Molly Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 I guess we just sent one to jail so why not try for another, I mean soon we will have as many Senators in Prison as in the Red Chamber. When I take a thumbnail mental inventory of crooked and/or waste-of-skin senators and compare it to the numbers of seriously undesireable MPs.... well, maybe the role of the senate should be expanded instead. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
cybercoma Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 Yet MPs are elected by their constituents. Senators.... not so much. Quote
Smallc Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 Yet MPs are elected by their constituents. Senators.... not so much. And? Does everything have to be elected? Quote
cybercoma Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 And? Does everything have to be elected? And...MP is up on charges, but was elected by his/her constituents. Senator is up on charges, but was handed his/her position by the Prime Minister. One looks considerably worse than the other imo. Quote
Smallc Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 Why? I think it's only something that exists in the eyes of people that think everything has to be elected to be legitimate. Are the courts not legitimate? The civil service? The cabinet? Quote
Triple M Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 What if we just open up the appointment process so that the senate isn't stuffed with political hacks. With that being said I don't really see a PM giving up his power but that would most likely be the easiest way to change the senate for the better. As for abolishing the senate to me that makes little sense for many of the reason's already stated in this thread. Anyways to solve the senate issue what are some of the ideal objectives that a senate should accomplish then we can figure out how to get there. For example the senate should have a longer term view point than the house, it should rep minority communities/regions so things are not forced onto them, etc. Quote
punked Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) That's about the most moronic thing you've ever posted. That's so far beyond hyperbole it must sit somewhere in the realm of hallucination. Care to provide the number of Senators currently in prison? Get seven provinces equalling fifty percent of the population and then we'll talk. One just went to prison 2 weeks ago toad. Seven well lets run the list of provinces who have come out in support of getting rid of the Senate, Ontario, BC, Sask, Manitoba, and NS. So we are at 5 and over 50% so please stop acting like we are no where close to 7 provinces, I bet you could get PQ on board to if there was a real push. Edited June 26, 2011 by punked Quote
punked Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 Yes, and while we're at it, lets abolish the Court, the House and the civil service. Hell, lets abolish all government. See how stupid that is, punked? Yah that is stupid. Getting rid of things that that aren't redundant, aren't filled with party cronies, and actually do an important job that can't be done by other arms of government is stupid. Good thing the Senate doesn't do any of those things. Quote
Triple M Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 The senate can do an important job that other bodies can't just because it doesn't function as it should currently doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. Despite all the issues we have with our senate are we going to fail to see the actual good work they do on our behalf????? Quote
punked Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 The senate can do an important job that other bodies can't just because it doesn't function as it should currently doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. Despite all the issues we have with our senate are we going to fail to see the actual good work they do on our behalf????? Sorry it has out lived its usefulness. What I find funny is this argument has already happened in Canada it happened in NS but they got rid of their costly upper house anyway and guess what? No one noticed a difference. Your argument is "you are right the Senate does very little but think of all the good they can do." It aint going to work lets for forward here. Again no one has pointed out to me its usefulness. Quote
Triple M Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 Getting rid of the senate will hurt not only governance but our democracy and even our country. The senate is far from perfect in its current function and quite costly as well but it can be worth the cost if we take sensible approaches. The make up of our country with many cultural, national, and linguistic communities along with its regional divides makes the prospect of one legislative house balancing all those demands quite challenging. Quote
punked Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 Getting rid of the senate will hurt not only governance but our democracy and even our country. The senate is far from perfect in its current function and quite costly as well but it can be worth the cost if we take sensible approaches. The make up of our country with many cultural, national, and linguistic communities along with its regional divides makes the prospect of one legislative house balancing all those demands quite challenging. No it really wont hurt anything they don't do any of the things you tell me they do so why have them. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 No it really wont hurt anything they don't do any of the things you tell me they do so why have them. I favour the abolishment of the Senate. Quote
