Why not promise to abolish winter while you are at it Mr. Mulcair.
Quote
And that's the best way to describe NDP Leader Tom Mulcair's renewed promise to abolish the Senate after the auditor general reported Wednesday that too many senators treat taxpayers' money as a kind of personal expense account over which they accept few controls and even less oversight.
No one's questioning whether Mulcair's sincere in his determination to make the Senate an election issue this fall, or that he can make a convincing case using Michael Ferguson's report to argue that the upper chamber is so corrupt, so filled with partisan hacks, so bereft of credibility, that it must be abolished.
What makes this promise a non-starter is a Supreme Court of Canada ruling from April 2014, when the country's highest court said abolishing the Senate would require the consent of all 10 provinces.
As of today, only one premier, Brad Wall of Saskatchewan, is in favour of abolition. This week he compared reforming the upper chamber to lavishing money on restoring an old car, knowing it will never run properly.
But Wall made it clear he has no intention, as in none at all, of actively campaigning to scrap the Senate.
"Everyone knows Saskatchewan's position," he said. "I would like to see other provinces come on board but if they don't, even in light of this latest mess, then it's not really worth the effort to try to change their minds."
In other words, good luck there, Mulcair.
'Not in Quebec's interest'
On the other side is the premier of Mulcair's home province of Quebec.
Premier Philippe Couillard insisted Wednesday that the Senate's troubles are what he called ''administrative dysfunction" that can be fixed. He vowed to fight any effort to scrap the Senate because it would eliminate the important role the chamber plays, as an institution, in balancing regional interests.
Of course it's not in Quebec's interest to recommend abolition of the Senate."
Mulcair said he recognizes the historical context of the Senate and understands how nuanced the issue is. But he's undeterred.
"People are telling me they want us to work towards Senate abolition. That is what we are going to talk to Canadians about during the election campaign," he said Wednesday. "And the NDP will be seeking a mandate in October from the Canadian voting public to continue our work of trying to abolish the Senate."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-abolition-a-non-starter-despite-mulcair-s-push-1.3108540
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote
And that's the best way to describe NDP Leader Tom Mulcair's renewed promise to abolish the Senate after the auditor general reported Wednesday that too many senators treat taxpayers' money as a kind of personal expense account over which they accept few controls and even less oversight.
No one's questioning whether Mulcair's sincere in his determination to make the Senate an election issue this fall, or that he can make a convincing case using Michael Ferguson's report to argue that the upper chamber is so corrupt, so filled with partisan hacks, so bereft of credibility, that it must be abolished.
What makes this promise a non-starter is a Supreme Court of Canada ruling from April 2014, when the country's highest court said abolishing the Senate would require the consent of all 10 provinces.
As of today, only one premier, Brad Wall of Saskatchewan, is in favour of abolition. This week he compared reforming the upper chamber to lavishing money on restoring an old car, knowing it will never run properly.
But Wall made it clear he has no intention, as in none at all, of actively campaigning to scrap the Senate.
"Everyone knows Saskatchewan's position," he said. "I would like to see other provinces come on board but if they don't, even in light of this latest mess, then it's not really worth the effort to try to change their minds."
In other words, good luck there, Mulcair.
'Not in Quebec's interest'
On the other side is the premier of Mulcair's home province of Quebec.
Premier Philippe Couillard insisted Wednesday that the Senate's troubles are what he called ''administrative dysfunction" that can be fixed. He vowed to fight any effort to scrap the Senate because it would eliminate the important role the chamber plays, as an institution, in balancing regional interests.
Of course it's not in Quebec's interest to recommend abolition of the Senate."
Mulcair said he recognizes the historical context of the Senate and understands how nuanced the issue is. But he's undeterred.
"People are telling me they want us to work towards Senate abolition. That is what we are going to talk to Canadians about during the election campaign," he said Wednesday. "And the NDP will be seeking a mandate in October from the Canadian voting public to continue our work of trying to abolish the Senate."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-abolition-a-non-starter-despite-mulcair-s-push-1.3108540
This is another reason I am disinterested in politics..
Making promises they know they cannot keep.
They all do it.
I think the Senate should go. Now how do we get rid of this waste of money.
