Harper to impose term limit on senators

[Smallc]

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

YEah...and then have a bunch of bills that we pass go through without any thought or without being tested for legality. Even if the Senate were to go, something would have to replace them.

[Smallc]

Senate reform;

Oh say can you see.......

[jdobbin]

Senate reform;

Since it would involve opening the Constitution and abiding by the amending formula, I don't see it possible on getting agreement on even if Senate reform is wanted by the provinces.

[jdobbin]

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

The would be my thought. Manitoba gets by on not having its upper house anymore.

If some of the Albertans are convinced it is a good idea, I recommend introducing it in Alberta and seeing how good it works.

[Smallc]

Provinces get by without the senate, but because the federal government covers such a wide area, a chamber is needed to consider the wider implication of legislation.

[jdobbin]

Provinces get by without the senate, but because the federal government covers such a wide area, a chamber is needed to consider the wider implication of legislation.

This is what the argument was for an upper house in Manitoba.

[Smallc]

This is what the argument was for an upper house in Manitoba.

The Senate does an important job. We should leave it alone and educate people about what it does. The only change that I see of benefit is creating an Atlantic region with 24 seats by giving each of the atlantic provinces 6 seats and combining them into one region. Because that change would be so difficult though, I don't see it as being worth it.

[jbg]

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.

What "major projects" do Senators accomplish?

[jdobbin]

The Senate does an important job. We should leave it alone and educate people about what it does. The only change that I see of benefit is creating an Atlantic region with 24 seats by giving each of the atlantic provinces 6 seats and combining them into one region. Because that change would be so difficult though, I don't see it as being worth it.

I have no intention of pushing for an opening of the Constitution. I think it would not end at the Senate as too many people would toss in additional things they wanted.

[Smallc]

What "major projects" do Senators accomplish?

They do massive studies and create reports based on them. The Kirby report on healthcare for example. They do a great deal of work on many issues, despite what people think.

[g_bambino]

They do massive studies and create reports based on them. The Kirby report on healthcare for example. They do a great deal of work on many issues, despite what people think.

Don't forget that there's a value in having less partisan individuals review legislation before it receives Royal Assent. Ironically, their review of the Senate reform legislation is an illustration of how such extra study is needed.

[Smallc]

Yes. Also, there is often wording in legislation that is contradictory and does not fit with the law. The Senate reads the bill few and fixes these things.

[jbg]

Yes. Also, there is often wording in legislation that is contradictory and does not fit with the law. The Senate reads the bill few and fixes these things.

And how exactly can they go about "fixing" a bill?

[g_bambino]

And how exactly can they go about "fixing" a bill?

I believe they make alterations to the wording and send it back to the House of Commons. There is, however, a limit to the number of times this can be done; twice, I think.

[Visionseeker]

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,

So purge the current crowd in a year, then let the provinces determine (by vote or otherwise) who will replace them with asymetrical terms from one province to another being a given. This isn't starting well.

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

So PEI has as much influence on matters as Ontario! A 40 to 1 dissenfranchisement would be a hard sell don't ya think?

5) Move responsibility for social programs to the Senate,

Interesting. But define social programs please.

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

Why?! How owuld this be beneficial to the military and, more importantly, to our national security?

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

And ye shall devise a military platapus that the world will envy.

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

Somehow I doubt that provincial premiers would want to participate in this erosion of their present power.

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.

Some measure of Senate reform is possible without changing the Constitution. But if the Senate absolutely needs changes, wouldn't be better to put everything on the table in order to get it right?

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.

The PM and Cabinet already get such counsel from the civil service. It's just too bad PMs and Cabinet ministers have a strong tendancy to ignore the wise counsel of the public's servants.

But thank you Jerry. I truly appreciate your attempt to forge a cogent plan for Senate reform. Maybe if more people shared their thoughts in this manner they might come to convince me that their plan just might work.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Visionseeker

[bush_cheney2004]

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

LoL! Michael Ignatieff pledges allegiance to same often!

[Bryan]

LoL! Michael Ignatieff pledges allegiance to same often!

Damn!!! I bet there's video out there of him doing just that....

[Dave_ON]

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.

It is a waste of time because neither the PMO, Parliament nor the Senate has the power to make the proposed changes. Mr. Harper is trying to go about his senate reform in the wrong way yet again. This is a constitutional matter but Mr. Harper can not set aside his disdain for what he perceives as the Liberal Judicial branch of our government. If he would consult the courts on the matter they could advise him as to wheter or not his proposal contravenes the constitution as it stands. If it does then Mr. Harper would have to propose constitutional amendments and follow the appropriate formulae.

