Harper to impose term limit on senators

jdobbin · May 29, 2009

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...16bci2o-2jF6lGA

When it comes to Senate reform, the Harper government is applying the old adage: If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
The government reintroduced for the third time Thursday legislation that would force senators to retire after serving a single, non-renewable term of eight years.

And it intends to reintroduce shortly legislation that would create a process to elect senators.

"Well, here we go again," said Marjory LeBreton, the government's leader in the Senate.

Two previous attempts to impose term limits went nowhere amid objections from Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, which argued that Senate reforms require a constitutional amendment approved by at least seven provinces.

What a waste of time.

Talk about a proposal not likely to go no where.

I think if Harper is so certain that he is legally correct that he should ask a federal court for an opinion. Otherwise, he is wasting money and time.

Smallc · May 29, 2009

I don't mind terms, but I would prefer that the same people could be appointed again if they were doing a good job.

Bryan · May 29, 2009

I don't mind terms, but I would prefer that the same people could be appointed again if they were doing a good job.

Absolutely great idea, as long as the senate is elected.

g_bambino · May 29, 2009

I don't mind terms, but I would prefer that the same people could be appointed again if they were doing a good job.

Wouldn't that make them more partisan, then? They'd have to operate knowing that they must appeal to the incumbent prime minister for recommendation for re-appointment. Leave the bloody Senate be, I say; the system we have is the best we can get in the absence of a truly non-partisan, hereditary upper house.

Smallc · May 29, 2009

Absolutely great idea, as long as the senate is elected.

If we're going to do that, we should ask the people of Canada first. Do you want to make changes to the Senate, yes, or no. The result would have to have a clear majority. After the first question, if the people voted yes, then options could be presented to the people, as it would be an important change.

I don't see any positive out of electing senators (or making any changes at all), but I think that this is one of those questions for all Canadians is we plan to make change.

BTW, we could probably not satisfy constitutional requirements on such an issue. It would most likely fail.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Smallc

Smallc · May 29, 2009

Wouldn't that make them more partisan, then? They'd have to operate knowing that they must appeal to the incumbent prime minister for recommendation for re-appointment. Leave the bloody Senate be, I say; the system we have is the best we can get in the absence of a truly non-partisan, hereditary upper house.

I completely agree with you. You know that already though . I simply don't believe in firm term limits that mean that good people have to leave the job.

Smallc · May 29, 2009

I have a problem with my own suggestion because of what bambino has said. As of now, it seems that very few people understand the senate. How could they ever make an informed choice about changes?

August1991 · May 29, 2009

What a waste of time.

No, it's not a waste of time. Harper is turning the screws on the Liberal Party.

The Senate and the Liberal Party are synonymous: entitlement and sinecures for life.

----

Members of the federal Liberal Party seem to think that the sponsorship scandal is now history - they are mistaken. The federal Liberal Party has to change, and it hasn't.

Smallc · May 29, 2009

jbg · May 29, 2009

What a waste of time.
Talk about a proposal not likely to go no where.

I think if Harper is so certain that he is legally correct that he should ask a federal court for an opinion. Otherwise, he is wasting money and time.

Are you an anti-Harper bot?

g_bambino · May 29, 2009

As of now, it seems that very few people understand the senate. How could they ever make an informed choice about changes?

Exactly. I suspect that if asked right now, the majority of Canadians would vote for more voting, believing erroneously that democracy can only ever function in the most direct way possible. Of course, they'd say this knowing probably nothing of the concept of a tyranny of the majority, which actually undermines the equal exercise of power and the universal application of rights and freedoms; two of the most important tenets of a democratic society. The most stable and long-lasting democracies need a fine balance between elected elements and unelected elements, and any change to our Senate would affect that balance, necessitating some serious expert debate before changing centuries old conventions on parliamentary democracy and responsible government.

_{[ed. for sp.]}

Edited May 29, 2009 by g_bambino

jdobbin · May 29, 2009

No, it's not a waste of time. Harper is turning the screws on the Liberal Party.

No, he's infringing on provincial rights and screwing Quebec.

The Senate and the Liberal Party are synonymous: entitlement and sinecures for life.

Unilateral moves on the Senate are synonymous with Tory illegal activity we have seen since 2006. How many times do they have to be slapped down by the federal court?

Members of the federal Liberal Party seem to think that the sponsorship scandal is now history - they are mistaken. The federal Liberal Party has to change, and it hasn't.

Members of the federal Conservative Party seem to think that the in and out scandla is now history - they are mistaken. The federal Conservative party has to change, and it hasn't.

jdobbin · May 29, 2009

Absolutely great idea, as long as the senate is elected.

