Abolish the Senate......

fun-guy

Executive Senior Member
Jun 29, 2005
7,272
3
38
Its time has come. It's proven to be a useless entity in today's modern world, the provinces are well represented by the MP's without Senators from the provinces. The public now views the Senate as a patronage cesspool to thank loyal party supporters at the expense of taxpayers. We don't need another house in Canada's government, it's a waste of our money. I'd rather use that money to support a more powerful independent entity to better monitor government spending, tighter auditing of government officials, and improve the ombudsman's office at the federal level.

That's the consensus I've been hearing, what are you thinking?
 

gargravarrh

Member
Apr 3, 2011
155
0
16
I believe that the Duffygate and Wallingate scandal was set up to make inattentive people scream 'abolish the senate'
It was probably Harper's agenda all along.
 

Ridgeman08

50 Shades of AJ
Nov 28, 2008
4,482
2
38
I believe that the Duffygate and Wallingate scandal was set up to make inattentive people scream 'abolish the senate'
It was probably Harper's agenda all along.
Many have been screaming "abolish the senate" for years. On both sides of the political spectrum.
 

Yoga Face

New member
Jun 30, 2009
6,307
19
0
they are supposed to be experts in varied fields and are supposed to use this expertise to criticize or even stop a bill

they are the equivalent of the english house of lords


appointments for life should be questioned as they become lazy and stupid with egos

like harold ballard


visit the parliment buildings next time in ottawa and you can go inside (remember to remove your hat)


 

fun-guy

Executive Senior Member
Jun 29, 2005
7,272
3
38
I believe that the Duffygate and Wallingate scandal was set up to make inattentive people scream 'abolish the senate'
It was probably Harper's agenda all along.
Do you follow Alex Jones? lol, Conspiracy theorist? There isn't a move that the government makes without a conspiracy in the eyes of Jones and his followers.
 

fun-guy

Executive Senior Member
Jun 29, 2005
7,272
3
38
they are supposed to be experts in varied fields and are supposed to use this expertise to criticize or even stop a bill

they are the equivalent of the english house of lords


appointments for life should be questioned as they become lazy and stupid with egos

like harold ballard


visit the parliment buildings next time in ottawa and you can go inside (remember to remove your hat)



Really? Many question the appointment of some of those senators. What field was Jacques Demers an expert in besides a good hockey coach? He can't read or write, he's illiterate. Maybe he's championing illiterate issues?

There are 105 senators and they are appointed, not elected. One has to believe there is a lot of bias in the appointments from the government in power at the time. The Senate rarely rejects a bill that was passed by the House of Commons, the Senate is basically a lame duck but very well paid at our expense. Can you recall the last time the Senate rejected a bill passed by the House of Commons?
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,461
12
38
You're likely right that it has outlived whatever use it might once have had. But we've seen how divisive and unproductive amending the Constitution can be, so that's likely something we should just leave well down the wishlist. We could however do all sorts of useful things along the way just by passing a law here or there.

We could for example peg the pay rate for Senators at a minor-middle mangement\foreman level specified in the civil service. We could give them only a specified number of paid trips from their residence in the boonies to Ottawa. We could make what we do now—appoint useful party stalwarts, pensionable party hacks, even an occasional party rebel like Hugh Segal—but in a more democratic fashion, we could actually take a bit of pride and comfort from.

All we need is for the Senate to be dismissed, as the Commons is, when an election is called. Mass resignation by prior agreement when appointed would accomplish the same thing. The parties recognized by Elections Canada would publish their ranked list of Senate nominees at election time. The PM would appoint the new crop of Senators from those lists according to the popular vote each party got. We voters might even change our choice of MP if we hated their party's Senate list badly enough, or if we we bowled over by their merits.

The current PM has already gone on record with his belief that all of the above lies within the area of ordinary legislation and asked the Supreme Court to say he's right. But all he's offered as a vision is the same sort of Senate as before but made even more troublesome by Senators now having the mandate of personal election and thinking they're just as good as MPs.

An appointed upper chamber of party choices, gives us the proportional representation our current set-up lacks, but leave the power balance we're used to. If we're stuck with the Senate—like the aging relative we can't toss out in the cold—at least this would admit what the Senate does, and get the foolish doing it in a more direct and even useful way.

