Thomas Mulcair announces catchy phrase for abolishing the Senate

On rolling up the red carpet


Thomas Mulcair has just announced that the New Democrats are embarking on a cross-country campaign—”Roll up the red carpet”—to abolish the Senate.

Standing in front of the Senate chamber, Mr. Mulcair was asked whether he didn’t see the value of sober second thought.

We’re going to stop trying to find excuses for keeping a bunch of party hacks, bagmen, political operatives and defeated candidates sitting in appeal of the decisions of the duly elected mmebers of the House of Commons. That’s a game of the past. That’s a mug’s game. Where you try to find an individual in the Senate who’s not so bad. Where you try to find something that they’ve done in the past that wasn’t horrible. The real question is, in 2013, how can you possibly continue to argue to keep an institution of unelected people who have the power to reverse the decisions of duly elected members of Parliament. That’s the fundamental discussion that we’re having today.

But how to go about abolishing the Senate?

One of the things that you have to do if you actually want to make this happen is you’ve got, one, to get the public on side because once you have public support, there’s nothing more important in a democracy than having the public on side, that’s what this program is about. The other thing that you have to do is you have to talk to the provinces and territories. Because whether you’re in Newfoundland and Labrador or in Quebec or in other areas, everyone’s going to have a word to say about this. But Stephen Harper doesn’t talk to the provinces and territories, so he can’t talk seriously about reforming the Senate either. So that’s one of the things that I’m going to be doing. As I continue to travel across Canada in the coming months, every time I do I’m going to be meeting with government leaders and I’m going to be meeting with opposition leaders, we’re going to be talking about this, they’ll share their opinions as well. We want to hear from all Canadians on this. But we are convinced, from having worked on this for a long time, that the vast majority of Canadians, the quasi-totality of Canadians, realize that in a free and democratic society, having a group of people who can sit in appeal of the decisions of elected members, who have never been elected and, indeed, are more often than not defeated candidates, is a scandal that it’s about time to…

His answer trailed off there.

As I’ve written before, the argument here has to be between an elected Senate (including what would be necessary to accomplish that and all of the complications that would come with having such an upper house) and abolishing the Senate (including what would be necessary to accomplish that and whatever considerations should be made in regards to no longer having an upper house). I agree wholeheartedly with the Prime Minister that the status quo is not acceptable. But I believe abolishing the Senate is much more preferable to an elected Senate.

All previous coverage of Senate reform is here.


Thomas Mulcair announces catchy phrase for abolishing the Senate

  1. OMG, this is so not about the Senate. Focus: this is bigger than the Senate, more corrupt than the Senate. Please do not allow the current prime minister to walk out after a PR scandal of such immense proportions that his Chief of Staff had to resign, smirk at us, and pretend we think he’s there to defend the Senate.

    Move along: the Senate debacle will keep working out. We need some movement on what goes on in the PMO, what the PM knew, and when he knew it.

    Because just like you cannot have your cake and eat it too, the prime minister cannot claim no knowledge, and still assert that he’s in control too.

    No idea why Mulcair is pursuing abolishing the Senate instead of seeking truth on the PMO file. One is really bigger than the other.

    • It’s all about the Party In every case the Party comes first. All the parties talk about the People, but really it’s about them getting their hands on the cash and being the dominant party. So beware Party Leaders acting all concerned for the people and the fragile democracy that they work in. It’s all rubbish.

      The main benefit that the Senate ever had was it was a brake on the Party in charge to rush through the policies that benefited the Party in charge, usually at the cost to the country as a whole. Occasionally a Party in charge would last long enough so that its Senators too became the majority and the brake failed.

      But remember with just one house the will of the Party leader is law. Imagine the damage Harper and his clown show could have done while in minority government? We had to wait until the House and Senate became aligned until he could really get to work. The Senate saved us from 3-4 more years of Conservative graft, tragedy and failure.

