Senate Reform?

C

Clem

Well-known member
Forum Sponsor
Well, the only difference I can see is that there will be a committee that will recommend 5 people for each post. The committee will be set up by Trudeau. I can't see any big reform here.

You still have 7 liberal senators and 4 conservative senators under investigation for fraud. How about kicking them out first?

People are still appointed for life with no accountability. It didn't surprise me that 2 senators are currently in nursing homes and can't even make it to the house for a vote but still draw their money. So much for Trudeau's statement that he was going to get rid of the senate.

At a minimum the senate should be elected. That way at least you can get rid of them in 4 years. I believe all the houses in the US are elected.

I just came back from BC and I have to admit that it took me a long time to warm up to Christy Clark, but at least she called him out on it and has taken the position of either elected representation, or a change in the constitution to collapse it. Good for her.
 
JT won't be getting rid of the senate, he doesn't have the money to cover the two decade long legal war it would create.

True senate reform will not happen on his watch either. I like Christy Clarks stance, she makes sense, but the senate has never really been about making sense so good luck to her.
 
I just figured out how we ended up with Justin Trudeau. Justin Bieber couldn't get out of his recording contract.
 
The senate does add value, believe it or not... it helps to slow change. When you have a new government they do not control the senate, the last guy stacked it. So they (new guys) come with all these new radical ideas but the last guys senators slow the change down by "voting" things down. By the time the new guy runs the senate he has had a better look at the books, a better grasp on reality and the changes make more sense.

We can piss and moan about not elected, not democratic, senate fraud, etc...the system has worked to our benefit. The question is how do we get rid of the bad and keep the good?

Or let me put it this way, for the Liberals in the house, would you have been OK with Harper having absolute uncontrolled power?

Or let me put it this way, for the Conservatives in the house, do you want Trudeau to have absolute uncontrolled power?

The Senate has value...but needs reform. Term limits, selected by the provinces, etc.

BTW, we spent $21M to find $1M of spending fraud, that is just bad accounting, why didn't they just lay the law down going forward--saving the taxpayers $20M... Stupid is as stupid does.
 
I have no idea how we could ever get rid of the senate. The provinces would need to vote on it and Quebec for sure would not want it gone. Would take years and a lot of negotiations to even get this process started. At the very least the place needs to be reformed and maybe some kind of term limit put in place (15-20 years?).
 
How about candidates can only come from the Order of Canada, LOTs of smart guys on that list and limit the terms to ten years. They are there long enough to learn the job but hopefully don't become redundant plugs sitting at a cottage collecting a comfortable wage.
 
You mean a politician said one thing and when they got elected they didn't follow through :)

I would be more comfortable if Senators were elected, with regular elections ever 4 years. The fact that you can simply be appointed based on nepotism and "who you know" is no longer legal in any other strand of society, why is it still a valid model for government.

Penalties should also be imposed if a member does not show up. Apparently the average turnout in the Senate is somewhere south of 30%. Where are the other 70%.

As someone mentioned spending $21mm to track down $1mm is also a serious issue. Why was that not caught in the regular audit. And why were the other conservative and liberal Senators not named and shamed the way Duffy was. Seems like they all had their fingers in the pot. I think the Duffy affair was manufactured by CBC as a way to embarrass Harper. Marie Charette-Poulin expenses were paid back by Trudeau's office. Is that not the same thing.

The whole thing is rotten to its core. Corrupt politicians looking after their own on tax payer backs
 
Last edited:
What we need is pension reform. Electing Senators would only make things worse in my opinion.
We'd end up paying more people full pensions who only worked a couple of terms.

What shocked me most about the past election, was how involved and manipulative the media were in the situation.
That shouldn't be the case, they shouldn't be forming a propaganda machine, but reporting the news.

Neither Harper, Chretian or most of the "semi-retired" politicians, really need the pension money, it could go to better uses.
 
Last edited:
So its my understanding that Duffy is currently on trial. Proper order as well.

What I don't understand is that there were about 12 cases referred to the RCMP. Are the rest of them going to be tried or is Duffy the guy that they are trying to make an example out of?

Seems like they all did the same thing and had their hands in the cookie jar :)
 
The senate should not be elected! It's whole purpose is to act as sober second thought to the politicians that are dependent on the political process (getting elected). It's the whole "prevention of the tyranny of the majority" thing. The better way to go would be varying term limits set at the time of appointment.
 
Baggsy said:
What we need is pension reform. Electing Senators would only make things worse in my opinion.
We'd end up paying more people full pensions who only worked a couple of terms.

