One would think, but apparently not so according to the website I posted above. We should definitely fight to protect this institution and the bastions of society who meet the requirements
Abolish the Senate......
- Thread starter fun-guy
- Start date
World class exports? That's one way to make the Senate disappear.
So Ken Dryden would be disqualified because he played professional hockey, ran a hockey team, did some tv commentary and wrote a couple of books?
That is an excellent idea. I would suggest maximum terms (~5 years ?) at he end of which the position is reviewed and if necessary - a replacement is appointed.
For crying out loud, it takes nearly 5 years to learn what needed to be a good Senator. Like any good job. Experienced Senator would almost be an oxymoron.
yes
unless the senate needs an author, goaltender, lawyer (he is a lawyer i think) general manager of a hockey team or hockey commentator
other wise what good is his opinion?
if he has to defer to experts then put the expert in the senate FFS!
the senate is not a popularity contest nor a reward for being a good citizen it is supposed to help run the country by giving advice (they can block a bill) to the house of commons and because politicians are not world class experts then such expertise coming from the senate seems like an excellent idea but first we need to appoint fucking experts .... duh !
Well first they have to be Canadian citizens and have four grand...that's not everybody you know.
my suspicion is the prime ministers appoint someone they know will not do their job
like hockey players and reporters
a different method of appointing seems in order along with abolishment of lifetime appointments
There'd be the usual bumps on that road, but it would mean Harper could blame Duffy on the Premier of PEI, which he likely wishes he could do now. I could go for your version over what we have, although the Americans chose to give up the concept of Senators representing states. Before the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, senators were elected by the individual state legislatures.[18] However, problems with repeated vacant seats due to the inability of a legislature to elect senators, intrastate political struggles, and even bribery and intimidation gradually led to a growing movement to amend the Constitution to allow for the direct election of senators.[Wikipedia] With terms longer than a President's, and far more legislative power, the 100 elected American Senators are the Earls of America's nobility.
Back to us. I'd have to say the last thing we need is yet another body representing our regions—we already have the Cabinet and Commons, and the provinces have the Council of the Federation—especially one we can't tinker with as populations shift, while we seriously do need to address the disparity and dysfunction of FPTP elections that dump a majority into the Commons which represents only a minority of the votes cast, with not the slightest counterbalance anywhere to speak for most of us.
Sober second thought is just as available from a bright young whippersnapper freshly arrived as from someone aged crock first appointed a half dozen Parliaments ago. And none of the dissatisfactions with appointments are answered by changing the person making the appointments. Basically you've just given the same old clunker an oil change and a detailing. So if that's where you want to stop reform, I'll leave you there.
I can't give up the thought that Harper will put us through another sham like his fixed elections law, as a feel good exercise that accomplishes nothing, but which comes at the price of pointless and far-reaching change. Do we really imagine the nomination of his elected Senators will look significantly different from my proposal of party lists? When we Ontarians vote for his elected Senate, how many of us will thoughtfully make 24 earnest and informed choices from all those names? Face it; we'll pretty much all vote the party slate.
For exactly the same price, and very little risk, I believe a PR Senate might be a body to do some actual good. It seems to in Australia. At least Elizabeth May would have a lunch partner she could count on.
---------------------------
On the matter of Senators being dismissed when the Commons is dissolved for an election, as I proposed: There's no way around that if the Senate is to reflect the popular vote. There's little or no evidence that the current /permanent' Senate does much of use during campaigns anyway, beyond renting themselves out as guest speakers at party bunfests. If the Senate was reformed to reflect the popular vote, it would be up to the parties nominating their lists whether they'd want the sober second thinkers back for another term. At least this way the acknowledged deadwood could be quietly dropped overboard and not hang about attracting carpenter ants until 75.
I'm not sure, but I don't believe the Harper Plan calls for yet another election just to choose Senators (hard to justify that expense), so I think he too would have a scheme to 'dismiss' them with the MPs.
Unless the Senate needs? Who make the decision what it needs. Sorry, we have three lawyers already, no more needed? Have you ever met him, talked to him read his books. I have three times and he is a very well spoken observant professional who reached the pinnacle of his chosen profession at one point in his life. Not many, if any, here can make that claim.
The House of Commons has it's usual list of lawyers and business leaders, but also has authors and musicians, teachers, farmers, journalist, even a martial arts instructor. At one time there was over 30% of the members as layers. It's been made clear often what TERB members think of lawyers. The good news now is ~15% are from the legal professions.
