Four years for a bill?!?

Watching Rosemary Thompson Live is giving all sorts of laughs tonight. Jack Layton was already on demanding the troops come home by February so that Afghanistan can have its own series of Srebrenica-like attacks on defenceless humanitarian workers (well, that's not why he wants them home, but it's what would happen) and pumping up proportional representation as the remedy to ails Canadian democracy. Good old Jack, always reliable for a lark or two.

But the height of ludicrous statements tonight comes from a Liberal senator who insists that having an elected Senate would result in the procedure to pass a single piece of legislation taking four years. And just to make sure it wasn't a slip of the tongue or an aberration, he said it like four or five times. Wow. There's saying ridiculous things to protect your sinecure, and then there's that. He also had a laugh at his Conservative counterpart highlighting the absurdly large Liberal majority in the unelected chamber, saying that he wouldn't be complaining if he were on the other side. Well, no, of course not, you're so happy because you and a good number of your buddies are enjoying the benefits of patronage. If you were on the other side, you'd probably have been the one complaining. But since you benefit, we can't have any of these elected politicians trying to take away your entitlements.

Getting back to the four years for a bill to pass thing. How on earth was that figure arrived at? Two years in the House and two more in the Senate? I dare say that if that happened, there would be a massive "throw the bums out" election campaign in order to get a more efficient representation. That's not a consequence of having two elected houses, that's just horrible leadership. Last I looked it doesn't take 4 years to pass laws down in the States or any other state with a full elected bicameral legislature. Simply put, this was an absurd statement coming from a historical anachronism looking to ensure his sinecure lasts a few more years.