Wild Bill Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 Why? I think it's only something that exists in the eyes of people that think everything has to be elected to be legitimate. Are the courts not legitimate? The civil service? The cabinet? There's arguments either way, Smallc. A number of people think judges should be more directly answerable to the people. Many folks also consider our present system of appointing so many key positions in our government and institutions to be elitist. I guess it all boils down to how much trust you place in those doing the appointing! If you trust the people and the system then you are confident that appointees will all be people of good character. If you aren't as trusting then its a different story. All in your POV, I guess. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
ToadBrother Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 Yet MPs are elected by their constituents. Senators.... not so much. Supreme Court justices aren't elected either... Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 There's arguments either way, Smallc. A number of people think judges should be more directly answerable to the people. Many folks also consider our present system of appointing so many key positions in our government and institutions to be elitist. And what kind of justice system do you suppose you would have if judges were basically politicians? One of the great innovations of the Common Law was the separation of the magistrative duties from the political and executive ones. Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 Sorry it has out lived its usefulness. You keep saying things like this, but thus far I don't get much sense that you even understand what it's use is. What I find funny is this argument has already happened in Canada it happened in NS but they got rid of their costly upper house anyway and guess what? No one noticed a difference. Your argument is "you are right the Senate does very little but think of all the good they can do." It aint going to work lets for forward here. Again no one has pointed out to me its usefulness. The provinces, in general, have smaller populations and are also unitary states. It's apples and oranges. Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 One just went to prison 2 weeks ago toad. So what percentage of Senators have gone to prison. I'll arbitrarily pick a date of, oh, 1970, just for fun. Seven well lets run the list of provinces who have come out in support of getting rid of the Senate, Ontario, BC, Sask, Manitoba, and NS. So we are at 5 and over 50% so please stop acting like we are no where close to 7 provinces, I bet you could get PQ on board to if there was a real push. The only Premier I've seen who said "let's turf it" is McGuinty. The others have made suggestions, some pretty moronic (like Christie Clark's idea that somehow the constitution allows the Governor General to let Senate seats remain vacant). You're twisting facts here, just like you did with the Senator-in-prison claim. Are you even the least bit capable of honest debate? Quote
cybercoma Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 One just went to prison 2 weeks ago toad. Seven well lets run the list of provinces who have come out in support of getting rid of the Senate, Ontario, BC, Sask, Manitoba, and NS. So we are at 5 and over 50% so please stop acting like we are no where close to 7 provinces, I bet you could get PQ on board to if there was a real push. The last article I read had Quebec on board and I'm pretty sure Newfoundland would be in. The problem would be the 50% vote. Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 The last article I read had Quebec on board and I'm pretty sure Newfoundland would be in. The problem would be the 50% vote. On board for what? Could you show me where all these provinces are on board for abolition? Provide the links please. Quote
Smallc Posted June 27, 2011 Report Posted June 27, 2011 I know that Manitoba and Ontario (the premiers mind you, not the provinces) want the senate to be abolished. Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 27, 2011 Report Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) I know that Manitoba and Ontario (the premiers mind you, not the provinces) want the senate to be abolished. There is some question as to what capacity McGuinty speaks in. I doubt very much even within his own caucus there is universal agreement on abolition. Haven't heard about Manitoba. I do know that Quebec and Nova Scotia's governments have made clear that they do not approve of the Tories' plan and it seems likely unless Harper seeks some accord with the provinces, this is going to end up in court. Edited June 27, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
Smallc Posted June 27, 2011 Report Posted June 27, 2011 Haven't heard about Manitoba. Well, I'm actually not sure of Selinger's position, but I know that Gary Doer wanted to abolish the senate. Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 27, 2011 Report Posted June 27, 2011 Well, I'm actually not sure of Selinger's position, but I know that Gary Doer wanted to abolish the senate. Thus far the only Premier I've heard of who has advocated abolishing the Senate is McGuinty, and, at this point, I'm not sure if his opinion counts for much. I have seen no indication that anyone beyond Ontario's premier have favored abolishing the Senate, and certainly nowhere near the necessary number of provinces to pull it off. I've seen more indication that attempts at unilateral moves at reform by the Tories will end up in the Supreme Court, where I predict the whole thing would collapse. I don't think even the term limit portion of the bill will pass constitutional muster. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 27, 2011 Report Posted June 27, 2011 I think Alberta would support the concept, as would BC, and I cant see Saskatchewan being against it either. Quote
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.