Harper to impose term limit on senators

[jdobbin]

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.

And yet you think the Senate should be changed without a majority of the premiers and no Quebec veto?

[Visionseeker]

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.

Actually, smallc might be on to something here. A senator could be appointed by the PM for 8 years and then, when the term ends, the House of Commons could vote to extend the term for 4 years if an all party committee asks for the House's pleasure to do so. This would certainly add some incentive for senators to act as disciplined statesmen during their terms - forcing them to reach across the aisle from time to time to foster good relations.

It’s a far cry from an elected Senate. But I need to see what powers an elected Senate might yield before I can even support the notion.

[g_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.

You see, Smallc?

August, I think we've been around this millstone before, and your stance hasn't changed since, still being laden with presumptions and unfounded arguments, as it is. There are as of yet no grounds on which to unambiguously affirm your opinion that Canada (and, by extention, any constitutional monarchy, like Sweden, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, Australia, the UK, Norway, & etc.) is uncivilized, nor any logical argument as to how electing a head of state will necessarily alter that status. Anyway, let's try and not get too OT here.

[Visionseeker]

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.

You're reaching.

If you think for a moment that the Senate is somehow a wedge issue in our present economic circumstances, well... Let me know how that works for ya after our summer election.

[Visionseeker]

Mike Duffy at least has an original mind.

If only he could remember where he put it.

[Visionseeker]

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.

Your argument either contradicts itself or your are arguing from a quasi-democratic state. To be a republic, a president must be chosen. Yet you allow for a nominated head as voted by oligarchy (with Quebec having the first among lessers rights). A federal state cannot stand on a communitarian compromise.

[Smallc]

If you think for a moment that the Senate is somehow a wedge issue in our present economic circumstances,

I don't think its ever much of an issue outside of some old Reform and NDP circles.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yeah that is the ticket! Impose limits on guys not elected, but let the elected guys stay in power for ever. That is progress for you.

[Smallc]

I think that they should all be able to stay in power forever. If people are willing to elect them if they were appointed, they should be allowed to do their job until thier either voted out or removed (depending on the chamber we're speaking of).

[Hydraboss]

I see no reason for limits on any elected official. If the public wants them, then they should be able to have them. The Senate should be elected and there should be no term limits.

[Borg]

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?

Ah, yes - the superior student.

Borg

[Borg]

Wouldn't that make them more partisan, then?

And they aren't now?

Sheesh

Borg

[Smallc]

And they aren't now?

Not all that partisan. You've never watched a Senate committee, have you?

[Smallc]

Ah, yes - the superior student.

Borg

So, how much do you know about the Senate?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think you folks are a little goofy! The problem of patronage expands with the duration of the party in power. So as long as you have no problem with these folks appointing their friends, families and supporters onto the public payroll then I guess it isn't that important. I do have a problem with bureaucracies in general and view patronage appointments as a further problem, so I will naturally desire to oppose unfettered access to the public trough.

[g_bambino]

And they aren't now?

Yes, they are. Hence, I said "more partisan". Sheesh.

[Borg]

Yes, they are. Hence, I said "more partisan". Sheesh.

You need to learn to recognize sarcasm

Borg

Edited May 29, 2009 by Borg

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Partisan is the game in Canada. Sad but true, free votes are rare and the interests of the leaders and partisan factions are served ahead of the best interests of citizens.

[g_bambino]

You need to learn to recognize sarcasm

Already learned long ago, and yours was recognised. Perhaps you just didn't target your sarcasm properly.

[g_bambino]

Partisan is the game in Canada. Sad but true, free votes are rare and the interests of the leaders and partisan factions are served ahead of the best interests of citizens.

Let's be specific: partisan is the game in Canadian politics. But, what politicking isn't partisan? And, as we've already established that Senators carry a certain amount of political partiality with them, it only seems logical that requiring them to engage in repeated elections would only increase the size of their partisan baggage, putting them more on an equal footing with MPs. The question then is: is that really of any benefit? I certainly don't see how shifting the tri-partied balance of parliament in that direction is going to provide anything good at all.

[Smallc]

And, as we've already established that Senators carry a certain amount of political partiality with them,

They do, but it's not nearly to the same level as in the HofC. Most of them can work well in committee without letting their partisanship get in the way. The system is really working as designed, and for the most part, it's working well.

[madmax]

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

If we have to have Constitutional talks, use that time to Abolish the Senate and save us money.

[g_bambino]

They do, but it's not nearly to the same level as in the HofC. Most of them can work well in committee without letting their partisanship get in the way. The system is really working as designed, and for the most part, it's working well.

Indeed, you're right, and that's what I meant when I said that electing Senators would bring them up to par with MPs in terms of partisanship.

This Senate reform stuff is just Harper trying to appeal to the ex-Reformers in his party, who are mostly for very right-wing-Americanized changes to our system; less government with... more elections?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Senate reform;

1) Remove all existing Senators by first setting up single year term limits,

2) Replace all Senators with individual representatives determined provincially or by territory,

3) Reform term limits to be determined by provincial decision,

4) Provide equal number of Senators per province or territory,

5) Move responsibility for social programs to the Senate,

6) Move responsibility for the Armed Forces to the Senate,

7) Ensure all Senate work done in Committees with rotation of Chairman position,

8) All provincial and territorial Premiers to have seat in Senate

Let the Senate speak for the regional aspects and application of government policy, as well as being accountable for national social programs and national defense. Let the provinces and territories determine exactly how senators are chosen and what their terms of office are. The Prime Minister according to our constitution does the actual appointing, but that does not mean that he cannot accept the advice of the other equal partners in confederation. There is no need to change or even open the constitutional debate.

While we are at the government reform question, why not have the prime Minister seek the best counsel in the land and appoint them to specific positions within his own cabinet instead of relying upon only elected officials. If you want to create some accountability hire someone you can fire if they screw up. Either reduce the number of Ministers and the size of cabinet or increase their numbers and give every single elected representative a position of authority and responsibility. In this way you can certainly remove bad administrators and literally backbench the buggers and doom their political career for incompetence.

[Topaz]

Last year, when the senators were debating this, most of them wanted at least 12 years and that included the Conservative senators, which said 8 years wasn't enough time to do any major projects, so I don't think has the Cons will go along with this except the "newly" appointed ones, which have no choice, must do what Harper says.