We've taken this thread in another direction. The question is if the Senate is relevant in today's political landscape. Has it outlived its raison d'etre? I really don't care who is qualified or not, although that is controversial as well, but I really think it serves no purpose today. It's really a waste of tax payers money. 102 senators getting almost $150k a year plus generous travel allowances and expense accounts. Our hard earned income is paying for them and they've really not accomplished much in the last several years. What have they done to justify this large cost? Does anyone know what they've contributed over the last several decades? I don't recall the last time they rejected a bill. Although a two house system can be valuable, ie. the US, lol, although many claim this just stifles progress, Canada really is not using the two house system the way it should be. I can understand why many want the Senate disbanded.
It's not happening lately because of the makeup of the Senate, heavily Conservative in a Conservative government, but check out C-311 last year, the Climate Change Bill. It failed by 9 votes and that was with 15 Liberals not in town. The majority of Parliament had passed the bill twice, but the Senators were instructed to deal with it with no debate.
As for them not doing much, it's because most of their work is done in camera behind closed doors in the 20 odd committees, that don't make the headlines.
we have 307 Members of Parliament and 105 Senators governing 32 million Canadians.
we have 107 MPPs in Ontario governing 13.5 million Ontarians.
we have one "mayor" hahahaha and 44 city councillors governing 2.6 million Torontonians.
that is a shitload of overhead , layer upon layer. I don't see the value.
we have 107 MPPs in Ontario governing 13.5 million Ontarians.
we have one "mayor" hahahaha and 44 city councillors governing 2.6 million Torontonians.
that is a shitload of overhead , layer upon layer. I don't see the value.
Can you enlighten us at what work they do and what they accomplish behind closed doors? I'm totally aware they work behind the scenes but I've yet to see anything of substance and all those committees is just smoke to make it seem like they're important. Can you imagine Demers is a member of the Foreign Affairs and International Trade committee? What in the world does this committee do? They're a non governing bunch of misfits as far as I'm concerned and we pay them out of our tax dollars.
I have total respect for Demers background from a difficult childhood, losing parents, an illiterate for a majority of his life but still managed to coach a Stanley Cup champion team, but what in the world can he possibly do to contribute to Foreign Affairs and International Trade? The Senate is a useless entity in our tine. It has to go and the vast majority of Canadians would agree IMO.
Unfortunately my pipelines to the Senate doesn't allow me to sit in on these work session nor have I ever shadowed a Senator through the week, but here's a list of the various committees that the Senate work on over the year outside the Red Chamber. Feel free to peruse the link and the information contained within on who, what, where, and why?
http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeBusiness/default.aspx?parl=35&ses=1&Language=E
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Chamber/411/OrderPaper/ord-e.htm
Unfortunately the site is apparently being updated and has some information missing.
As for Demers qualifications to be on this particular committee, who knows? It may simply be a case of transferable skills. There's no doubt he's a driven goal oriented person to do what he did with the cards he was dealt. It's not unusual to put new members on committees to learn the ropes. Being on the committee is one thing, on e of a number of Senators, but being in charge is another thing. I'm sure you could go down a list of Ministers in the House and see many who have little background for the portfolios they are responsible for. It's often their staff who are the experts. Vic Toews is a lawyer, is presently in charge of a very demanding part of our government, but he's a complete idiot. He was the President of the Treasury Board. What qualifications did he have for that appointment?
I gather you of the mind that these Senators are simply fats cats who sit around, farting, drinking, and telling stories about the good old days AND getting paid to do it.
The gov't website has Bill C-311 last year as some cross-province wine shipping bill that was passed unanimously by both Parliament and Senate (ie Senate was completely useless and just rubber-stamped it).
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/rlss/2012/m06/nr120628b-eng.html
But whatever you're referring to: if the Cons are trying to pass a shitty or terrible omnibus-type bill because they have a majority, the legislature or maybe governor-general's office needs reform. It's still not justification for the $100 million per year Senate to exist.
Those seem mostly like make-work projects. I'm sure if I was guaranteed $132,000 per year + office + expenses to the age of 75, I could find many topics to 'examine' in order to pass the time. Like this one:blackrock13 said:
A study to show that things cost more in Canada than in the US.
Something we've all known, forever. Gee, thanks senators. Oh wait, on top of their usual salaries there's this:
And the 'conclusion' was something that university students could have put together the night before a group assignment was due:
Salaries + $50,000 in expenses for this?!
Motherfuckers.
Fact ...Pamela Wallin spent a shit load of Canadian Tax payers dollars during her stint in New York city, attending lavish parties and inviting her friends and family. No one said shit about this for years !!!
