[Paradox]

A majority of senators show up daily (though under normal circumstances, the Senate’s week begins on Tuesday), I would invite you to check the Journals of the Senate for a list of senators in attendance at the opening of the sitting, and in attendance to business later on. There is a misconception that senators don’t work hard for Canadians—and this misconception must be blown out of the water as the extreme falsehood that it is. In response to your question, yes, I do oppose Senate elections, or consultative elections, or whatever the Government has called them.

[Bodah]

Paradox Paradox:

A majority of senators show up daily (though under normal circumstances, the Senate’s week begins on Tuesday),

Ok, so they get 3 day weekends. .... sweet.

Paradox Paradox:

I would invite you to check the Journals of the Senate for a list of senators in attendance at the opening of the sitting, and in attendance to business later on. There is a misconception that senators don’t work hard for Canadians—and this misconception must be blown out of the water as the extreme falsehood that it is.

Perhaps your right,... but may I ask what the title and position of the person who is taking attendance at sittings ? Maybe a dumb question to you, but I need to know.

Paradox Paradox:

In response to your question, yes, I do oppose Senate elections, or consultative elections, or whatever the Government has called them.

The government calls it senate reform.

Care to elaborate as to the reasoning why your opposed to them ? Just curious as to why you think some Canadians are entitled to having life-long guaranteed, unaccountable, bountiful employment paid by tax payers

[Paradox]

I am reluctant to respond to a question phrased to make me sound absurd.

Nonetheless, in response to your first inquery, the person charged with recording the attendance of members of the Senate is the admirable Mr. Paul Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments. He was appointed in 1994, and had served the Senate and Canadians for years beforehand as a Senate page and subsequently as a clerk for one of the honourable standing committees of the Senate during his continued education in law. Canadians could not hope for a more appropriate and qualified clerk and recordkeeper.

I disagree with your assertion that because senators are not elected in general elections, they are somehow “unaccountable”. The Senate exercises a great deal of caution and oversight in the exercise of its decisions, and in its use of public funds. Moreover, the conduct of honourable senators is constantly reviewed and reported upon by Mr. Jean Fournier, Senate Ethics Officer.

(Also, to correct your introductory sentence, under normal running conditions the Senate sits from Tuesday through Thursday, inclusive, unless there is urgent business to be considered. For example, in order to expedite the consideration of the recent Budget Implementation Act, 2007, the Senate extended its sitting days and times in order to accomodate the schedule that the Government had recommended.)

[sasquatch2]

$1:

A majority of senators show up daily (though under normal circumstances, the Senate’s week begins on Tuesday), I would invite you to check the Journals of the Senate for a list of senators in attendance at the opening of the sitting, and in attendance to business later on. There is a misconception that senators don’t work hard for Canadians—and this misconception must be blown out of the water as the extreme falsehood that it is. In response to your question, yes, I do oppose Senate elections, or consultative elections, or whatever the Government has called them.

Yes reform would be dreadful.....the LIBRANO's have had over a decade to stack the senate with their buddies/pensioners and have NO INTENTION of risking losing that majority to the democratic process.....they already quake in fear of a General election blowing them out of the Commons.



As soon as a LIBRANO declares anything about a "majority of Canadians" it is time to bend over........

Every time they state LIBRANO policy it is always prefaced by "the majority of Canadians......"

This KYOTO crap is such a farce.....even the LIBRANO's know it.....it is only believed by the useful idiots/hockey pucks. KYOTO is colapsing under it own weight of BS.....

Remember all the hoopla about the G8 conference, even about Harper and Mrs. boarding the plane then dead silence......KYOTO is a non-event and only the hockey pucks/useful idiots haven't figured that out yet.

[PluggyRug]

A Liberal dominated senate who work hard for ALL Canadians.

Please give me a break.

I noticed they worked real hard on senate reform.

[Paradox]

sasquatch2, your argument makes no sense. Even if the Senate were to pass the Constitution Act, 2007 (Senate tenure) and the Senate Appointments Consultations Act (neither of which, in any case, may be proceeded with since both are unconstitutional as written), both Acts prescribe that all current honourable senators (i.e., the entire membership of the “Liberal-dominated Senate”, as some misguided members here have coined them) would continue to sit, as appointed, until their turning seventy-five.