Quote from: "RW"
I think the Senate should go. Now how do we get rid of this waste of money.
I guarantee the senate will be there 5 years from now even if Mulcair won a massive majority and Mulcair knows it too. Removing it would involve opening up the constitution. Do you really think Mulcair wants to go head to head with a pro-Canada premier in Quebec?
So these dicks can sit there in Ottawa wasting our tax dollars with impunity? You shit if they raise minimum wage a quarter. Where's the freak out over senate spending?
If it was elected it could be plus .... but that's just theory ... .I have yet to see any election produce what is best for the citizens ... so scratch that idea please
I think Harper found it difficult if not impossible to change let alone get rid of it ... I think the Supreme
aholes told him they would not go along with changes to it?
In many ways, the unelected Supremes run the country
Take it to the people as a referendum and see what they say.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "RW"
I think the Senate should go. Now how do we get rid of this waste of money.
I guarantee the senate will be there 5 years from now even if Mulcair won a massive majority and Mulcair knows it too. Removing it would involve opening up the constitution. Do you really think Mulcair wants to go head to head with a pro-Canada premier in Quebec?
Say. I saw on the news last night that Rene le Block is baaaaack
Quote from: "RW"
I freak over both. They both affect the average small business owner.
Lots of federal jobs could be liminated without it affecting anyone. Railway inspectors is a good start. They do sweet fuck all.
Quote from: "RW"
If you clicked on that link, you'd see the Tories are considering doing that. However, it would still involve opening up the constitutional can of worms.
Every upper house of review in EVERY western democracy is an anachronistic waste of time, space and money.
However, in order to abolish the Senate, you need the Senate's approval.
Anyone else see the paradox?
So, the solution is simple. Put it to the people. Referendum.
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
However, in order to abolish the Senate, you need the Senate's approval.
Anyone else see the paradox?
So, the solution is simple. Put it to the people. Referendum.
It sounds like a good idea Sox, but it would still require opening up the constitution. The other issue is if the results varied regionally. If it passed nationally, but failed in Quebec that would create a lot of problems.
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
However, in order to abolish the Senate, you need the Senate's approval.
Anyone else see the paradox?
So, the solution is simple. Put it to the people. Referendum.
That's what I said :P
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
However, in order to abolish the Senate, you need the Senate's approval.
Anyone else see the paradox?
So, the solution is simple. Put it to the people. Referendum.
It sounds like a good idea Sox, but it would still require opening up the constitution. The other issue is if the results regionally. If it passed nationally, but failed in Quebec would create a lot of problems.
Doesn't Quebec have its own Constution?
Last time I checked, majority rules.
Quote from: "RW"
Doesn't Quebec have its own Constution?
Last time I checked, majority rules.
Quebec doesn't have it's own constitution.
If a majority said yes to abolition of the upper chamber, it would still require provincial assent. If 60% of Quebeckers said no, the upper house stays.
Quebec never approved the Charter...
So let's get Quebec on board.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
However, in order to abolish the Senate, you need the Senate's approval.
Anyone else see the paradox?
So, the solution is simple. Put it to the people. Referendum.
It sounds like a good idea Sox, but it would still require opening up the constitution. The other issue is if the results varied regionally. If it passed nationally, but failed in Quebec that would create a lot of problems.
And there is our problem, in a nutshell.
The "Constitution". Itself an anachronistic document that was created in a different time, by people who could not see 20 years into the future, let alone 200.
The "Constitution" has become the protective barrier between politicians and their electorate. They hide behind it, and conduct themselves in loose accord with its general purpose and meaning. Like all things man-made, it is flawed...in EVERY nation...but is somehow regarded as irrefutable.
Whilst a "Constitution" might have been a good idea at the time, it is now the bane of our form of civilisation, and protects only the rich and powerful.
Instead of a "Constitution", we need a Charter of Civil Rights and Government Regulation, that defines our rights as individuals, and applies rules to how we are governed. The Charter will NOT be an "ad infinitum" set of rules, but a constantly reviewed and revised set of laws that responds to its time. The Charter will NOT be in the hands of the Government, but a People's Tribunal comprised of elected members who's role is to manage the Charter and put modifications to the plebiscite as it sees fit.