      So while this is a scandal, it’s Harper’s scandal. The Senate does serve a purpose and curbs most of the immediate excesses of Party zeal.

      • The main benefit that the Senate ever had was it was a brake on the Party in charge

        While your comments are perfectly reasonable, let’s not forget that all provinces have been governing without a provincial senate (aka legislative council) for several decades (in fact, ON, AB and SK never had senates). And yet all hell hasn’t broken loose in the provinces since their senates were abolished.

        So there is a precedent here (10, actually) that applies to the federal level.

        • There many who would disagree with your assertion about the devil roaming the Provincial landscape. Alberta is a fine example of a Provincial government that cannot budget properly, panders to short term populism and is happy to destroy education rather than ask people to pay for the services they get. I gather Ontario hasn’t been doing to well over the past decade or so either, given the deficit and constant boondoggles.
          The Provinces on the whole also tend to have more interaction with the population than the Feds and less power to abuse, coupled with less cash to abuse.

        • Yes, there’s been no senate in the provinces.
          Of course, the provinces aren’t the highest power in the land. Provincial legislation can, and has been, struck down when it comes into conflict with federal legislation. Federal legislation which has behind it.. what? That’s right.. a senate.

        • Yes, the real work of reviewing legislation is done in legislative committees by elected representatives. That’s real “sober second thought” compared to the irrelevant nonsense done in the hallowed halls of the “upper chamber.”

          The senate is, at best, a fifth wheel. That it is comprised entirely of corrupt crony appointments, shows quite clearly it is utterly worthless.

          Either elect senators so they represent voters and are accountable to them. Or get rid of them.

      • “We had to wait until the House and Senate became aligned until he could really get to work. The Senate saved us from 3-4 more years of Conservative graft, tragedy and failure.”

        That’s complete nonsense. Harper kept threatening to force an election if the Liberal dominated senate didn’t offer speedy passage of his bills. He had a senate majority before an election fake majority.

        What happens when the shoe is on the other foot? When a Con dominated senate is thwarting legislation passed by a future Liberal government?

        The senate is a joke. It’s either a hallowed hindrance to democratic government or an ornamental rubber stamp. It’s benefits are random and worthless if anything.

        Liberal senators thwarted Mulroney on the FTA and GST to score political points. These are policies the Liberal party wholeheartedly supports today. The senate is a complete waste of time and money and has been corrupted with crony appointments since Confederation. It’s time to derail this pompous and worthless gravy train.

        • Harper threatening an election is part of the parliamentary process, but by having to threaten to do that he knows that the rug can be pulled from him at any minute. That in itself results in the modification of behaviour. Parties do that you know, make deals to pass some crappy laws. It’s another reason why I view all parties with an intense amount of suspicion.

          Also I didn’t say that the Senate couldn’t be elected, just that it shouldn’t be done away with.

          And while your characterisation of some Senators is spot on there are many doing very good work and possess a high degree of integrity, but NDP talking points will out I guess.

          It’ll be highly ironic if the NDP manages to change the focus of scrutiny from the criminal behaviour of the Harper Government to the entire Senate in it’s zeal to scrap the Senate. If the focus does change and Harper slips out of the noose it’ll be the other Parties who allowed it to happen.

    • It’s NDP policy.

      • I know that abolishing the Senate is NDP policy, I just don`t understand why they would roll this out now when there`s bigger fish to fry. PMO fish, the kind that stink to high heaven. And Mulcair wants to be prime minister: he should keep his eyes on the prize. Banging this drum isn`t going to get him there.

        • Because Mulcair needs the exposure. And a change from his ‘problems’ in QC (Vaillancourt).

          A smart politician thinking about policy would wait until QC Court and SCC decisions.

        • Your analogy reminds me of the apparently ancient aphorism that “a fish always rots from the head”.

          Seems apt here.

