[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

The problem has not been the number of senators alone though; provinces such as the maritimes and Quebec are going to fight this. There is is no way that a province such as Nova Scotia wants to enter into this discussion and not see gains as a result.

This is true. Some provinces have a lot to lose when it comes to numbers.... but what is better, having 10 useless, unelected senators who ended up in the Senate because they were Liberal or Tory bagmen or huge financial or otherwise supporters of said parties who wanted to become Senators because of the prestige or because its an easy paycheque?..... OR 5 elected Senators who will listen to the will of their electorate and who know that if they don't they will be toast come the next Senate election?
Sometimes more is not always better.

Originally Posted by Slava

Then you have other provinces such as Manitoba where the stance is pure abolition. They are on the road to elected senators at this point (as is Saskatchewan). At any rate, this is a whole constitutional mess that has to be opened to do this properly. Its not a quick and simple, lets have elections and even things out motion.

Manitoba and other like provinces may change their mind if they see meaningful Senate reform occurring. .... and elected Senators is one way to get the ball rolling.

Originally Posted by Slava

I also think that there is an interesting point in the article in the Globe and Mail this morninig about the provinces losing some power in the process. Once you start electing senators provincially to represent you then it does have to lessen the clout that a premier will have.

I really don't think provincial premiers have much clout, to begin with, when it comes to Senate appointments. They have some... but not a lot. Currently, if the PM doesn't want somebody in the Senate, even though a Premier may be totally in favour of said person, the PM has the final say and the PM chooses who HE wants. Premiers may be able to exert some influence but thats about it. Its the PMO and the PM who really decide.

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm really not sold on the whole Triple E thing for a few reasons, but mainly because we already send enough representatives to Ottawa who are consertive from Alberta and I think that the message is sent. Does it do much good for the average citizen to send more?

If they are going to be sitting in a different house it does.

Originally Posted by Slava

If we can't come to a decent solution for the senate then we might as well abolish it I guess.

I agree with you on this point... if all else fails (any meaningful reform), abolish the Senate.

Originally Posted by Slava

Its a shame because I think it does provide sober second thought, and the committee work and initiatives undertaken there by members of all political parties are excellent for the country.

As for a place of sober second thought?... hmmm I hear that a lot but really don't see too much of it. Mostly what I see is partisanship and game playing. In some ways, because they were not elected, and because they primarily answer to their party masters in the House of Commons (even when in committee), they are worse than the MPs.

Originally Posted by Slava

It has to be said that because they are not elected and in some ways not fighting for a re-election every couple of years that the hope is that they will do some things for the good of the country even if these decisions are not the easiest politically just because of that fact...although I'm not saying that is always the case and surely someone will now give me a list of examples where this is not.

As for doing a better job because they are not elected and not facing re-elections... I think thats a myth put forward by the unelected Senators who want to remain as such. Tell me, who does a better job? Someone who can be fired or someone who cannot and has a job for life? We all know the answer to that one. Most people get lazy when there is no incentive to do a good job.