Quote from: "RW"
So let's get Quebec on board.
Remember Meech Lake and Charlottetown? Both before our adult times, but no government has dared touch the constitutional debate since Mr. Mulroney. Mulcair won't either because he knows he would have to butt heads with a federalist premier of Quebec.
Monsieur Couillard is my fave premier after Brad Wall by the way.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote
And that's the best way to describe NDP Leader Tom Mulcair's renewed promise to abolish the Senate after the auditor general reported Wednesday that too many senators treat taxpayers' money as a kind of personal expense account over which they accept few controls and even less oversight.
No one's questioning whether Mulcair's sincere in his determination to make the Senate an election issue this fall, or that he can make a convincing case using Michael Ferguson's report to argue that the upper chamber is so corrupt, so filled with partisan hacks, so bereft of credibility, that it must be abolished.
What makes this promise a non-starter is a Supreme Court of Canada ruling from April 2014, when the country's highest court said abolishing the Senate would require the consent of all 10 provinces.
As of today, only one premier, Brad Wall of Saskatchewan, is in favour of abolition. This week he compared reforming the upper chamber to lavishing money on restoring an old car, knowing it will never run properly.
But Wall made it clear he has no intention, as in none at all, of actively campaigning to scrap the Senate.
"Everyone knows Saskatchewan's position," he said. "I would like to see other provinces come on board but if they don't, even in light of this latest mess, then it's not really worth the effort to try to change their minds."
In other words, good luck there, Mulcair.
'Not in Quebec's interest'
On the other side is the premier of Mulcair's home province of Quebec.
Premier Philippe Couillard insisted Wednesday that the Senate's troubles are what he called ''administrative dysfunction" that can be fixed. He vowed to fight any effort to scrap the Senate because it would eliminate the important role the chamber plays, as an institution, in balancing regional interests.
Of course it's not in Quebec's interest to recommend abolition of the Senate."
Mulcair said he recognizes the historical context of the Senate and understands how nuanced the issue is. But he's undeterred.
"People are telling me they want us to work towards Senate abolition. That is what we are going to talk to Canadians about during the election campaign," he said Wednesday. "And the NDP will be seeking a mandate in October from the Canadian voting public to continue our work of trying to abolish the Senate."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-abolition-a-non-starter-despite-mulcair-s-push-1.3108540
This is another reason I am disinterested in politics..
Making promises they know they cannot keep.
Jean Chretien won his first mandate promising to "kill the GST".
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Jean Chretien won his first mandate promising to "kill the GST".
That's different though. They could have legally done that. It is almost impossible to abolish the upper chamber. Mulcair knows this too, but continues making promises he cannot keep.
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
However, in order to abolish the Senate, you need the Senate's approval.
Anyone else see the paradox?
So, the solution is simple. Put it to the people. Referendum.
It sounds like a good idea Sox, but it would still require opening up the constitution. The other issue is if the results varied regionally. If it passed nationally, but failed in Quebec that would create a lot of problems.
And there is our problem, in a nutshell.
The "Constitution". Itself an anachronistic document that was created in a different time, by people who could not see 20 years into the future, let alone 200.
The "Constitution" has become the protective barrier between politicians and their electorate. They hide behind it, and conduct themselves in loose accord with its general purpose and meaning. Like all things man-made, it is flawed...in EVERY nation...but is somehow regarded as irrefutable.
Whilst a "Constitution" might have been a good idea at the time, it is now the bane of our form of civilisation, and protects only the rich and powerful.
Instead of a "Constitution", we need a Charter of Civil Rights and Government Regulation, that defines our rights as individuals, and applies rules to how we are governed. The Charter will NOT be an "ad infinitum" set of rules, but a constantly reviewed and revised set of laws that responds to its time. The Charter will NOT be in the hands of the Government, but a People's Tribunal comprised of elected members who's role is to manage the Charter and put modifications to the plebiscite as it sees fit.
We have a Charter. It was done up in 82.
I disagree with an elected tribunal. We have the Suprene Court of Canada for that and it should remain appointed and above the pony show of electoral pandering.