    • While I agree that this senate scandal stinks, if precedent is any indicator, it’ll all blow over. Harper’s been involved in many stinks since becoming PM (some of them stinkier than this), and they’ve more or less all blown over.
      The only thing I see this affecting is his base, which was already very uneasy with the way senators are chosen, and how they spend money. This will certainly hit a chord with them, and possibly cause them to donate less money to the CPC, or vote elsewhere at election time. I suspect the NDP is now courting those voters, which IMO is a wise move.
      And the NDP is pursuing both the abolition of the senate AND grilling the PMO for the truth. They can do both without compromising one or the other.

      • I do not disagree with your comments, except that I do think it is compromising to try to push two big files at once. Focusing on the most important argument makes it easier for the public to follow your pov. I guess what I am really disagreeing with is the NDP decision to make Senate abolition primary when it is not likely to happen in Mulcair`s lifetime, no matter how loudly the public yells about it; whereas focusing on the prime minister`s corrupt office is here and now and could be a popular and winning proposition focus for oppo parties.

    • It was you, Patchouli who likened this to “team sports”. Well, apparently you were right and the captain of the NDP has decided that there is no advantage in comparing levels of corruption because that hits a little to close to home for all the parties. He realizes something that you guys don’t seem to get, arguing that my team isn’t as dirty as YOUR team isn’t a big game winner here but arguing that I can and will get rid of an institution that has been corrupt forever, is.

      • It hasn`t been corrupt forever, and for every Senator you can name that has showed to be corrupt, there have been 100 who were not. That`s not a stat, but you get my drift. Mulcair cannot and never will be able to open the Constitution to abolish the Senate. No, there`s some other reason why he smells Conservative blood but is refusing to go for the right kill.

        • His issues with Laval?

        • ….and for every MP you can name that has shown to be corrupt, there have been 100 who were not. That’s not a stat, but you get my drift.

          Harper has publicly stated that he was not aware of the Wright to Duffy payment and if he had known about it, he would not have approved it.

          All it takes is for people to believe honest people. Being prejudiced serves on one, right?

          • Believe? This is not about a religious sect but about government, responsible government.

          • And here comes Loraine again. If all else fails, throw in the ‘religious sect’ argument.

            Harper ba,ba,ba,ba,ba,ba,baaaaad! Sheep!

          • First you have to show me the honest person I’m supposed to believe. Because SURELY you don’t mean Harper… he has been caught in so many lies that if he were Pinochio he could pole vault using his nose.

          • Hey, that would be something to see. Soudas is now some Olympic thingie. Maybe he can get it in for 2016. The PM may need a gig then….

  2. And Stephen Harper would like to thank the NDP once again for their support of him and the Conservative Party.

    And no Mr. Wherry, there is more than the two options you present. There is the option of reforming the appointment process. The duality you are presenting is a fraud.

      • I share Mr. Sorbara’s opinion 100%. PM must relinquish his exclusive control over recommendation for appointment – and Senators should not be members of political caucuses. It goes against their mandate.

        In fact, I think the executive – all ministers, should not be part of their party’s caucus. An MP, including one who is a member of the party whose leader is PM, still has the responsibility to hold gov to account.

      • Interesting article, but why do they have to be members of the Order of Canada? I can understand the thinking behind it (love of country, etc), but most of them aren’t suited to be politicians. Sculptors, architects, football players, poets… They want to stay in their given trade, and do what they love, not debate bills and join parliamentary committees in Ottawa.
        Is Frank Gehry really willing to give up the lucrative trade of architecture, which he loves and has become known for around the world, to come to Ottawa and sit on a committee about fishing rights off the coast of Newfoundland? Politics isn’t what he’s known for, and it’s not what he does best/enjoys.
        Granted, not all politicians are lawyers/poli-sci grads, but I imagine most have a passion for politics that would make them a suitable choice (with some notable senate exceptions like Duffy…).
        Edit: Now that I re-read it, the selection committee would be made up of Order members, not the senators themselves… That puts it in a different light, but still begs the question: Are they the best people to decide who gets to be a senator?