And that would improve Ottawa how? You want 24 elected Senators from Ontario? And how many does Alberta have now?

August1991 · May 29, 2009

Members of the federal Conservative Party seem to think that the in and out scandla is now history - they are mistaken. The federal Conservative party has to change, and it hasn't.

Dobbin, you are in denial. The "in-and-out scandal", the "sponsorship-scandal" and so on. According to you, they are scandals.

The simple fact is that the federal Liberal Party has filled the Senate with partisan party hacks - while naming cute sympathetic "original-thinking" CBC/Radio-Canada journalists to the GG position.

Canada deserves better than a hack second house. Mike Duffy at least has an original mind.

Moonbox · May 29, 2009

And that would improve Ottawa how? You want 24 elected Senators from Ontario? And how many does Alberta have now?

It would make the Senate a less partisan and more accountable function of government. It's a check against parliament. Having them appointed by parliament is a fundamental conflict of interest. You already know why people think it's a good idea.

You criticize Harper for appointing his own senators, but you also criticize him for trying to reform the senate. Clearly the only situation you'd have been happy with would have been for Harper to appoint partisan Liberals as the new senators.

Smallc · May 29, 2009

while naming cute sympathetic "original-thinking" CBC/Radio-Canada journalists to the GG position.

So who should be Governor General then? It's up to the sitting Prime Minister to recommend, and overall, the current GG is doing well. Seems like a good recommendation.

g_bambino · May 29, 2009

It would make the Senate a less partisan and more accountable function of government. It's a check against parliament. Having them appointed by parliament is a fundamental conflict of interest.

Huh? :blink: Er, the last time I checked, the Senate was a part of parliament, not a check on it; Senators were appointed by the Governor General and not parliament; and elections were pretty much the most partisan thing around. Talk about a conflict of interest - House of Commons: "we have the votes of the people behind us!", Senate: "we have the votes of the people behind us!", cue furrowed brow staring contest. What an improvement.

jdobbin · May 29, 2009

Dobbin, you are in denial. The "in-and-out scandal", the "sponsorship-scandal" and so on. According to you, they are scandals.

According to you, they are not? The RCMP raided the offices of the Tories! Tell me when that is a yawner for you.

The simple fact is that the federal Liberal Party has filled the Senate with partisan party hacks - while naming cute sympathetic "original-thinking" CBC/Radio-Canada journalists to the GG position.

And the Tories have named sympathetic "original thinking" CTV journalists to the Senate.

Canada deserves better than a hack second house. Mike Duffy at least has an original mind.

Oh please. Of all the partisan, self serving statements. Duffy was rewarded for serve it the party as a journalist.

g_bambino · May 29, 2009

So who should be Governor General then? It's up to the sitting Prime Minister to recommend, and overall, the current GG is doing well. Seems like a good recommendation.

Don't get August started... He wants that position elected too. Elected president, elected house of representatives, elected senate... Wait, I thought I saw Old Glory waving there for a second.

jdobbin · May 29, 2009

It would make the Senate a less partisan and more accountable function of government. It's a check against parliament. Having them appointed by parliament is a fundamental conflict of interest.

It is a part of Parliament and is supposed to be divided into government and opposition. In other words, partisan.

You criticize Harper for appointing his own senators, but you also criticize him for trying to reform the senate. Clearly the only situation you'd have been happy with would have been for Harper to appoint partisan Liberals as the new senators.

I criticize Harper for being a hypocrite for saying he won't do what Liberal do in terms of appointments.

Edited May 29, 2009 by jdobbin

Smallc · May 29, 2009

I've never understood why people think electing a head of state (or in this case, acting head f state) and making it a partisan political position is a good idea. They're supposed to represent the country, not a political position. Electing the GG, IMO, would border on disaster.

jbg · May 29, 2009

Wait, I thought I saw Old Glory waving there for a second.

What a beautiful sight. Enough to bring tears to my eyes.

August1991 · May 29, 2009

Don't get August started... He wants that position elected too. Elected president, elected house of representatives, elected senate... Wait, I thought I saw Old Glory waving there for a second.

I'd be happy with a Head of State nominated by the federal PM but approved by a majority of the provincial premiers - with a Quebec veto.

Our GG signs all our federal laws. I think we need someone, approved by the provinces, who cares about Canada.

And Bambino. I also think that if Canada has any chance to survive, it must become a federal republic. It is a basic point that if Canada is to become a civilized state, any Canadian should have the chance to become Canada's Head of State.