[Jonny_C]

Since I think abolition of the Senate is the way to go, I like the precedent of it having come to a vote in the House of Commons and that over 100 MP's voted in favour of abolition. I don't care which party they represent; it's on the books as having made the abolition of the Senate something to be seriously considered.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

The NDP has been calling for abolition of the senate for 50 years. Yours is the only party that be called "their usual opportunist selves". The CPC is the one that continually changes their position on the issue. They've recently moved from the NDP position to the Liberal position of referring the matter to the supreme court, and trying to reform the senate.

The only thing consistent about the CPC position is the status-quo. They are running out of ways to stall reform.

If the NDP has been so anti-Senate, why the need to specifically include NDP appointed Senators in the 2008 coalition deal with the Liberals?

Link please. Dion talked about appointing Elizabeth May to the senate. The rest is your imagination.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The CPC was stubborn and finally took the issue to the SC where it has to go anyways to clarify what can and cannot be done. The NDP knows that and knows that their bill means dick-all until the decision comes from the SC.

Just more opportunism from the 3rd party.

The CPC spent a few years denying this. That was and always has been the Liberal position, that they would support senate reform if the supreme court provided the formula.

Jun 8, 2007:

$1:

Government House Leader Peter Van Loan accused Liberal senators of creating a constitutional crisis by recommending the bill be sent to the Supreme Court, since only Cabinet has the power to send legislation to the nation’s top court for review.

[OnTheIce]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

Short memory syndrome...

That was back when he could blame the Liberals in the Senate for not doing this.

And what did the NDP do with the Liberals back in 2008? Look into their coalition agreement and various senate appointments the NDP pushed for.I guess the Senate is OK when you make deals to fill it with your people but when it's clearly not going your way, it's time to abolish it.

Check into it, and let's compare who has the short-term memory issue.

The NDP continually displays why they'll be back in the 3rd place position they so rightly deserve.

They hop from one popular media issue to another just looking to get some media attention and then disappear into obscurity until the next opportunity to get headlines comes to the surface.

You do understand that you don't have to agree with every single posistion to enter into a coalition right? It's not the same thing as a merger.

Just ironic....

The NDP gets it's first taste of power in Canada and they ask specifically to have the ability to appoint some of their own Senators.

They've shown, just like the Liberals and the Conservatives that the Senate isn't something you like unless you have the ability to fill it with your own people.

[CanadianJeff]

I wasn't familiar with the NDP asking to appoint senators. Where did you hear that?

[OnTheIce]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

I wasn't familiar with the NDP asking to appoint senators. Where did you hear that?

In the coalition agreement, they asked specifically to have a say when Senators were appointed. The Liberals had to consult with the NDP before any Senate appointments were made.

[CanadianJeff]

Assuming for the sake of argument that's true (I've been looking for sources but google for once hasn't been much help) it doesn't mean that it wasn't some form of concession on part of the NDP towards the Liberals. It may very well have been (and likely was given recent history) that the Liberals would never have agreed to a coalition if it meant abolishing the senate in the process.

Maybe the NDP meant to run a much harsher series to checks on senators or some other form of control. In any case I'll bash the NDP and Liberals any-day for trying to override the government of the day in a power grab but this is a bit of a stretch to assume we know all about their intentions from a coalition agreement in which both parties typically make concessions.

[Curtman]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

I wasn't familiar with the NDP asking to appoint senators. Where did you hear that?

OutToLunch is thinking of the cabinet positions the NDP was promised. Actually hes not, hes just parroting misinformation talking points from his party. The Liberals even appointed an NDP senator. Even at that time the NDP basically said who cares, the senate is useless.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

I wasn't familiar with the NDP asking to appoint senators. Where did you hear that?

OutToLunch is thinking of the cabinet positions the NDP was promised. Actually hes not, hes just parroting misinformation talking points from his party. The Liberals even appointed an NDP senator. Even at that time the NDP basically said who cares, the senate is useless.

If this Senate was useless, why did the NDP want a say who was going into the Senate? Why didn't the Bloc have a say?

CanadianJeff,

4. Appointments

Both parties are committed to restoring the integrity, transparency and efficiency
of the appointments process in the Public Service and in federal bodies like the
Supreme Court, the Senate and Commissions like the CRTC.

The Prime Minister will consult the Leader of the NDP as appropriate on
appointments.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/081201_Accord_en.pdf

Again, if the Senate was so useless as the NDP and Curtman would like us to believe, why would they push for such a clause during a very difficult time in our political past? The Country was in such poor shape that they had to overthrow the government yet found the time to add a clause in about the Senate in an agreement that had a mere 6 'Understandings'.

The mere discussion of this issue by the NDP is evidence enough how opportunist they are. They know and Curtman knows this issue is before the Courts so nothing can be done anyways. It's posturing and media whoring, the two things the NDP are the best at.

[FiveParadox]

The New Democratic Party's position on the Senate makes no sense.

The work that the Senate does is of tremendous value to Canadians. The comprehensive research and studies undertaken by the Senate have proven to bring new issues to light, such as the abolition of the penny, or the urgency of a national anti-bullying strategy. This type of work would never be undertaken by either an elected Upper House or, in the case of abolition, the House of Commons. The high-pressure political agenda and timetable in the elected House does not accommodate these types of projects.

The Government of Canada also regularly introduces overly technical legislation (such as bills to implement free trade agreements, or to harmonise tax schemes) in the Senate, so that the technical details of the bill can be reviewed and corrected before they reach the House of Commons for "political" consideration. We have the advantage of having honourable senators who have sat for several years, and who have developed the expertise and institutional memory necessary to perform these functions in a way that Canadians can be proud of.

[Jonny_C]

FiveParadox FiveParadox:

The work that the Senate does is of tremendous value to Canadians...

I like your answer. In actual fact it may not be of "tremendous" value, but you stated it well.

I take it you would be in favour of Senate reform.