This of course would be a hard sell and a very very long process. We need look no further than the Meech Lake Accord or the Charlottetown accord for examples of this. Mr. Harper is trying to ram legislation through that he has no power to enact. Thank God we have the constitution to protect us from those who would centralize power solely in the office of the PM.

Bottom line is, the system is slow but it works. It balances power quite nicely and any changes we make to it could result in the PM, or parliament having too much power. The dispersal of power is what helps stem corruption. I personally do not want direct democracy, I don't want to vote on every proposed change or piece of legislation. If I wanted to do that, I'd run for office in my riding. I pay someone else to do the voting for me. If I think he's a lemon, I vote against him/her next time.

[Dave_ON]

.

wrong reply

Edited May 30, 2009 by Dave_ON

[Oleg Bach]

Are not most of the senators liberal installations?

[Oleg Bach]

Are not most of the senators liberal installations?

[Smallc]

Are not most of the senators liberal installations?

Yes, because the Liberals were in power for such a long period.

[Smallc]

And how exactly can they go about "fixing" a bill?

As bambino says below your post. Sometimes, there is wording that is contradictory, unclear, or does not comply with law as already written. The Senate goes through the bill to try and find these problems an fix them.

As I said, whether we have a Senate or not, we would still need a body to examine bills in this manner before they were passed by the house.

[Oleg Bach]

As bambino says below your post. Sometimes, there is wording that is contradictory, unclear, or does not comply with law as already written. The Senate goes through the bill to try and find these problems an fix them.

As I said, whether we have a Senate or not, we would still need a body to examine bills in this manner before they were passed by the house.

The Americans could have used a REAL senate to do the proof reading of some of their latest bills - from what I heard - documents of well over a thousand pages were passed with out being read by congress.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So purge the current crowd in a year, then let the provinces determine (by vote or otherwise) who will replace them with asymetrical terms from one province to another being a given. This isn't starting well.

The concept I am so poorly trying to convey is one of a functional bicameral system that would seek to balance a government that rules by representatives based on population with a separate House that is based on representation by region. The Canadian Constitution is supposed to provide ALL provinces an equal footing in confederation, to do that such a balance needs to be create. In as much as the provinces should fill the Senate with representatives from their own regions, that would make their terms and conditions of representation a matter of provincial authority, I am not suggesting that there should be different term limits just that the provinces should be the one to make that determination not the federal government.

So PEI has as much influence on matters as Ontario! A 40 to 1 dissenfranchisement would be a hard sell don't ya think?

Certainly, yet in 1867 when we started this gong show there were 12 Senators from New Brunswick, 12 from Nova Scotia and 24 from each of Quebec and Ontario. It was designed to represent by divisions, the Maritimes, and Upper and Lower Canada. Both New Brunswick and Nova Scotoa lost seat when the nation expanded, yet the lived with the losses. It was a reasonable solution. We need a reasonable update to the system.

'Interesting. But define social programs please.

Health care, education, workers compensation, pensions. These things have national standards yet are already provincial responsibility, so why not move them to the proper forum.

Why?! How owuld this be beneficial to the military and, more importantly, to our national security?

The Governor General is the head of the Armed Forces. The Governor General should also be the head of the Senate, the summation of power and authority of the Upper House.

And ye shall devise a military platapus that the world will envy.

I would actually build three aircraft carriers fleets, one designed for each ocean. All citizens coming of age should be afforded the opportunity to serve their country and expand their education through government paid for post secondary learning.

Somehow I doubt that provincial premiers would want to participate in this erosion of their present power.

Enhancement, not erosion.

Some measure of Senate reform is possible without changing the Constitution. But if the Senate absolutely needs changes, wouldn't be better to put everything on the table in order to get it right?

Bad political move, cause too much grief. Yet a government with a majority can institute small changes that do not require constitutional modifications.

The PM and Cabinet already get such counsel from the civil service. It's just too bad PMs and Cabinet ministers have a strong tendancy to ignore the wise counsel of the public's servants.

Getting expert advice from a bureaucrat seems like an oxymoron to me.

But thank you Jerry. I truly appreciate your attempt to forge a cogent plan for Senate reform. Maybe if more people shared their thoughts in this manner they might come to convince me that their plan just might work.

My intent is good, so is the intent of a great many others, yet that cannot be said for all of those folks in government.