Like getting Granny to knit thongs instead of bed-jackets no one wears.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,074
1
0
Really? Many question the appointment of some of those senators. What field was Jacques Demers an expert in besides a good hockey coach? He can't read or write, he's illiterate. Maybe he's championing illiterate issues?

There are 105 senators and they are appointed, not elected. One has to believe there is a lot of bias in the appointments from the government in power at the time. The Senate rarely rejects a bill that was passed by the House of Commons, the Senate is basically a lame duck but very well paid at our expense. Can you recall the last time the Senate rejected a bill passed by the House of Commons?
You might want to get up to date with your information. Demers has, since opening his most precious secret to the world 10 years ago, learned to read. He is a very accomplished professional who had a long time secret and dealt with it. To be able to accomplish what he did with that handicap tells me more about his skills, focus, and drive than almost anything else. His situation was a result of a dysfunctional, damaging, and impoverished upbringing, not by choice.
 

Yoga Face

New member
Jun 30, 2009
6,307
19
0
Really? Many question the appointment of some of those senators. What field was Jacques Demers an expert in besides a good hockey coach? He can't read or write, he's illiterate. Maybe he's championing illiterate issues?

There are 105 senators and they are appointed, not elected. One has to believe there is a lot of bias in the appointments from the government in power at the time. The Senate rarely rejects a bill that was passed by the House of Commons, the Senate is basically a lame duck but very well paid at our expense. Can you recall the last time the Senate rejected a bill passed by the House of Commons?


another one is frank mahovolich FFS!

i said they are supposed to be experts not that they are

they should be experts in economics, the farming community, native concerns, the environment, what job skills are needed, wealthy and corporate tax evasion, foreign affairs, science, industry etc not hockey and news reporting !

the idea of a senate seems like a excellent idea but reform is needed

particularly that it is a job until you are 75
 

elmo

Registered User
Oct 23, 2002
4,720
5
0
here and there
You might want to get up to date with your information. Demers has, since opening his most precious secret to the world 10 years ago, learned to read. He is a very accomplished professional who had a long time secret and dealt with it. To be able to accomplish what he did with that handicap tells me more about his skills, focus, and drive than almost anything else. His situation was a result of a dysfunctional, damaging, and impoverished upbringing, not by choice.
Admirable but doesn't qualify him for a Senate seat.
 
Sep 11, 2006
84
0
0
Hi Oldjones,

You are right in that abolishing the Senate requires opening up that ugly can of worms - the constitution. The PQ must be salivating right now - it is an issue that they can exploit for there own ends. Although pretty soon it may be worth the head-ache!

I don't think that dismissing the senate everytime an election is called is a good thing. The point of the "chamber of sober second thought" was to be a non-partizan body to counteract the lower house where a majority government has basically unfettered power. Allowing the Prime Minister to appoint senators is something that always made me scratch my head, if a goverment is in power long enough, as the Conservatives are now and like the Liberals before, the Senate get's stacked and becomes useless.

Perhaps another method of reforming the Senate would be have the appointments be devolved to the premieres of the provinces. This may help to keep the senate from being stacked by one party and will also clear up one of the current issues that started this current scandal which was the issue of residency.
 

elmo

Registered User
Oct 23, 2002
4,720
5
0
here and there
I'm sorry blackrock, I peeked. Apparently anyone can be a Senator...link is here http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Senate/Today/sens-e.html


The Governor General appoints senators on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. To qualify for a summons to the Senate, the nominee must:

• be a Canadian citizen;

• be at least 30 years of age;

• own $4,000 of equity in land in the home province or territory;

• have a personal net worth of at least $4,000; and

• live in the home province or territory.
 

Yoga Face

New member
Jun 30, 2009
6,307
19
0
What would qualify him?




i would appoint some one like dr suzuki

although you may disagree with this specific appointment the idea is to appoint someone who has sound character , intelligence, a proven hard worker , and is an expert in an area that concerns the average canadian

WTF can a hockey player bring to the table???
 
Toronto Escorts