Senate is better off dead, NDP says

I think a Senate is better off ELECTED.

Either way will require Constitutional reform, and we all know how well that's gone...

Either way will require Constitutional reform, and we all know how well that's gone...

Yes, it is a very useful debate, to whine about something that would be very
difficult to change either way.

Never mind the NDP has been at the forefront of blocking any reform to the Senate anyway,
how very hypocritical of them.

Meanwhile, the economy is in the toilet, and I just read about ER patients
being treated not in the hospital, but in the Timmie's next door.

But Taliban Jack wants to talk about the Senate.



Ahhh, now we see the problem, Jacko is pissed off because his NDP cronies aren't in there.

Just an FYI, the Timmies isn't next door, it's in the hospital itself and is also a designated overflow area, this wasn't a split second decision but was in the hospital's plans for extreme ER usage.

Either way will require Constitutional reform, and we all know how well that's gone...

Yes, it is a very useful debate, to whine about something that would be very
difficult to change either way.

Never mind the NDP has been at the forefront of blocking any reform to the Senate anyway,
how very hypocritical of them.

It has always been the NDP's position to abolish. They are not being inconsistent here, just more vocal than usual about that particular platform plank. It is not hypocritical of them, either, to block the limpwritsted at best and dangerous at worst attempts at "reform" so far offered by the Conservatives. 8-year limits do nothing to fix the problems of patronage and lack of democratic input, and they would give any PM who lasts 8 years a necessary 100% majority in the Senate. How is a Senate entirely packed with your cronies going to offer any kind of "sober second thought"?

There is no hypocrisy here.



Doesn't stop the Conservatives from going after such non-issues as the mandatory long-form census.



Ahhh, now we see the problem, Jacko is pissed off because his NDP cronies aren't in there.

You think it's okay for a party that has been a major presence in Canadian politics for 50 years to have zero representation in the upper house? I admire your committment to democracy.

Are there any provinces that would actually block an attempt to amend the Constitution to abolish the Senate? As long as nothing else is tampered with in the Constitution I say Harper could get approval in an hour on the phone.

Trying to get all the provinces and territories to agree on what type of TP to use in their bathrooms would take nothing short of an act of god let alone trying to get them to agree on senate reform/abolishment.

Personally I think the biggest fear of re-opening the constitution has to do with Quebec. Re-opening the constitution would provide the separatists with an opportunity to raise hell again.

Trying to get all the provinces and territories to agree on what type of TP to use in their bathrooms would take nothing short of an act of god let alone trying to get them to agree on senate reform/abolishment.

Personally I think the biggest fear of re-opening the constitution has to do with Quebec. Re-opening the constitution would provide the separatists with an opportunity to raise hell again.

Quebec hasn't signed the current constitution. Why should we ask them to sign amendments to it?

Must be my advancing age, but I'm starting to get very suspicious of anyone who advocates abolishing any government institution. As such I'll be questioning the NDP's true motives as much as I would, were I an American, of anyone who started yammering on about abolishing constitutional amendments.

Nothing happens in a vacuum, and I certainly don't trust those whose main motivations for pushing these things seems mostly to satisfy their own ideological or political convenience. I'll be keeping my eyes on you, Dippers.

As it stands, the Senate is nothing but a sitting room for the lucky recipients of patronage.
It's kind of ridiculous to have a house of sober second thought when the "residents" are made up of people whose only loyalty lies with whichever PM appointed them.
Personally, I think we deserve a senate NOT made up of ass suckers.
Either abolish it or elect it cuz it's current incarnation is worse than useless.

You're right, it's nothing but a patronage trough as it is. But I don't like the idea of an elected senate. We have enough elected officials already. And you know what you get when you hold more elections? MORE POLITICIANS. Better to keep the number of politicians to a minimum. I think the idea of an appointed house of "sober second thought" is a good idea. The problem with ours is the patronage part, the make-up of the Senate and the rules that allow senators to collect pay while only occassionally showing up to work. I say we keep the senate as an appointed body, but that appointments be made through an application-interview-selection process. A non-partisan committee is established to take nominations and interview candidates for the jobs. This way, we get people with a wide variety of skills and viewpoints who can deliver sober second thought. We make sure the applicants aren't a bunch of senile old coot, former party loyalists that are being put out to pasture on a cozy salary. We make sure that, once you're appointed to senate, you understand that you're to be IN the senate or you're kicked off. There are ways to make the senate effective and accountable without making it elected. Otherwise, just scrap the whole damn thing.

Well, when the Liberals held a majority in the Senate I thought it was useless, but now the Tories are in control, I think it provides a sober second-thought and a well needed check and balance to the Commons bills.

Nah, not really!

I agree with Lemmy and PA9 (mostly), we already elect a load of wankers. Lets just get rid of it.

Too many elected idiots now.

One house is enough.

Likewise for me. Over multiple governments and over multiple decades the senate has been considered a questionable tool for the lower house and has a questionable mandate, which is carried out in a similarly questionable manner by people there for questionable reasons.

In the long term, I'd like it to be reformed into something with an actual use or removed from our system of government. While there is something to be said about people who can block motions from the lower house which passed for questionable reasons, like a sudden majority, there is also something to be said by having it done by people who deserve those positions, who potentially are experts and who are actually present to do their jobs, which the current system does not have. I'm all for checks and balances.

If that cannot be managed, than I would prefer the entire senate concept be removed. It might only cost 1/5th of the House, but if we don't really need it and it's been more a source of consternation than anything, then I don't think we need to keep it.