        • Better than leaving it to a highly partisan PM…

      • Okay, count me in for the Sorbara plan. We don’t need to reform the Senate we just need to reform Harper!

        On the other hand maybe a constitutional amendment isn’t so difficult …

    • Agreed. Small provinces ought to have the protections against being run roughshod over that the Senate is supposed to provide. An elected Senate poses difficulties (see e.g. the US), so it may not be the best option.
      A reformed Senate, wherein the provinces directly choose their Senators for lengthy but fixed (and renewable) terms may be one alternative.
      But the NDP could – and should – have picked a better time for this debate. Right now they should be focussing on holding Harper acountable for the actions of his Chief of Staff. As Patchouli said above, if the PM knew and is lying, he needs to own up and be held to account. And if he didn’t know, then he needs to explain how a legendary control freak can allow such shenanigans to occur without his being in the loop.
      Harper needs to wear this. The NDP, as official opposition, should be leading the charge with laser-sharp focus, rather than getting side-tracked by a pet project thatthey can do nothing about until 2015 (at the earliest) anyway.

    • And Justin Trudeau would like to thank the press again for not wanting to investigate Justin’s double dipping.

      But that’s ok. Because it’s just Justin. He can do whatever he feels like.And no one will investigate him or ask questions.

      • Take your red herring to the fish market if you want to sell it.

        Though with how old this one is, I doubt you’d get many bites there either.

        • It is not a red herring! You just don’t get what I am trying to say.

          When all of the attention is always on Harper and if what Harper does is always, always wrong, then yes, Justin will get away with being investigated. But that is ok, because it’s just Justin and we should trust Justin blindly!

          Well, I don’t trust Justin blindly. My bet is on the fact that Justin has misused his public expense account when going on private speaking tours. I will be proven right on that some time. Perhaps you will remember me then!

          • You don’t trust Trudeau blindly but you believe in Stephen Harper.

          • Harper never charged for speaking engagements while sitting as an elected MP. Harper has not enriched himself by means of serving in public office.

          • I don’t trust Harper blindly either. But I do know that Harper has not charged for speaking engagements while he was being paid to serve as an MP. Over to you, if you still care to defend your kind of politician.

          • It’s a great big internet, Francien. Surely, somewhere, someone is raging about JT’s speaking fees. You might enjoy sharing there.
            You may feel strongly about the subject. Which is great. But the subject here appears to be a discussion about Mulcair’s latest catch-phrase and his antipathy towards the senate.

          • Is it up to you to tell me where to post? You think Harper is a control freak? look at yourself.

          • That’s called guesswork or in your case wishful thinking.
            No evidence means no crime, hell in Harper’s case even a crap load of evidence means no crime to the right.

      • Ya know Francien, I love you to death, but you’re sounding more and more like Canada’s Victoria Jackson.

        • I have no idea who Victoria Jackson might be. Nor do I care to know. I know who I am. That’s enough for me.

          But thank you so much for reading my posts.

    • There is also the option of providing a recall process to the people.

    • It’s utterly ridiculous to appoint politicians. In a DEMOCRACY politicians are elected to represent voters and are accountable to them. Appointed politicians are accountable to no one (except, at present, the PM who appoints them.) Either elect senators or get rid of them.

      BTW, the NDP is not letting Harper off the hook by building momentum to rid Canada of a worthless institution corrupted with crony appointments since Confederation. What’s really slowing down the accountability process is the senators themselves who are auditing themselves BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

      The RCMP should be following the money trail and doing the auditing, not corrupt senators who are standing in the way of justice.

      • “BTW, the NDP is not letting Harper off the hook by building momentum to rid Canada of a worthless institution..”

        I guess only time will tell on that one.
        Fighting a war against the slippery Harper on one front is hard enough, starting another one when you are not in the majority makes both wars tough. History is a really great teacher if you can be bothered to study it.