What shocked me most about the past election, was how involved and manipulative the media were in the situation.
That shouldn't be the case, they shouldn't be forming a propaganda machine, but reporting the news.

Neither Harper, Chretian or most of the "semi-retired" politicians, really need the pension money, it could go to better uses.
Click to expand...

Well, No pensions would be a condition of the job and something that you build in during reform. I suggest that that would immediately dissuade most people from running.

Couldn't agree you you more on the media. At the end I began watching US news, specifically since it didn't have Canadian Election coverage.

As one example you had Mansbridge on ever night making snide, cynical comments about Harper while making Tom Mulcair out to be some sort of simpleton and completely out of touch with reality; and all the while trying to get his tongue further and further up Justins's arse.

Just give me the facts, not commentary. I'm old enough to make up my own mind.

IMHO, Professional news reporting in Canada died with Lloyd Robertson's retirement
 
Old Suzy said:
The senate should not be elected! It's whole purpose is to act as sober second thought to the politicians that are dependent on the political process (getting elected). It's the whole "prevention of the tyranny of the majority" thing. The better way to go would be varying term limits set at the time of appointment.
Click to expand...

But why allow Harper or Trudeau to stack the deck in their favour. Shove a bunch of partisan Senators in there and everything that goes to the upper house is bound to pass.

I like the US approach where both houses are elected and I believe elections are 2 years apart (someone correct me if I'm wrong). That way there are true checks and balances as you may not necessarily get a democratic or republican majority in both houses.

The Senate in Canada is a legacy institution derived from the British House of Lords. A method conceded by Cromwell where a bunch of rich privileged people could still have a say in day to day government. Its no longer the 1600's

I would even go as far as to abolish Parliament and just let everybody interested in a particular bill vote on line. That's real democracy. Parliment is only there are they had nothing better at the time
 
Last edited:
j2 said:
But why allow Harper or Trudeau to stack the deck in their favour. Shove a bunch of partisan Senators in there and everything that goes to the upper house is bound to pass.

I like the US approach where both houses are elected and I believe elections are 2 years apart (someone correct me if I'm wrong). That way there are true checks and balances as you may not necessarily get a democratic or republican majority in both houses.

The Senate in Canada is a legacy institution derived from the British House of Lords. A method conceded by Cromwell where a bunch of rich privileged people could still have a say in day to day government. Its no longer the 1600's

I would even go as far as to abolish Parliament and just let everybody interested in a particular bill vote on line. That's real democracy. Parliment is only there are they had nothing better at the time
Click to expand...

Agreed maybe the appointment process could be tweaked. As far as the US approach, its not working out so well. If there was ever a government that has become gridlocked and prone to pork barrel politics the US system is hard to beat.
As far as everyone voting on every issue, ya thats going to work. The majority of people will vote all day long to increase government services but will vote all day long not to pay for these services.

There are many examples where the senate has forced the majority government to tweak or not pass bills where the people of the day would have been all for the bill. For example how about when PM john C wanted to pass the bill to kill the Pearson airport deal without any compensation to the signed parties. If the senate had allowed this to pass it would have in effect made any contract with the government of Canada worthless. Mind you, I think the Liberals knew this as most of the compensation did indeed go to one of the liberal party's greatest supporter(s) (the Bronfman family) not as the Liberals spun the media saying this was a kick at the Conservative backers.
 
Baggsy said:
Neither Harper, Chretian or most of the "semi-retired" politicians, really need the pension money, it could go to better uses.
Click to expand...

Competent people don't need gold plated pensions and incompetent ones shouldn't be running the country.
 
j2 said:
I like the US approach where both houses are elected and I believe elections are 2 years apart (someone correct me if I'm wrong). That way there are true checks and balances as you may not necessarily get a democratic or republican majority in both houses.
Click to expand...

I general it does work better than the Canadian system, except when you have the screw Obama factor and the funding bill got blocked. I get the impression that in Canada bills are just rubber stamped in the Senate, if anyone shows up at all.
 
Last edited:
nobbie48 said:
Competent people don't need gold plated pensions and incompetent ones shouldn't be running the country.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it all comes down to greed.

I like Justin's statement pre election that he was so rich he didn't need the Prime Ministers salary. Now he's having the tax payer rent a house from him in Rockcliffe for $40,000 a month as his wife is too good for 24 Sussex and has tax payers paying for nannies to look after their brats. Didn't take him too long to get into the swing of things. Almost 2 weeks :)

I hate to sound like Rob Ford but, all of these political figures, elected or not, are "Pigs at the trough". Duffy and Charette-Poulin are prime examples, over $100k each in fraudulent expenses, right.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom