The kooky Liberal Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette is at it again…this time she’s behind a bill that would force publicly traded companies to have women make up 50% of their boards.
“The fine rhetoric and the good intentions of many people to promote gender parity on boards of directors are no longer enough. The need for the involvement of Canada’s Parliament is more acute than ever, given the slowness of the progress toward parity.” (see here)
See also Alberta Ardvark asking Justin to defend the Charter against this loon here and my earlier post on Hervieux-Payette’s other nutty proposals here
BC Blue: One BC Conservative's view on it all... 
December 29, 2010 at 4:02 PM
There are endless reasons to abolish the senate. BUT abolition is not Conservative Party policy or the HArper government’s policy. Harper has appointed Conservative cronies and sees it as a reward for partisanship.
If you have any influencd within the Conservative PArty you should use it.
December 29, 2010 at 5:06 PM
They have a rule similar to that in Norway.
December 29, 2010 at 5:55 PM
“BUT abolition is not Conservative Party policy or the HArper government’s policy.”
Good point. Not only that, but it is unclear exactly what the Harper government wants the senate to actually look like. He says he wants it to be elected and accountable, which are laudable goals. In fact, I think you would be hard put to find anyone who does not want more accountability. However, with more accountability comes more power, and more likelihood the senate will refuse to pass legislation (and despite what you may think, the senate has blocked very few bills).
Again, I do not really take issue with that. If the Senate is going to be elected and accountable they have to answer to their electorate and that means voting against bills their electorate do not support. But here is the problem – Harper plans on making the senate more accountable and more powerful without first addressing the inadequate representation of some provinces, such as my own province of Alberta. If Harper gets his way then provinces like Ontario and Quebec basically control the legislation passed in this country no matter what their population (and even they are under-represented in the Senate compared to the Maritime provinces). Since the senate plays a role in constitutional reform, and since it may be hard to convince the populations of provinces like Ontario, Quebec, NB and NS to give up their majority in the Senate, how do we ever get to reform the constitution to address this power inbalance?
So yeah, sure, some liberal senator proposes some legislation you think is ill advised. If you think that is the biggest problem with the senate then you are not thinking things through.
December 29, 2010 at 6:35 PM
Only a Conservative would think this wrong. Only a person, so steeped in their own bigotry would turn an issue about equality into an issue about the senate. No wonder women are less and less represented in our country. With Conservative like you in power, women will be lucky to maintain control over their own bodies. Thank goodness for morally upstanding people who keep Canada on sure footing.
December 30, 2010 at 9:36 AM
That’s Nazi-bigot to you…
December 29, 2010 at 8:07 PM
Control, control,control. In some circles, they call that communism and we all know how that turns out.
As a woman, THIS woman embarrasses me and so many like me. We would like to achieve on our own merit, plan our lives, career, family, children knowing that we can and will, without the presence of her type of social engineering.
Silver platter appointments, legislated for women is beyond regressive and insulting, it’s just profiling gender in a different way. No thank you!
December 29, 2010 at 11:30 PM
I work for a Provincial Health Authority and by far, the majority of managers and those in bureaucracy are women. Granted, this is not a publicly trading company (just tax-payer supported) but as the Charter guarantees gender parity, does this mean a reduction on corporations with over 50% of women in management? Sounds like the beginning of a nightmare! How would you even begin to implement this.
–hates the senate–Harper has said he will appoint any Senator elected by their province. Unfortunately only Alberta has Senate elections and then Chretien thumbed his nose at Senator Bert Brown. Until the provinces cooperate, Harper has no choice but to appoint Senators under the condition that they support 8 year terms and are willing to work to reform the Senate back to it’s original role — to balance the power in Ottawa. What are the Opposition willing to do to support this? Yup–nada, zippo, nothing. Did you honestly think Harper would appoint more Liberal Senators as a partisan reward like all the previous Liberal P.M.s?
We would have NDP/Green Senators if that’s who the provinces elected. Until you are willing to participate in the process, your whining falls on deaf ears.
December 30, 2010 at 8:21 AM
Question: Is there a conflict with appointing a senator who was elected and demanding, as a condition of that appointment, that said senator support the government’s agenda? Why appoint someone who was elected if you are going to strip him of accountability anyway? Shouldn’t a senator who was elected be expected to support the agenda of the people who elected him?
December 30, 2010 at 3:47 AM
The reason the Senate seems unbalanced is that it was not set up to represent population but the regions so each region would be represented and not overwelmed as in the HOC. Thus it is a compromise between population and regions that is worth keeping
With respect to this bill what the Senator is saying is that women are not capable of upper management without quotas – I would disagree except Payette is an example that tends to prove the argument
December 30, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Then give each province equal representation. Or at least give each region equal representation.
Otherwise you will have to explain why some provinces or regions have many more senators than others.
December 30, 2010 at 12:02 PM
I forgot to add:
Harper wants to reform the senate, so whatever the original vision was is irrelevant if it is being reformed. I am only pointing out that his reforms risk centralizing legislative power in this country with Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
December 30, 2010 at 4:37 AM
Zap that cow back to Russia circa 1930’s sure she’ll love being with her brethren.
December 30, 2010 at 8:20 AM
PM appointed people to the senate under a condition that they (appointed senators) are to step down when their provinces legistrate a senate reform ELECTION then he will reinstate the people’s chosen senator. Just as he did with Alberta’s Bert Brown.
December 30, 2010 at 12:04 PM
That does not answer my question. Is there an inconsistency between saying senators should be accountable to the people, and then forcing those same people to be accountable to the government instead? Particularly when one of the senators you appointed has already been elected? What if the people who elected Brown decide they do not want him to support Harper’s agenda?
December 31, 2010 at 1:39 PM
So when is there going to be race related quotas for board of directors too? Soon most boards will be filled with useless people all appointed strictly for political reasons. Wait, most of them already are… maybe that is why Canadian business is not that competitive?