Liberals to derail Harper Senate reform plan

[BitWhys]

...The entitled are up in arms over someone taking thier entitlement away...

:roll:

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) but subject to sections 30 and 31, a person holding a place in the Senate on the coming into force of the Constitution Act, 2006 (Senate tenure) continues to hold a place in that House until attaining the age of seventy-five years.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Some members here have obviously never reviewed the proceedings of the Senate, whether it be reading the Debates of the Senate, or watching the proceedings of one of their several wise and professional Senate Committees. It is becoming ever so apparent that honourable senators are working far harder for Canadians than members of the Commons ever have, or will be; it’s simply in the nature of the job.

The fact remains none of these assholes are there by merit and do not deserve to be there. If we are going to have a house of losers for 'sober second thought', make them accountable. Otherwise, replace them with a rubber stamp.

The other possibility is bar them from membership or support of any political party. Keep the politics out of it.

 

[FiveParadox]

Why would you be calling honourable senators “assholes”, IdRatherBeSkiing? That kind of debate style is nothing short of shameful; you apparently can’t come up with any valid reasons to support your baseless drive for Senate reform, so you start launching character assassinations against others. Shame.

And, once again (as has been discussed at length here, and further at length in an essay I posted in a new thread some hours ago), the election of senators would result in an irrepairable compromise to the Senate’s role as a legislature of sober second thought. The fact that very little legislation is outright defeated (but hundreds of amendments are proposed, and accepted by the Commons per each individual session), is because the Senate is accountable for its actions.

Now, if you’re going to continue cursing and insulting others, I’m afraid our dialogue has concluded.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Why would you be calling honourable senators “assholes”, IdRatherBeSkiing? That kind of debate style is nothing short of shameful; you apparently can’t come up with any valid reasons to support your baseless drive for Senate reform, so you start launching character assassinations against others. Shame.

And, once again (as has been discussed at length here, and further at length in an essay I posted in a new thread some hours ago), the election of senators would result in an irrepairable compromise to the Senate’s role as a legislature of sober second thought. The fact that very little legislation is outright defeated (but hundreds of amendments are proposed, and accepted by the Commons per each individual session), is because the Senate is accountable for its actions.

Now, if you’re going to continue cursing and insulting others, I’m afraid our dialogue has concluded.

I don't want Senate reform. Doing so just brings up constitutional quandries. I find no use for the Senate at all. I want it gone.

And I will continue to call someone who:

1 gets lots of $$$$$ to sometimes show up to work.
2. is not accountable to anybody
3. when acutally at work, has many naps
4. performs the function which can be done easier with a rubber stamp
5. propogates political games with no ability to be accountable for it.

an asshole. They certainly don't deserve my respect.

 

[DaSleeper]

Now, if you’re going to continue cursing and insulting others, I’m afraid our dialogue has concluded.

I read the guides or rules of this forum are that we don't curse or insult each other..........but politicians.....it's another thing. They do it all the time in the house.
At least in the house if a member is useless there is always the option of voting him/her out.....not so in the senate.
I'm for an elected senate, or if that can't be done, get rid of them altogether....:angryfire:

 

[Unforgiven]

It's been too much of a free ride for too long. I suggest harsh penalties for those who abuse those appointments. The US has elected senators and still they are a bunch of do nothings.

Honestly I think we are headed for a breakup into smaller countries of like minds. The West doesn't have much in common with Central Canada. No one like Quebec and should the Maritimes find the money in the off shore oil they expect is there, then I can see that whole block jumping in the same boat and waving good by. Same with many Northern States. Tired of being lumped in with those halfwit war mongering neanderthals who manage to groom the rest of the world into a total hatred of the American people.

If senate reform were actually an important issue, LIKE THE WAR WE"RE IN, then maybe it would be answered in referendum. I suspect we'll spend some more time diddling around keeping the populous busy with other things than paying attention to the real issues of our time.

/rant

 

[wallyj]

:roll:

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) but subject to sections 30 and 31, a person holding a place in the Senate on the coming into force of the Constitution Act, 2006 (Senate tenure) continues to hold a place in that House until attaining the age of seventy-five years.

Yes,I understand that the current members will be on the public teat forever,but that does not mean that the practice should not be terminated asap. These nipple freaks do not want anyone to interfere with the "old boys club". If they would have compromised and amended the term limit to 12 years,thier image would not be so maligned.As it is,those who actually dignify thier position are being dragged through the mud with the likes of eggleton,hunter,and of course,the departed Mr. Mexico,andy young.

 

[BitWhys]

Then say that in first place next time.

 

[wallyj]

Then say that in first place next time.

Excuse me,mr.perfect. My original post about the "entitled losing thier entitlement" is relevant to the fact that the libs want to keep the nest cosy and comfortable for thier future appointees,once they return to power because they are the "natural governing party". Somehow you missed the "nuance".

 

[BitWhys]

sure it was

 

[wallyj]

You write a lot like your picture.no nuance there.

 

[BitWhys]

no need for it. your dodge doesn't fit the facts. the Senate bill doesn't change the appointment process so your current argument misses the point entirely.

 

[wallyj]

The appointment process will be addressed further down the road if the conservatives stay in power. The term limit bill is what this thread is all about.Things need to be changed in this country,the status quo is not working.

 

[BitWhys]

...The term limit bill is what this thread is all about...

I never said it wasn't and you still need to explain why incumbents would be opposed to term limits that don't effect them.

btw. There are very few people in this world I would buy a set of tires from because they've promised to sell me the rest of the car later. Especially if I haven't seen it. and Steve's definitely not one of them.

 

[DaSleeper]

I still think Preston Manning had the right idea when he proposed a triple E Senate...........

A Triple-E-Senate

The following is a statement by Preston Manning, Leader of the Reform Party, on the issue of Senate reform.

Recently, I reintroduced my Senate Selection Act in the House of Commons. This bill would force the Prime Minister to seek the opinion of the electors in a province before naming a Senate seat in that province. Many people have approached me and said the Senate should simply be abolished—that it is a waste of money. I agree that the current Senate arrangement is not serving Canadians. But, if we abolish the Senate, Canadians outside of Ontario and Quebec will continue to be at the mercy of Central Canadian influence. The Senate has the potential to provide a more balanced regional representation to protect less populous areas of the country. In addition, the Senate should act as a chamber of sober second thought on government legislation. While an elected Senate is the first step to achieving true representation, it is only one-third of what is needed to ensure Canadians are truly equal. The answer is a Triple-E-Senate:

Effective: Under current legislation the Senate has the power to be effective in representing regional interests and sober second thought. However, because the Senate is not elected and represents the worst of partisan, political patronage, it lacks all legitimacy. It is unaccountable to Canadian taxpayers.

Equal: Although Senators frequently say that they will take on regional interests, when push comes to shove they invariably vote along party lines. If they were elected they would be accountable to the regions they represent.

Elected: The starting point of Senate reform so that Canadians will have a lawmaking system that reflects the needs of this great country is with the election of Senators. The Senate and its important functions will never be a legitimate part of the lawmaking body, unless its members are accountable to the people of Canada through a democratic election process.

 

[BitWhys]

I'm no fan of elected Senators. I'd opt for abolishment before it came to that. There's enough electioneering bobbleheads on the Hill as it is.