Apparently c311 goes by many names apparently. Why, I don't know.
From; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Accountability_Act_(Bill_C-224)
The Climate Change Accountability Act is a Private Member's Bill that has been submitted in the39th, 40th and 41st Canadian Parliament. It was originally tabled in October 2006 in the Canadian House of Commons as Bill C-377[SUP][1][/SUP] of the 39th Parliament by Jack Layton, then the leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP). It passed third reading by a vote of 148 to 116 with the support of caucuses of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP (the Conservative Party of Canada, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, voted against it).[SUP][2][/SUP] However, Bill C-377 died as it was still before the Senate when Parliament was dissolved for the 2008 Canadian federal election.[SUP][3][/SUP]
On February 10, 2009 Bruce Hyer, then the New Democrat Deputy Environment Critic and MP forThunder Bay-Superior North, seconded by Layton, reintroduced it in the 40th Parliament as Bill C-311.[SUP][4][/SUP] It passed 2nd Reading on April 1, 2009 by a vote of 141 to 128, and was sent to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.[SUP][5][/SUP] On October 21, 2009, the House voted 169 to 93 to allow the Committee more time to study the Bill,[SUP][6][/SUP] as the sixty sitting days permitted for its consideration under Standing Order 97.1(1) of the House of Commons had expired.[SUP][7][/SUP] Passage of the Climate Change Accountability Act was therefore effectively delayed until 2010, meaning it would not influence the government in negotiations at the UN COP15 global climate change treaty negotiations held in December 2009 in Copenhagen. On December 10, 2009, the committee report on Bill C-311 was presented to the House, without amendment to the Bill.[SUP][8][/SUP]
The December 30, 2009 prorogation of the House did not affect the Bill, as Private Member's Bills are reinstated at the stage last completed, and Bill C-311 had not been considered at Report Stage at prorogation. When Parliament resumed, C-311 was concurred in at Report Stage on April 14, 2010 by vote 155 to 137.[SUP][9][/SUP]
The bill was passed by the House of Commons at 3rd Reading on May 5, 2010 with 149 votes for and 136 votes against.[SUP][10][/SUP] It received 1st Reading in the Senate on May 6, 2010[SUP][11][/SUP] before being defeated at 2nd Reading on November 16, 2010 by a vote of 43 to 32.[SUP][12][/SUP]
The bill was re-introduced as Bill C-224 on June 15, 2011 by current NDP Environment Critic and MP for Halifax, Megan Leslie. The bill was seconded by Deputy Environment Critic Laurin Liu.[SUP][13][/SUP]
The elites never have any living expenses and are expert in disguising all of the perqs and freebies they book to their economic benefit, at our cost.
Lets look at bankers, lawyers, big firm accountants, financial services people like insurance, mutual funds etc... .... Their living expenses, like meals, clubs, entertainment, first class travel (and they keep the points) are almost all covered by corporate expense accounts, so they bank their salaries and bonuses and spend that sum on stupid ego-boosting shit or to drive up the price of houses - dont forget their special, employee discounted mortgages - for the non elites.
Or look at those who toil away in the "public service", especially the politicians, who also don't reach into their pocket for a lot of the stuff mentioned above.
And the kicker is that these salary multipliers / lifestyle enhancers pale in comparison to the riches in their defined benefit pensions and for-life health plans and other benefits.
Lets look at bankers, lawyers, big firm accountants, financial services people like insurance, mutual funds etc... .... Their living expenses, like meals, clubs, entertainment, first class travel (and they keep the points) are almost all covered by corporate expense accounts, so they bank their salaries and bonuses and spend that sum on stupid ego-boosting shit or to drive up the price of houses - dont forget their special, employee discounted mortgages - for the non elites.
Or look at those who toil away in the "public service", especially the politicians, who also don't reach into their pocket for a lot of the stuff mentioned above.
And the kicker is that these salary multipliers / lifestyle enhancers pale in comparison to the riches in their defined benefit pensions and for-life health plans and other benefits.
So...what is your point? A bill was passed in the House of Commons by MPs who have to answer to voters, and the Con-packed Senate defeated it. Probably because they saw the word "Accountability" and instinctively reacted with, "We can't have that!"
The point was simply an example that showed that the Senate doesn't just rubber stamp the governments/parliaments bills, which was the initial claim. As for your supposition, you really don't know, do you? It was turned down by the Conservatives Senator majority because it would have required the federal government to establish regulations to meet a greenhouse gas reduction target of 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and to set a long-term GHG reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 and the Harperites didn't like that, period. It had nothing to do with 'accountability'.