  3. Even Tasha Kheiridan, a Conservative supporter most of the time, says “the cover up is the scandal.”


  4. The only solution is an ELECTED senate with each province and territory benefiting from an equal number of senate districts and set term lengths as is the case with MPs and MLAs or MNAs. The country should also institute fixed election dates for both the house of commons and the senate.

    • Ask the Americans how well THAT works. Unless you have much better checks and balances than they do, you are asking for legislative gridlock.

    • That is by no means the only solution (though it is not necessarily an unreasonable one) and does not immediately solve the problem at hand.

    • No, an elected senate is no solution. No more so than elected judges or elected crown attorneys. All an election gets you is someone who’s electable. If they’re knowledgable, wise, experienced, practical and love Canada but not electable because they’re butt-ugly or something, you’ll get the electable guy instead.

  5. Well, a stand (sort of ) is taken by Mr. Wherry. For the most part,
    the media munchkins moan and bitch about the status quo but let
    someone (anyone! but especially the NDP) propose actually trying
    to do something and it all goes ” something ! anything! but not THAT”.

    I’ve always had some respect for the Senate and it occasionally does
    some good things … because there are some really good people in it.
    But … but if it were to be abolished (highly unlikely), some of that budget could
    be taken to fully staff up Commons committees and restructure them
    as truly investigative and informative bodies that might serve a useful
    purpose … you know, like sober second thought.

    • But look how poorly the Commons committees have been able to perform with a Conservative majority — they just shut down whenever they like, refuse to even allow questions, let alone answer them.

      • THAT is the status quo. Restructure and staff up ..
        though that is as likely to happen as abolition :) ..

    • Commons committees are filled with MPs. The people who are giving first thought can’t, pretty much by definition, be the ones who are giving second thought.

  6. Mr. Wherry, I respectfully disagree that the Senate cannot be reformed without making it elected. A Prime Minister acting alone could dramatically alter the character of the Upper Chamber simply by changing the appointment criteria. A Governor-General could do so by ignoring the Prime Minister. An appointments commission could be established. There are a wide variety of options, and I think that to be pigeonholed into ‘elect or abolish’ is to play into the populist notion that government must be elected to be acceptable, and to ignore possible options without giving them due consideration.

    • An appointments commission could be established

      Speaking of which, whatever happened to that? Harper created it, wanted it to be headed by a close friend (Gwyn Morgan) which was shot down by the opposition, and rightly so. Since then?

      • it was noted once in the “quiet cuts” feature that it ran for about five years doing not a single thing with it’s beudget of $1 million dollars before finally being cut in, i think 2011 or 2012.

    • Okay, here we are again, just like on Sunday, when my moniker appears on comments I`m not making. For the record, I`m not registered with disqus so my name is never in red, just in grey. At least it`s not an egregious comment!

    • And who will appoint the people to be sitting on those committees?

      • Provinces. Remember that Canada is a federation.

        • Provinces? Who in the ‘provinces’? Are you suggesting that provincial governments or some other body?

        • They still will be political appointments. You can not get away from that.

          If you think about it long and hard enough you will come to understand that when anyone is appointed, there will always be others who have to appoint those who do the appointing. And if you do not agree that at some point elected politicians are capable of making the appointments, then the appointment pit becomes bottomless.

          • One of the purposes of the senate is to ensure the Feds don’t run roughshod over the less populous provinces. So yes, maybe the provinces should be the ones picking their senators.

  7. Great, just what we need….more campaigning and catchy slogans.
    The NDPs opportunism is appaulling. There are 101 Senators who can manage to do their expenses and manage not to lie about it…..it’s no reason to abolish the Senate. This scandal is about the few Senators and a PMO and party who can’t seem to follow the rules….
    Pandering to Canadians worst thoughts, feeding misinformation and cynisim amidst a crisis is no way to have a discussion about the Senate.
    What is even MORE galling is that the NDP is outraged that sometimes when they have a bill that passes in the HOUSE the Senate overturns it……it’s called Democracy NDP, get over it. It happens to all parties (remember Chretien and his fun with a Liberal dominated Senate?, they overturned his bills….so no, the notion that the whole Senate is a big partisan mess isn’t quite true)….Man, the NDP of Ed Broadbent is LONG gone.

