From Bill C-7
3. If a province or territory has enacted legislation that is
substantially in accordance with the framework set out in the schedule,
the Prime Minister, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor
General, must consider names from the most current list of Senate
nominees selected for that province or territory.
Spot the weasel words. The Prime Minister...must consider names...
Not "shall use" merely consider. In English, if you submit your name as
a candidate and you "win" the Senate election, you are not guaranteed a
seat in the Senate. You are only to be considered for the position.
Even better, if only 6 people run for a Senate spot, and that province
ends up needing 6 Senators, the one who came in dead last gets a Senate
seat. Or at least gets considered for the Senate.
Single term? You can be the best Senator the country has ever seen or
the most incompetent Senator and you still are only allowed one term.
Where is the accountability here? The threat of being replaced is how
we keep our other elected people accountable, no threats no
Pensions? After 9 years each of these Senators will be able to draw
their pension, 27% of their best 6 years earnings in the Senate. Every 9
years we will have 105 ex Senators drawing over $35,000.00 in pensions.
Senator Jacques Demers has been in the Senate for almost 4 years now.
He says that he is still learning how things are done in the Senate.
Does it seem sensible to get rid of Senators when they are just getting a
good handle on how to do their job?
The Senate may need to be looked at, but there is no one in Ottawa, no
Senator, no MP and certainly not Stephen Harper able to do the job
properly. Each and every one of them has an agenda and anything that
they put forward will be to their party's advantage. This needs to be
handled by outsiders with no political bias. Good luck with that.
Got a problem with the Senate? Lots of people do. But do you trust the
man who has put half of the people in the Senate to fix it and fix it
right? After all, he's the same guy that thought Mike Duffy would be a
Final thought: This is the Constitution we're talking about. This is
THE law that all others are measured against to determine if they are
good laws to be kept or bad laws that need to be struck down. The
reason the Constitution is difficult to amend is to prevent a popular
government (by that I only mean a majority government) from changing the
rules to suit their needs...
Consider this, some countries make their elected officials swear an oath
to protect their Constitution, in Canada we do not. If we allow the
government, any government to alter and amend or just remove sections
of our Constitution, we don't have a Constitution any more. It would be
just another law, subject to change by any government that comes to
power down the road. No government deserves that kind of power.