Brad Wall vs the Senate

[Topaz]

Premier Brad Wall , wants to start talks with the provinces to the road of abolishing the senate. In my view, the senate should stay so seating government like Harper's can't get any more power than it has. The senate needs more reform but the problem to date is the people the PM has put into the senate and not the function of it. I think Canadians must really think carefully before doing this and IF the senate is abolished, then I'm all for abolishing Ottawa altogether and lay the power at the provinces. Just think how much money we could save by not paying MP's, federal workers etc. and divide up the national debt and each provinces goes it own way. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/19/saskatchewan-government-will-seek-constitutional-amendment-to-get-the-ball-rolling-on-abolishing-senate/

[Topaz]

On senate reform, the new minister for Democratic Reform Pierre Poilievre, may have problems with the Tory senators, if he pushes them to far, is being reported. If this turns out to be true, it looks like the rest of 2013, will not be a good year for Harper and all the problems his party brings him http://www.canada.com/Relations+prickly+between+Senate+Democratic+Reform+Minister+Pierre+Poilievre/8678870/story.html

.

[westguy]

Harper is very popular in the west

[cybercoma]

Senate Reform won't be truly embraced until the Harper Government is gone and the puppets that he put in there begin stonewalling in an unprecedented way legislation from a House of Commons controlled by another party. You can almost be sure that's how this will play out, since Harper rewards loyalty and the Conservatives he surrounds himself with have shown themselves to be incapable of working with others. You watch, as they take their queue from the Republicans in the US and end up locking down Ottawa, so nothing gets accomplished. Then they'll blame it on the opposing party. Canadians will then get on the abolish-the-senate bandwagon without realizing before its too late that they're giving all political power to Ontario and Quebec by doing this.

Edited July 20, 2013 by cybercoma

[hitops]

Premier Brad Wall , wants to start talks with the provinces to the road of abolishing the senate. In my view, the senate should stay so seating government like Harper's can't get any more power than it has. The senate needs more reform but the problem to date is the people the PM has put into the senate and not the function of it. I think Canadians must really think carefully before doing this and IF the senate is abolished, then I'm all for abolishing Ottawa altogether and lay the power at the provinces. Just think how much money we could save by not paying MP's, federal workers etc. and divide up the national debt and each provinces goes it own way. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/19/saskatchewan-government-will-seek-constitutional-amendment-to-get-the-ball-rolling-on-abolishing-senate/

Re-read that. A summary here is: 'The senate is required to stop Harper and the senate is a problem because of Harper.' There's not reasoning here, just a self-contradicting paragraph hi which every part much be anti-Harper at any cost. And the cost is coherence.

And now we should disband Ottawa?

Edited July 20, 2013 by hitops

[Topaz]

Re-read that. A summary here is: 'The senate is required to stop Harper and the senate is a problem because of Harper.' There's not reasoning here, just a self-contradicting paragraph hi which every part much be anti-Harper at any cost. And the cost is coherence.

And now we should disband Ottawa?

Yes, because if we have a government that is like the Harper government, who does what he wants, when he wants, and to hell with democracy, yes, then it rid of Ottawa.

[scribblet]

Sounds like unreasoning get Harper no matter what.

Ontario and Quebec will never go for disbanding the Senate, unless they are on board it won't happen.

[g_bambino]

Wall's supposed proposal was just showboating to appeal to lowest-common-denominator populism. A bill passed by the Saskatchewan legislature is meaningless in terms of federal parliamentary reform and Saskatchewan (like most provinces) can only end up worse off should the Senate be ditched (this argument that premiers already provide sufficient representation is self-aggrandising and disingenuous bunk; premiers can't vote on federal legislation; they don't even need to be listened to). I imagine anyone in high offices in this country knows a bicameral parlaiment is necessary in a federation, but they still shout the intellectually lazy t-shirt slogan "Abolish the Senate!", anyway, because they think this will score points with voters. Like Harper, they're all making promises about the Senate they know they won't see through to fulfillment.

[Keepitsimple]

Premier Brad Wall , wants to start talks with the provinces to the road of abolishing the senate. In my view, the senate should stay so seating government like Harper's can't get any more power than it has. The senate needs more reform but the problem to date is the people the PM has put into the senate and not the function of it.

All of Harper's appointments gave their word that they would support term limits for Senators. Do you not feel that's a good first step towards reform - or do you prefer the status quo - effectively "lifetime appointments" - to age 75?

[Icebound]

The Senate is necessary.

Senate reform is necessary.

The first phase of Senate reform is simple, ... can be done without any permission from the provinces, and can be accomplished by September.

Senators can continue to be appointed as they now are... in fact it is preferable to appoint rather than having partisan elections. The quality of the appointments, of course, are part of the sitting government's record, and can affect their electability come the next election.

Phase One of Senate reform goes like this:

1. No senator may have an affiliation with any political party, no matter who appointed the senator. If the appointee has or had an affiliation, he must formally renounce his party membership and be struck off the party's membership list.

That means....no fundraising, no public policy statements, (other than in-house debates), no cabinet posts, no formal public appearances with sitting Members of Parliament.

End of Phase One of Senate Reform.

If you implement Phase 1 properly, further reform may not be necessary.

....

[cybercoma]

It sounds good in theory, but they'll just work with the parties behind closed doors and at the end of the day they're still appointed by the Governor General on the advice of a Prime Minister of a given party, who's obviously going to choose people favourable to that party.

[Icebound]

It sounds good in theory, but they'll just work with the parties behind closed doors and at the end of the day they're still appointed by the Governor General on the advice of a Prime Minister of a given party, who's obviously going to choose people favourable to that party.

Maybe.

But it is surprising how people's loyalties can dwindle when there is nothing to be gained... like a cabinet post for example. They actually start to think for themselves and for the good of their "neighbours", ie: Canadians

And in this day of social media and leaks, etc, "working behind closed doors" could prove very dangerous politically if it were to be found out that they were contravening rules.

It won't be perfect... but it WILL improve things, and it can be done in a month.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Icebound

[Icebound]

.......

I imagine anyone in high offices in this country knows a bicameral parlaiment is necessary in a federation, but they still shout the intellectually lazy t-shirt slogan "Abolish the Senate!", anyway, because they think this will score points with voters. Like Harper, they're all making promises about the Senate they know they won't see through to fulfillment.

In 1919 a fledgling political movement published a short manifesto in a European newspaper. It proposed solutions for the four issues of the day: political, social, military, and financial.

The "solutions" for the Political "problems" consisted of 5 very reasonable proposals, enumerated a) to e).

Item c) was simply: "Abolish the Senate".

I leave it to the readers to recall history and determine which political movement, and whose newspaper....

....

[Sandy MacNab]

Re-read that. A summary here is: 'The senate is required to stop Harper and the senate is a problem because of Harper.' There's not reasoning here, just a self-contradicting paragraph hi which every part much be anti-Harper at any cost. And the cost is coherence.

And now we should disband Ottawa?

The lefties - especially the Liberals - know they have to get rid of Harper before they have a hope in hell of winning in 2015. They have to demonize him and/or bring him down to their level - an impossible goal - because they just don't have anyone of his high stature and ability.