointment. Mindless adherence to the prime minister's diktats is what MPs do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 It's naive because when someone gives you a six-figure job and a nice fat pension, you don't stab them in the back. Stab them in the back.....by doing your job? I think that some of you are far too jaded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Exactly. That proposal that PMs control the senate through personal indebtedness is completely specious. It's not accurate; not in keeping with human nature; not enforceable; not mathematically sensible.... It's not exhibited in action... It's not a logical nor even a supportable assertion. It is far beneath Cybercoma's generally reasonable usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 That proposal that PMs control the senate through personal indebtedness is completely specious. I think people fail to realise that some Senate reforms will actually increase the influence of the PMO. Senators appointed for eight years will certainly be more likely to feel a need to bow to the prime minister's will, lest they loose out on post-Senate appointments or other perks that could go to those who jumped when the prime minister said to. Even senators elected for short periods like that would be more pressured to follow the party line and would also be looking for rewards when their time in the Senate is up. The Senate might come to be regarded as a duplicate House of Commons in more ways than one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) 8 years is far too short a trough-slurping term for these guys--- what with doubledipping they would only be able to bring home about 3/4 of a million a year after they were done "working" in the senate. How about 0 year terms for all senators--- ? Edited June 16, 2011 by Tilter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 And then, a couple of weeks or years later, that PM is replaced, while senators continue. At that point, to whom are they indebted? Senators appointed by previous administrations outnumber newbies by a very wide margin. So what? This is the naive statement in question: The point is that no Senator owes any Prime Minister a damned thing, any more than a Supreme Court judge does. It seems pretty obvious that this isn't true. When you're given a patronage position to the tune of 6 figures until you're 75, then a hefty pension to boot, then yeah... you sort of owe it to the person that literally handed you your unelected job a bit of gratitude. In fact, I would go so far as to say it's expected that you would support their legislative ideas. So, the idea that "no Senator owes any Prime Minister a damned thing" is exactly what was said: naive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
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.