PluggyRug, the Senate has worked hard on the issue of Senate reform. It astounds me that Conservatives have such little respect for the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982 that they would suggest that the Senate should knowingly pass unconstitutional legislation without consulting the Provinces of Canada, as per constitutional convention and law. The only Canadian legislators who need a good kick in the ass right now are our Members of Parliament—on both sides of the House of Commons.

[sasquatch2]

I guess if the test of government policy is wether or not it favours LIBRANO policy, the senate is a great institution..........

Sounds like an election issue to me........

Between the senate and KYOTO, the LIBRANOs face the future of the British Liberal party......irrelvance.

[PluggyRug]

Paradox Paradox:

sasquatch2, your argument makes no sense. Even if the Senate were to pass the Constitution Act, 2007 (Senate tenure) and the Senate Appointments Consultations Act (neither of which, in any case, may be proceeded with since both are unconstitutional as written), both Acts prescribe that all current honourable senators (i.e., the entire membership of the “Liberal-dominated Senate”, as some misguided members here have coined them) would continue to sit, as appointed, until their turning seventy-five.

PluggyRug, the Senate has worked hard on the issue of Senate reform. It astounds me that Conservatives have such little respect for the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982 that they would suggest that the Senate should knowingly pass unconstitutional legislation without consulting the Provinces of Canada, as per constitutional convention and law. The only Canadian legislators who need a good kick in the ass right now are our Members of Parliament—on both sides of the House of Commons.

Liberal dominated senate it is, the only thing unconstitutional is the fact that they are unelected.

[Paradox]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Liberal dominated senate it is, the only thing unconstitutional is the fact that they are unelected.

Ah, yes, sure.

And which section of the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982 would that be?

[PluggyRug]

Paradox Paradox:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Liberal dominated senate it is, the only thing unconstitutional is the fact that they are unelected.

Ah, yes, sure.

And which section of the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982 would that be?

$1:

Ah, yes, sure

Glad you agree.

$1:

And which section of the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982 would that be?

[/quote]

You know exactly what I mean.

[Paradox]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

You know exactly what I mean.

Actually, I haven’t the slightest of ideas.

Our Canadian constitution prescribes that Canadians are to have the right to both democratic and appointed Houses of legislature. It is the Constitution Act, 1867 itself that prescribes the appointed nature and other fundamental characteristics of the Senate, and it’s the Constitution Act, 1982 that demands provincial consent when said fundamental characteristics, or the method of selecting senators, is to be changed.

[PluggyRug]

Paradox Paradox:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

You know exactly what I mean.

Actually, I haven’t the slightest of ideas.

Our Canadian constitution prescribes that Canadians are to have the right to both democratic and appointed Houses of legislature. It is the Constitution Act, 1867 itself that prescribes the appointed nature and other fundamental characteristics of the Senate, and it’s the Constitution Act, 1982 that demands provincial consent when said fundamental characteristics, or the method of selecting senators, is to be changed.

Time to welcome the 21st century.

Canadians should have the right to both houses by election. An appointed senate has become 'long in the tooth.'

An 8 year elected term sounds just about right.

[Paradox]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

An 8 year elected term sounds just about right.

That’s too bad, then. A number of Liberal and Conservative senators have amended the bill to prescribe non-renewable fifteen-year terms, instead of eight-year terms. (And that’s only if the Supreme Court rules that the bill is in fact constitutional—otherwise senators shall continue to sit until the age of seventy-five for the foreseeable future.)

[PluggyRug]

Paradox Paradox:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

An 8 year elected term sounds just about right.

That’s too bad, then. A number of Liberal and Conservative senators have amended the bill to prescribe non-renewable fifteen-year terms, instead of eight-year terms. (And that’s only if the Supreme Court rules that the bill is in fact constitutional—otherwise senators shall continue to sit until the age of seventy-five for the foreseeable future.)

Yes...very gratuitous of them.
My point proven. Pudding anyone.

[Paradox]

Your point hasn’t been proven in the least, PluggyRug, but keep trying.

These honourable senators have no need to block this legislation in order to protect themselves—they’ve nothing to lose through the passage of either of these reform bills. Both of them grandfather present senators into the Senate under the present appointment system and until the age of seventy-five. Anyone who blames current senators, instead of the current Government, is looking for the easy way out, and doesn’t have any valid reasons to back up this senseless drive for reform of an institution that is functioning exactly the way it is constitutionally intended.