Senate Reform - How To Do It Wrong

[ToadBrother]

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/liveblogging-the-launch-of-the-senate-term-limits-bill.html

I'm utterly baffled by it. The Senate, since Confederation, has been explicitly constituted as giving the Provinces a voice in the Federal Parliament, so somebody with incredible powers of constitutional knowledge will have to explain to me how the Federal Parliament alone can decide to change Senator terms, when the length of a Senator's term is explicitly stated in the Constitution. This clearly requires the approval of the provinces, but it looks like the Tories, Liberals and NDP seem very keen not to properly ask the Provinces, and not to make this a proper constitutional amendment. All this will take is, for instance, Quebec to say "Non!" and the legislation will fall flat on its face. And they don't even have to do it today. They could do it five years from now.

Are these guys all idiots? Why would you make a reform that hangs by such a tenuous string as hoping everyone looks the other way?

Or in the immortal words of Dr. Leonard McCoy: "How can you get a permit to do a damned illegal thing?"

Edited March 29, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Dave_ON]

Really this isn't surprising and it's just more window dressing legislation from the CPC much like their "fixed election dates". It's not really worth the paper it's written on and because it countermans the constitution can/will be ignored or stricken down at any time. Really this is only so that Mr. Harper can say he's kept yet another one of his election promises. What baffles me is that the LPC is going along with it, what possible benefit do they get out of it?

[Smallc]

Seems that the Liberals are not willing to make a deal without the provinces after all.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/29/politics-senate-reform.html

[Dave_ON]

Seems that the Liberals are not willing to make a deal without the provinces after all.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/29/politics-senate-reform.html

Hmm it's quotes like this that stick in my craw when it comes to the CPC

Stephen Fletcher, minister of state for democratic reform, says Canadians are "rightly questioning" how senators with "no democratic mandate" can sit for "up to 45 years."

No democratic mandate? Come on they are appointed by elected members, because they are not elected directly does not make them undemocratic. I really hate when the CPC employers misnomers to make their point; shades of the opposition "coup d’états." It appears Stephen Fletcher is the minister of overstated political hyperbole.

[Smallc]

It appears Stephen Fletcher is the minister of overstated political hyperbole.

Well, in my view, he's the minister of nothing with a useless portfolio. He's in cabinet because Manitoba was being rewarded for having elected more Conservatives.

[g_bambino]

because they are not elected directly does not make them undemocratic.

The entire ministry is appointed. But, then, that might still be news to Harper.

"From the moment our Conservative government was elected"... say Tory talking points...

Conservative bill puts eight-year cap on Senate terms

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Sounds like a lot of effort to achieve little benefit to the citizens. Why not simply appoint Senators that are at least 70 years old! They can only serve until they are 75 under current law. Why not simply ed run the system through a procedure instead of legislating their way into a mine field. Idiots!

[ToadBrother]

Sounds like a lot of effort to achieve little benefit to the citizens. Why not simply appoint Senators that are at least 70 years old! They can only serve until they are 75 under current law. Why not simply ed run the system through a procedure instead of legislating their way into a mine field. Idiots!

The whole thing doesn't make any sense to me. It's as if Harper has decided the best way to amend the Constitution is to say "F--- the Constitution!" What other reason is there for not running this by the Supreme Court? Of course, that answer is obvious, the Supreme Court is going to point out how the BNA Act defines the terms of Senators, the Constitution Act, 1982 defines how you go about altering the arrangement as set out in the BNA Act, and that amendment requires seven provinces making up more than 50% of the population giving the go-ahead.

The whole thing is like the prorogation legislation the opposition parties have been mulling over. You're dealing with constitutional arrangements here, but Parliament is occupied by a pack of cowards. I mean, you can say a lot of bad things about Mulroney, but at least he was willing to try to alter the Constitution in the right way, rather than these pathetic pseudo-changes that would be wiped out by a single court challenge.

Besides, why has the Senate suddenly become so damned important? Harper had little problem a few months ago playing by the rules set out in the BNA Act, so why suddenly is he looking at this? I mean, term limits is probably the least important aspect of democratization of the Senate.

[Wilber]

The entire ministry is appointed. But, then, that might still be news to Harper.

With very few exceptions it is appointed from elected members.

[Smallc]

With very few exceptions it is appointed from elected members.

Nobody elected them to be ministers.

[Wilber]

Nobody elected them to be ministers.