    • “What is even MORE galling is that the NDP is outraged that sometimes when they have a bill that passes in the HOUSE the Senate overturns it……it’s called Democracy NDP”

      How on Earth can unelected senators (appointed via cronyism) overturning a bill passed in the democratically-elected House of Commons be considered “democracy.” Clearly, you have no idea what democracy actually means.

      • We live in a parliamentary democracy, it’s clear that you have no idea what that means. FPTP also means that the majority’s wishes are rarely honoured and in my opinion that needs to be addressed before any addressing of the Senate.
        Otherwise we have MPs elected using a highly undemocratic method then deciding that they need no place of second review. Alarm bells are ringing.

  8. I can understand why the ndp feels it needs to run with this; but why now? Why shift the focus off what the PM did or did not know and on to territory Harper is happy to fight on, Senate reform?

    All politicians are opportunistic, some more than others. But i am seriously starting to wonder if Tom is half the politician he is frequently touted to be. I like my opportunism to brought to the table with a degree of subtlety…not simply chucked at the diners like we’re a herd of swine eager to get our noses in the trough. Mulcair appears to have heard Harper’s dog whistle, and has gone into the bush to find his ball for him. No doubt he feels he can play fetch and hunt at the same time. But if he lets Harper wriggle off the hook there will be a price to pay for him also.

    • Harper did not write that cheque. Nor did Harper receive a cheque. I feel sorry for the opposition in that they want to find somethings which just aren’t there. I know how much Mulcair and Trudeau (and YOU) would love to implicate Harper personally, but it isn’t doable, because Harper is not that kind of man. Once you are willing to see who Harper is you will understand that he would never have been involved in something like writing a cheque for Duffy.

      But since you and others simply don’t want to see Harper for who he really is, you will never understand him. That’s a loss for you and for Canada.

      • Who are you, Harper’s mum?

        • No, I am not. But surely you must be Pope Gregory IX.

          • Actually it’s you who claim infallible insight into Harper’s character. Pull someone else’s leg Francien.

          • It’s not that difficult to understand Harper’s character. Any person being accused falsely would be sick and tired of that.

          • Sick and tired of Harper’s character? Count me in!

          • Do you have a private line to God? You seem to be omniscient in the matter of the PM’s character.

      • But since you and others simply don’t want to see Harper for who he really is, you will never understand him. That’s a loss for you and for Canada.

        Words equally applicable to you

        Still looking for that Windex?

        • What? I do understand Harper. I do understand that when one has many many people working within a PMO and other offices in relation to the government, then, yes, at times there will be individuals who will do things without Harper knowing about it. That is nothing unusual. It is regrettable that such things happen without the PM knowing about it before it happens, but it is possible. There are many people in position of power (either political or business wise) who will tell you that it is impossible to have all things work fool proof.

          Realistic people understand that much. I am a realistic person. So is Harper.

          • The likelihood of a micro manager like Harper being unaware of a situation this explosive and directly involving his Chief of Staff is pretty much nil.
            This is not the business world where Wright is looking for promotion – his role is defined and he simply does not make these types of decisions without consulting the boss – plain and simple.

            I think you are either naive or willfully ignorant

          • Actually, I am realist. It IS possible that Harper did not know about Wright’s actions in regards to the $90,172. It IS possible, and I think it is most probable.

            Realists do not need prejudice for setting the world right.

          • The “truth” shifts to suit your vision, therefore I conclude you are willfully ignorant

          • How and when have I shifted the truth?

            It is indeed possible that Harper did not know until after the fact. Just because you are not willing to believe Harper no matter what he does or say, does not mean that it is not possible.

