Liberals takes a wrecking ball to the senate.

[JamesBondo]

Liberal plan to pick 'non-partisan' senators draws quick criticism - Politics - CBC News

What is worse than a senator that has partisan loyalties? A senator that has hidden loyalties that don't necessarily match any democratically elected government both past or present.

Lets face it folks, with a partisan senator, atleast you know what you are getting.

But a non-partisan senator? He could be a puppet for the politically correct crowd, or even worse like a self interest lobby.

non-partisan is not a sober second thought. It is a loose cannon not directed by any party debated/researched policy.

 

[Rick A]

Well, what can be expected from a liberal government that hasn't a clue, a knee jerk reaction!

 

[Murphy]

I believe they are hiring Mike Holmes. No one knows for sure what the old Senate chambers will become. The top three renos are, in no particular order - Parliamentary employees day care centre, HoC coat check. Cafeteria. (Lord knows, they could use a new one of those!)

 

[FiveParadox]

The Liberals are taking concrete steps to make the Senate more independent of the House, and to enable the Senate to more effectively perform its functions as a chamber of sober second thought. On January 19, cabinet established an independent advisory board on Senate appointments, to provide advice on non-partisan, merit-based nominees for appointment to the Upper House. The plan is an exciting one, and the only people concerned are the Conservatives, because it means an end to their hyper-partisan and abusive majority in the Senate.

Boo, hoo.

 

[Bar Sinister]

The Liberals are taking concrete steps to make the Senate more independent of the House, and to enable the Senate to more effectively perform its functions as a chamber of sober second thought. On January 19, cabinet established an independent advisory board on Senate appointments, to provide advice on non-partisan, merit-based nominees for appointment to the Upper House. The plan is an exciting one, and the only people concerned are the Conservatives, because it means an end to their hyper-partisan and abusive majority in the Senate.

Boo, hoo.

Agreed. If Canada is going to continue with a completely outmoded and fairly useless institution then there has to be a better way to select Senators than allowing the PM free reign and the Liberal plan appears to be an improvement.

 

[Dixie Cup]

I agree and it sounds good. Something needs to be done because opening the Constitution certainly isn't going to happen anytime soon and provinces are refusing to elect them (as a better option). We just need to make sure that the process is fair and balanced and not nuanced so that certain parties benefit rather than Canadians as a whole.


JMHO

 

[DaSleeper]

Can't be fully democratic if appointed by anyone...
Only elected is democratic!
And not at the same time as the House of Commons
To repair any mistake made in the main election

That would be sober second thought

 

[Walter]

We know the new plan to choose the Senators will be good because it'll be a Liberal plan. Justine will provide.

 

[JamesBondo]

Lets face it, if the senator isn't supporting one of the 3 parties, he has no business being there.

To be clear, there are only about 100 senators, we aren't paying them to think outside of the box. we aren't paying them to create their own little group of ideaologies that are different and unique compared to what voters are voting on when they go to the polls.

 

[DaSleeper]

 

[CDNBear]

The Liberals are taking concrete steps to make the Senate more independent of the House, and to enable the Senate to more effectively perform its functions as a chamber of sober second thought.

Do you think the Bishop will give potential Senators a past life regression? Do think their past lives will bear any weight on whether she approves them or not?

 

[JamesBondo]

non partisan does not equal non biased. to think so is naive.
just saying

 

[gerryh]

Can't be fully democratic if appointed by anyone...
Only elected is democratic!
And not at the same time as the House of Commons
To repair any mistake made in the main election

That would be sober second thought

Alberta elected senate "suggestions" and Harper appointed them as per the peoples choice. If the rest of the provinces aren't willing to do the same thing, then maybe the people in those provinces need to make it clear that electing potential appointees is what they want.

 

[damngrumpy]

If it wasn't for the fact we have to open the constitution I say just get rid of it.
We don't need it. About this time I think back and say wait a minute if they
didn't have the Senate we might have ended up with Harper for another four
years and on second thought its worth keeping for that reason alone.

 

[JamesBondo]

If it wasn't for the fact that the senate should represent the voters either past or present, it might make sense to go for a retarded Senate that isn't partisan.

Here is an analogy for you: a blood glucose meter reflects short term dietary intake of sugar, and àn A1C test reflects a longer term dietary intake. They are both critical tools in the fight against diabetes.

With the gov, parliament reflects the will of the people over a short time, while a partisan Senate reflects the will of the people over a longer period of time.

In my opinion, replacing the Senate with nonpartisan senators is much like replacing the A1C test with a naturopath. Instead of real live feed back guiding your review process, you are going to throw logic out the window and replace it with idealistic naive bull****.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Well in your case she'd be right wouldn't she?

 

[JamesBondo]

I thought that was a guy.