Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, Chevyspoons, if the RCMP find Duffy guilty of something, can he be kicked out of the Senate altogether and not just out of the Conservative caucus?
I'm not totally convinced that it should be abolished completely. I can see the appeal of a second chamber to re-evaluate some of the nonsense that the house of commons spits out.
That said, the current incarnation is clearly unacceptable. I think, if it is to be saved, the format has to completely change. Elected senators, proportionally representing regions of the country (maybe 24 from each of the West, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces, 3 from each of the territories) might be feasible.
I think the CPC would be wise to be working on this, too. Public opinion is vehemently against the senate. They've championed reform (though not outright abolition) for years. The NDP wants to abolish it completely - it would be prudent to beat them to the punch, rather than having to defend the institution and table reforms instead. Right now seems an excellent time to make a move.
This .
To be seen to be living up to the transparency and accountability ideals espoused to get elected first term, Harper's group should perform some due diligence and table a reform program to be implemented over a period of time with numbers of seats modified as in Stubblejumper's post. The time is fast approaching that if he doesn't act pro-actively, it will be taken out of his hands altogether.
One more chance for him to show they're not the party of arrogant sycophants Canadians are rapidly coming to think of them as. Either use it, or squander the opportunity.
Phasing the elected ones in as the older pharts die off would be least objectionable to all parties.
So, Chevyspoons, if the RCMP find Duffy guilty of something, can he be kicked out of the Senate altogether and not just out of the Conservative caucus?
As i understand it the only wa a senator or mp can get kicked right out is if there convicted of a crime.
So, Chevyspoons, if the RCMP find Duffy guilty of something, can he be kicked out of the Senate altogether and not just out of the Conservative caucus?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayme2015
As i understand it the only wa a senator or mp can get kicked right out is if there convicted of a crime.
I think jayme is correct. I will add, though, that the RCMP doesn't find anybody guilty--that's for a court to decide. All the RCMP does is collect evidence to be used by the Crown Prosecutor in court.
I think jayme is correct. I will add, though, that the RCMP doesn't find anybody guilty--that's for a court to decide. All the RCMP does is collect evidence to be used by the Crown Prosecutor in court.
Of course! I was jumping ahead to a happy ending. What I meant to say was can Duffy be removed on the basis of the RCMP investigating prior to a conviction? I believe they did that to Helena Guergis, although she wasn't a senator.
Of course! I was jumping ahead to a happy ending. What I meant to say was can Duffy be removed on the basis of the RCMP investigating prior to a conviction? I believe they did that to Helena Guergis, although she wasn't a senator.
I am no Duffy supporter but i don't want him removed yet with him still a senator he will be in the spotlight.
As an Australian, its interesting to note that some Canadians are advocating the abolition of their Senate.
I read one article that referenced similar events elsewhere in support of this. One of the examples was the Australian state of Queensland. To an Aussie, that was a pretty surprising reference; Queensland is the only Australian state were government has seriously gone off the rails for a time. Most here would be of the opinion that the lack of an effective senate operating as part of a system of checks and balances on the executive was a very large part of the cause.
Which leads me to ask: what do Canadians need and want from their Senate?
As an Australian, its interesting to note that some Canadians are advocating the abolition of their Senate.
I read one article that referenced similar events elsewhere in support of this. One of the examples was the Australian state of Queensland. To an Aussie, that was a pretty surprising reference; Queensland is the only Australian state were government has seriously gone off the rails for a time. Most here would be of the opinion that the lack of an effective senate operating as part of a system of checks and balances on the executive was a very large part of the cause.
Which leads me to ask: what do Canadians need and want from their Senate?
That is a very good question, Richard. I suppose if the Senate wasn't used to reward supporters of the parties here, and was seen to serve as a system of checks and balances, it might be useful. But it isn't seen that way, and it seems to be used far too often as a nesting site for nincompoops. Maybe there is useful work that the Senate does, but it operates so far below the radar of the average Canadian that the average Canadian probably does not know what it does. I know what they are supposed to do but apparently they like to pretend they live where they don't live and bill taxpayers for trips and haircuts.
The Senate's role is pretty well spelled out in the Constitution. Basically, it is supposed to be a chamber of "sober second thought"; where bills that were passed by the partisan Commons can be discussed by the non-partisan Senate, which can pass them or send them back to the Commons for further rethinking and debate.
Great on paper, but lousy in practice. The Senate has, in the last thirty or forty years, become a place for party loyalists, who can vote the government's legislation through. And if that's not enough, a section in the Constitution allows the PM to "stack" the Senate. Brian Mulroney used this section to admit additional Senators, in order to pass the GST bill, back in 1990.
I myself think the Senate is needed. However, I disagree with the current process for appointing Senators, as well as the number of Senators per region/province. I'd like to see a Senatorial election--non-partisan (i.e. political party membership excludes on from running), and an equal number of Senators per province. This works in the US: Wyoming has the same number of senators (i.e. 2) as California; and so Wyoming has the same voice in the Senate as California. I don't know how many Senators a Canadian province ought to have, but the fact that Quebec and Ontario currently have a helluva lot more than Alberta and Saskatchewan doesn't seem to me to be fair.
I myself think the Senate is needed. However, I disagree with the current process for appointing Senators, as well as the number of Senators per region/province. I'd like to see a Senatorial election--non-partisan (i.e. political party membership excludes on from running), and an equal number of Senators per province.
In Aus, each state has the same number of elected senators (12), while territories each have 2. It is a party political chamber, but many have said that it truly became effective with the introduction of proportional representation in the 1940s. In essence that broke the monopoly of the two major parties. Most of the independent's currently in the Senate, do seem to genuinely "add value"; its hard not to when everyone in the country over 18 is watching every move they make, or don't make.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
