On Guard for Thee Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 And on the flip side, I feel abolition is also a bad idea……..None the less, no Senate or an elected Senate are both populous proposals put forth by the two largest parties within the House of Commons……..A stark contrast to the dung Trudeau is shovelling…….. I wonder how many Canadians that have some expectation of Senate reform would lean to Trudeau’s position, i.e. nothing but smoke and mirrors? Those populous proposals you speak of will of course never bear fruit in our life times. Harper created a hot potato, threw it into the hands of the SCC and did nothing for 8 years, except appoint more senators. Mulcair has no senators and the idea of abolition is just a talking point. So I'd say Trudeau at the moment is smelling some pretty sweet air having left the others in that dung you speak of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Maybe because it's a cynical BS ploy that only fools the simpletons... so... when Harper did it/does it... are you fooled? Harper doesn't do it. say what? Of course Harper has removed members from the Conservative caucus! Just how fooled were you? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 no - again, what has changed, is the newly designated Independent Senators will no longer be able to caucus with the official Liberal Party caucus. Apparently, you believe that's insignificant. Completely so. and, as before, you claim when Harper does, he means it! When someone else does it, you claim it's a, as you stated, "pretend publicity stunt". Oh, wait now... are you saying that when Harper does it, he means it... but it's an insignificant move by Harper? Is that it... have I got it right now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 So what you're saying is the official Liberal party senate caucus does not officially meet with the official Liberal party House caucus? no - again, what I'm saying (as I echo the party leader) is that the newly designated Independent Senators will no longer meet with the official Liberal Party caucus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I believe the 19 member mass stacking stunt that included the Duff man is the unprecedented part. I'm not sure if that number of senate spots recently vacated sets a precedent, maybe... but that does not have much to do with Harper. He still won't be able to catch up to Chretien's 72 Liberal appointments before the end of the term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 He still won't be able to catch up to Chretien's 72 Liberal appointments before the end of the term. Probably not, but 59 appointments to date, demanding opposition to any bill passed by a coalition as an appointment condition, mass stacking the upper house and then ordering a surprise vote to kill a bill without debate, all by a guy who vowed not to appoint members, is a fairly disgusting record. Defending that record is a shameless act as well. You know we can take issue with the decisions of politicians we still plan to support, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Defending that record is a shameless act as well. You know we can take issue with the decisions of politicians we still plan to support, right? Sure, The CPC's current anti-pot radio attack ad is pointless and a cynical ploy to rally the base. There I did it, Happy? Still it looks like Liberals refuse to admit what JT did is rather pointless, at best completely symbolic. It also shows that JT really has no interest in moving towards a Senate that's accountable to the Canadian public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 no - again, what I'm saying (as I echo the party leader) is that the newly designated Independent Senators will no longer meet with the official Liberal Party caucus.I'm sure they'll never go have a coffee with any of the MPs or Trudeau or any of the party brass. Never going to happen guys. There won't be talk about policy out on the golf course or anything. Never going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I'm sure they'll never go have a coffee with any of the MPs or Trudeau or any of the party brass. Never going to happen guys. There won't be talk about policy out on the golf course or anything. Never going to happen. JT has given the former "Liberal" Senators Cooties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I'm sure they'll never go have a coffee with any of the MPs or Trudeau or any of the party brass. Never going to happen guys. There won't be talk about policy out on the golf course or anything. Never going to happen. how would you prevent your raised concerns over sharing coffee, playing golf, etc.? Again, Trudeau followed 1 of the 2 specific items mentioned in the NDP motion you highlighted. What was missing from that NDP motion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Probably not, but 59 appointments to date, demanding opposition to any bill passed by a coalition as an appointment condition, mass stacking the upper house and then ordering a surprise vote to kill a bill without debate, all by a guy who vowed not to appoint members, is a fairly disgusting record. Regardless, it's not without precedent as you claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Regardless, it's not without precedent as you claim. The mass appointing of 18 senators is without precedent. The orgy of appointments were part of the 27 he added to the senate in 8 months. A move made out of fear that a coalition government would control both the house and senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 The mass appointing of 18 senators is without precedent. The orgy of appointments were part of the 27 he added to the senate in 8 months. A move made out of fear that a coalition government would control both the house and senate. Wasn't that "orgy appointment" because there were that many vacant seats and he was sort of compelled to start filling seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) The mass appointing of 18 senators is without precedent. The orgy of appointments were part of the 27 he added to the senate in 8 months. A move made out of fear that a coalition government would control both the house and senate. Harper doesn't control the number of vacant senate seats that need to be filled, are you suggesting that somehow he does? Edited February 4, 2014 by Spiderfish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Wasn't that "orgy appointment" because there were that many vacant seats and he was sort of compelled to start filling seats. He was only compelled by his own fear that the opposition would take control the house. Thus he stacked the senate ahead of that possibility. Then of course he used the stacked senate to kill a bill passed by the democratically elected house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Harper doesn't control the number of vacant senate seats that need to be filled, are you suggesting that somehow he does? Nope. Just suggesting that he is a liar and acted as a dictator when mass stacking the senate and using it to kill a bill passed by MPs representing the majority of Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 ...stacking the senate and using it to kill a bill passed by MPs representing the majority of Canadians. You mean...like other PM's from all governing parties have done for decades? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 say what? Of course Harper has removed members from the Conservative caucus! Just how fooled were you? . Go troll elsewhere, Waldo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 The mass appointing of 18 senators is without precedent. The orgy of appointments were part of the 27 he added to the senate in 8 months. A move made out of fear that a coalition government would control both the house and senate. All that indicated was reality setting in. As Mulroney learned before him, if you have a liberal majority in the senate you're not going to get your legislation through. Harper had all sorts of vague hopes for reform, and held off appointing any senators for a while in hopes of getting agreements with the provinces for elections and such. That agreement didn't happen, wasn't going to happen, and in the meantime the senate was interfering with his legislation. So he appointed a bunch of people there. No big deal, as far as I'm concerned, except too many of them were losers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 All that indicated was reality setting in. As Mulroney learned before him, if you have a liberal majority in the senate you're not going to get your legislation through. Harper had all sorts of vague hopes for reform, and held off appointing any senators for a while in hopes of getting agreements with the provinces for elections and such. That agreement didn't happen, wasn't going to happen, and in the meantime the senate was interfering with his legislation. So he appointed a bunch of people there. No big deal, as far as I'm concerned, except too many of them were losers. It's a big deal because Harper did it. How dare he try to get his agenda through! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) You mean...like other PM's from all governing parties have done for decades?I believe it was the first time in over 70 years that the senate killed a bill without a hearing. Edited February 4, 2014 by Mighty AC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I believe it was the first time in over 70 years that the senate killed a bill without a hearing. I guess the opposition can use that against them in the next election. Certainly didn't use it in the last. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Harper spent most of his political life preaching against such anti-democratic tactics, and he was right. That's why I think it is necessary to create a mostly independent senate. Every person is going to have some political leaning, but senators should not be in caucus and should not be appointed by the PM. As mentioned I favour leaving appointments up to an equal, all party committee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 As mentioned I favour leaving appointments up to an equal, all party committee. If a committee of MPs appoint Senators wouldn't the governing party win most votes anyway? All these measures just seem like round-about ways to achieve the same result. And it doesn't change the public sentiment that Senators are accountable to no one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 No I am suggesting a committee with equal representation from all parties in the house. It would consist of just 5 members right now. 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.