Cabinet is made up of members of Parliament. Would you rather have the American system where they are hired by the administration outside of Congress? MP's are elected members of Parliament. Senators are not. How do you form a cabinet when you don't know who will form the government until after the election? How then, would you elect that cabinet after the fact? Would all parties run candidates for each cabinet post, including Prime Minister?

[Smallc]

Cabinet is made up of members of Parliament. Would you rather have the American system where they are hired by the administration outside of Congress?

Well, they could be from somewhere else. There's nothing limiting them to being members of parliament. Even the Prime Minister doesn't have to sit in parliament, he simply has to command their confidence. I don't see unconstitutional term limits as a means to what you want anyway.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Smallc

[punked]

Cabinet is made up of members of Parliament. Would you rather have the American system where they are hired by the administration outside of Congress? MP's are elected members of Parliament. Senators are not. How do you form a cabinet when you don't know who will form the government until after the election? How then, would you elect that cabinet after the fact? Would all parties run candidates for each cabinet post, including Prime Minister?

You can actually under Canadian law have members of the Senate in the cabinet Michael Fortier is a great example who was minister of public works in the 2006 Harper Cabinet. Know how we fix this problem though? Get rid of the Senate like the provinces have done.

[Wilber]

Well, they could be from somewhere else. There's nothing limiting them to being members of parliament. Even the Prime Minister doesn't have to sit in parliament, he simply has to command their confidence. I don't see unconstitutional term limits as a means to what you want anyway.

Neither do I but it's a start. I think a house based on privilege is an insult to democracy.

[Wilber]

You can actually under Canadian law have members of the Senate in the cabinet Michael Fortier is a great example who was minister of public works in the 2006 Harper Cabinet. Know how we fix this problem though? Get rid of the Senate like the provinces have done.

Prime ministers and cabinet ministers used to come from the House of Lords in the UK as well. Evidently, their system has been able to evolve, it seems ours is incapable.

[Smallc]

Neither do I but it's a start. I think a house based on privilege is an insult to democracy.

The house isn't based on privilege, and unconstitutional changes aren't a start to anything. All this allows is for a Prime Minister to completely stack the Senate after 8 years in power.

[Smallc]

Prime ministers and cabinet ministers used to come from the House of Lords in the UK as well. Evidently, their system has been able to evolve, it seems ours is incapable.

Ours has already evolved to the same point as theirs. Some day we'll probably have an elected Senate, but we won't get there by passing unconstitutional bills.

[punked]

The house isn't based on privilege, and unconstitutional changes aren't a start to anything. All this allows is for a Prime Minister to completely stack the Senate after 8 years in power.

The PM should sack the Senate the first day in power. Get rid of them all. Force MPs to stand up for their votes and their positions.

[Wilber]

The house isn't based on privilege, and unconstitutional changes aren't a start to anything. All this allows is for a Prime Minister to completely stack the Senate after 8 years in power.

Of course it's based on privilege, they are political appointees. Stacking the Senate by the party which holds power longest is a time honoured tradition in this country. That is why the Senate is a joke and an insult.

[Wilber]

Ours has already evolved to the same point as theirs. Some day we'll probably have an elected Senate, but we won't get there by passing unconstitutional bills.

I doubt it. In our constitutional amending formula we have built a box from which there is no escape.

[Smallc]

I doubt it. In our constitutional amending formula we have built a box from which there is no escape.

We built it so that things were very difficult to change. You don't just change a country's governing system willy nilly. And political appointments are different than privilege.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Smallc

[Moonlight Graham]

Cabinet is made up of members of Parliament.

Usually at least one senator sits in the cabinet. These senators are not elected.

[Wilber]

We built it so that things were very difficult to change. You don't just change a country's governing system willy nilly. And political appointments are different than privilege.

We built it so things will be impossible to change. We just didn't know it. Not all political appointments are based on privilege, the Senate is. That is why stacking it is accepted behaviour, only decried by those not in a position to do the stacking, then embraced when they finally are.

[punked]

Usually at least one senator sits in the cabinet. These senators are not elected.

Well one Senator has to sit in the Cabinet because the leader of the Senate is a Cabinet post. Although plenty of times other Senators sit in the Cabinet as well.

[Wilber]

Usually at least one senator sits in the cabinet. These senators are not elected.

Last I heard, the Senate was part of Parliament. The unelected part.