Topaz Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 The Pm has appointed five more people as senators and if this keeps going and the Tories are voted in again, then we may as well change Canada's name to Toryville. The senate is suppose to the "second thought" from Parliament and if the PMs are going to stack the senate, like the Liberals, did then its not a second thought democracy. I like to see rules change on this as how many one party can have and spread it so ALL parties can be represented. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/pm-harper-appoints-5-senators-173143764.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 I like to see rules change on this as how many one party can have and spread it so ALL parties can be represented. Such as.....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 I like to see where there are a large number to be elected or appointed, that the seating government does have the advantage over the parties but we must have other party members IN the senate to have a second thought or why have the senator at all? maybe that what the Tories are trying to do, get rid of it by making it a dictatorship senate. I do believe Martin did appoint a NDP at one time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 I like to see where there are a large number to be elected or appointed, that the seating government does have the advantage over the parties but we must have other party members IN the senate to have a second thought or why have the senator at all? Um... What? Do you or do you not have any suggested changes to the rules? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 The Senate as it stands is a joke. As long as these positions are appointed and have lifetime terms they'll never function as they are meant to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 Seem to remember PM Harper making some election promises here, that he cannot keep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 No, he cannot.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 Seem to remember PM Harper making some election promises here, that he cannot keep. Only proves he is not that really smart WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 I really don't understand the purpose of having a senate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 26, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 The purpose of the senate was to have a "second thought" on Bills sent over from Parliament and where amends are made and sent back to Parliament for agreement or rejections. IF, the senate is stacked with one party favours, like the Liberals did, then its not a second thought, or doing what is good for the people, its going along with the PM. So IF everyone that the PM appoints does what HE says, then its not a democracy. Am I right or wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 Totally agree. But Topaz, you know they all do the same thing. The only reason I would fault PM Harper specifically is for the promises he made about reforms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 As long as these positions are appointed and have lifetime terms they'll never function as they are meant to. How, exactly, are they meant to function? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 IF, the senate is stacked with one party favours, like the Liberals did, then its not a second thought, or doing what is good for the people, its going along with the PM. What makes them go along with the prime minister? Unlike as it is with MPs, the prime minister has no threat to hold over a senator should the latter not wish to follow the prime minister's diktats. In fact, senators appointed on Harper's advice have rejected Harper's own stated plans; on Senate reform, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) The purpose of the senate was to have a "second thought" on Bills sent over from Parliament... The Senate is also tasked with being the first to think about something. How about putting senate proposals that politicians refuse to follow or ignore to the people? Proposals for example that stem from The Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs or OUT OF THE SHADOWS AT LAST, Transforming Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Services in Canada. These are huge issues that have been lingering for decades if not longer that for all intents and purposes look as if they're going to linger for decades to come. It's appalling just how determinedly resistant to change our system can be. Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way comes to mind but I don't know to whom it's most applicable - politicians, Parliament, the Queen, us, senators. The baffling conundrum is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Edited January 27, 2013 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 What makes them go along with the prime minister? Unlike as it is with MPs, the prime minister has no threat to hold over a senator should the latter not wish to follow the prime minister's diktats. I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. Sure they're not bound to obey the PM. That's the point of the position after all, they should be non-partisan. It's impossible to avoid being partisan the way we do it now. Every party in power takes advantage of its position to add Senators that they know will be sympathetic to party ideals. In fact, senators appointed on Harper's advice have rejected Harper's own stated plans; on Senate reform, for example. Bwahahah... good one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 Why wouldn't they reject reforms? They receive a very sizeable salary with great job security, if they went for reforms they might actually have to do something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) There's no way anyone could force them to be part of the reform, so that doesn't hold. Another elected house is a waste of time. What we need is equalization of numbers for each province, and a change so that the 10 other Crowns in the provinces pick the senators, and not the Crown in Ottawa. That would make the place more accountable, would allow it to be taken more seriously, and would avoid the deadlock that happens in Australia and The United States. Edited January 27, 2013 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 Hey not a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 Correct me, if I'm wrong, but didn't the first set of senators Harper had them in promise to do what he wanted? I'm not sure if their is written contract between them and the PM. I think it was term limits for senators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 Correct me, if I'm wrong, but didn't the first set of senators Harper had them in promise to do what he wanted? I'm not sure if their is written contract between them and the PM. I think it was term limits for senators. They don't have to follow that, I don't think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 [T]hey should be non-partisan. That was never a job requirement. Not even in the British parliament are the lords non-partisan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 Correct me, if I'm wrong, but didn't the first set of senators Harper had them in promise to do what he wanted? I'm not sure if their is written contract between them and the PM. I think it was term limits for senators. They promise the world but when they get there and realize how nice it is to have those benefits without fear of losing an election they quickly change their mind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 Or, they could have realized that electioneering is completely contrary to the purpose of the Canadian Senate. I'd rather have it gone than elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 I think the NDP want it gone also. I've always thought we should have an elected Senate but only so many Senators per province, I've seen some pretty inflammatory comments elsewhere about these appts. What is the PM supposed to do if he can't get the provinces to agree to elections,.. leave them all open for the next gov't to make their appointments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 They promise the world but when they get there and realize how nice it is to have those benefits without fear of losing an election they quickly change their mind... Exactly what Harper did in the case of his senate promises. 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.