            How will you react when the inquiry does indicate that Harper indeed had not been in the loop on this one? Will you then say that Dawson is partial?

    • Whatever happened to the old Liberal Party that followed wise old campaigners like Senator Davey and Senator Smith through who strategically used street-smarts to easily win Liberal votes.
      So now, after 10 years of constantly slamming every petty angle they could to discredit the Conservatives, while watching their seat count steadily drop from 170 to 35, one would think they might think about changing that strategy.

      But no, even after being overtaken by a more reasoned NDP Party they want to hang onto the old screaming methods like a baby on a soother.

      The only thing they change is their leaders—they now have a very pretty man leading them.
      Maybe Harper is right. They will soon eliminate themselves.
      It`s sad. Eventually we will have a socialist NDP government and that will not be good.

      • How does this in any way relate to either kcm2’s comment or the story generally?

        • I know kc tends to flail around with metaphors and incomprehensible jargon on occasion but he does appear to be critical of the somewhat reasoned approach of Mulcair and the NDP ( wonder if Tom is half the politician ) in regards to the Duffy $hitstorm while encouraging the continued screaming and narrow whining of the Liberals ( don`t let Harper of the hook).

          I am reminding him that the more reasoned approach of the NDP has resulted in the dippers having 3 times as many MP`s as the Liberals.

          I am constantly amazed at Wherry and Kinsella and guys like you and kc who continue to try to satisfy the ravenous desire of each other to slam the Harper government while appearing oblivious to the fact that those undecided voters are so turned off by this constant whining that they have a greater desire to keep Liberals quite then to punish Conservatives. Stop trying to convert the converted.

          Meanwhile Layton and now Mulcair appear to grasp the fact that Canadians are willing to reward the Party that tries to influence better government by being constructive.

      • Don’t worry. The Liberals will save Canada from the socialists for you.

        • I don`t think so—-not if you`re continued ” lack of any policy—let`s slam Harper—hope the pretty boy gets the naive vote out ” approach is typical of the Liberal think tank.

          • Patience, policy will come. When Trudeau does lay out policy you may be surprised how conservative it will be – at least on economic front. He’s determined not to make the mistakes of Dion and Ignatieff by tacking left.

      • You seem to think highly or Davey and Smith, yet you despise PET. You do realize that makes no sense whatsoever don’t you? Davey was the genius behind Trudeau’s time in office.

  9. Roll up the Red Carpet is actually a pretty good catch phrase, I’m impressed with the NDP for once.

  10. We live in a time when individuals and companies have had to do a complete overhaul of their finances to evolve in today’s market — why has government not followed suite with our tax dollars? Everything to do with running the government at all levels should be reviewed. Things that are a no brainer: abolish governor general positions both federally and provincially; abolish the senate; reduce size of government at all levels; make significantly more use of video conferencing (less travel); stop the endless public hearings/meetings — the elected folks have the helm for four years fed/prov wise and three years municipal wise, let them do their job without folks trying to refight the election. Let’s at least attempt to reduce some of the red ink….

  11. This is the wrong approach for Mulcair to take. The chamber of “Sober second thought” is a good idea, but the members should be elected not appointed and should be held accountable as Parliamentarians.

  12. Yeah, most of our Members of Parliament can’t wait to be able to make spur of the moment decisions in the heat of the moment with no thought. Knee jerk is prior to the jack boot of fascism. Making the Senate work is the proper answer. The squares and the straights are destroying Canada. Don’t throw out the babies. Just put in Senators who are independent and not painted harlots looking for a fast date.

  13. Whoever will(in writing)abolish the senate has my

  14. I supported the conservatives however I do agree that the Senate is waste of taxpayers money. The senators have proven even before that the the sober second thought is just a pure BS. But there is also another institution that should not be abolished but its powers curtailed it is the Supreme court that many of its unreasonable decisions resulted even in larger waste of taxpayers money and got Canada in a mess that will take many years to extract itself out of it.

Sign in to comment.