Topaz Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 The Tories are ready to pass the bill to reform the senate being elected, rather than appointed. The elected senate were to serve for 8 years but that could change to 10-12 years. The big question is when the election take place who pays for them, the Feds, the provinces or the municipalities? Will this go through if the provinces don't want it? How will candidates be selected? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservative-bill-to-set-term-limits-allow-elections-for-senators/article2039317/ Quote
Michael Hardner Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 And none of this is binding to future PMs either, so what is it worth ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
g_bambino Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) And none of this is binding to future PMs either, so what is it worth ? Nothing. The bill dealing with elections changes not a single thing; it's a bit of a sham, along the lines of the "fixed election date" amendment to the Elections Act. It's not that I want an elected Senate or rigidly fixed parliamentary terms; but, why waste time with these pretentious statutes? [c/e] Edited May 30, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
Keepitsimple Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) We could argue about the Senate for another 50 years - and do nothing - which is likely what would happen. Or we can at least take SOME steps that would take most of the patronage and some of the partisanship out of appointments and permit a "refreshing" of Senators through term limits. Argue, carp, and do nothing....or start taking some steps? Edited May 30, 2011 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Remiel Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) One new bill will impose term limits on all senators, including those already in the chamber; the other will allow provinces to hold elections for senators whenever seats become available. That certainly makes it sound as if it is the provinces that will be responsible for paying for these elections. Talk about passing the buck... All it takes is one person to launch a Supreme Court challenge and the first law would be toast anyway. There is no way they would be able to hold up the term limit provision. It is clearly at odds with what the Constitution permits Senators. Edited May 30, 2011 by Remiel Quote
Remiel Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 We could argue about the Senate for another 50 years - and do nothing - which is likely what would happen. Or we can at least take SOME steps that would take most of the patronage and some of the partisanship out of appointments and permit a "refreshing" of Senators through term limits. Argue, carp, and do nothing....or start taking some steps? Refresh what? You know the average term of a Senator is only twelve years anyway, right? Not a great leap from the eight the "law" is proposing. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 There is no way they would be able to hold up the term limit provision. It is clearly at odds with what the Constitution permits Senators. The article doesn't say whether or not the bill reducing senators' term limit will be a constitutional amendment. Quote
Remiel Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 The article doesn't say whether or not the bill reducing senators' term limit will be a constitutional amendment. I am sure it will not be an amendment, and that is exactly why it is useless. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) I am sure it will not be an amendment, and that is exactly why it is useless. I don't know whether it will be or won't be. It could be, though; as far as I can tell, such a thing as the limit on how long senators may serve can be amended with only the agreement of each of the three parts of the federal parliament. [c/e] Edited May 30, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 The article doesn't say whether or not the bill reducing senators' term limit will be a constitutional amendment. It infers it isn't a constitutional amendment. Read the every end of article. This is not a new idea. The term limits and advisory elections to the Senate is similar to Bill C-19 and C-20 that came up a few years ago. The CPC are trying to get around the constitutionality of this Senate reform by not making Senators DIRECTLY elected. Citizens in provinces will be able to vote for the Senator(s) they want the PM to appoint to the Senate. The PM will then, presumably, use these election results to appoint any senatorial openings. But as the article states, the PM is not legally bound to use these election results in choosing who to appoint to the Senate. It can be ignored at whim, basically. A very good analysis article by Jack Stilborn on Senate reform: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb0742-e.htm#bbillc20 Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
g_bambino Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 The CPC are trying to get around the constitutionality of this Senate reform by not making Senators DIRECTLY elected. Citizens in provinces will be able to vote for the Senator(s) they want the PM to appoint to the Senate. The PM will then, presumably, use these election results to appoint any senatorial openings. I was speaking specifically about the bill affecting term limits. It might be telling that this reform is split into two bills. Quote
Topaz Posted May 30, 2011 Author Report Posted May 30, 2011 It seems like Harper wants to have the same government as in the US. They elect congress and the senate, more harmonizing for future plan, I guess. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 It seems like Harper wants to have the same government as in the US. They elect congress and the senate, more harmonizing for future plan, I guess. Australia has an elected senate. Many republics that use a variation of the Westminster system have elected or partly elected upper chambers. Must you always be so melodramatic? Quote
TimG Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 And none of this is binding to future PMs either, so what is it worth?It is a harmless way to payoff his supporters who are dismayed over his swing to the center. Quote
Saipan Posted May 31, 2011 Report Posted May 31, 2011 And none of this is binding to future PMs either, so what is it worth ? As much as our "constitution". Quote
Tilter Posted May 31, 2011 Report Posted May 31, 2011 It is a harmless way to payoff his supporters who are dismayed over his swing to the center. If the Senate is included in federal elections there is no reason for extra costs or the abuse such as the guy who lived in Mexico & used expense money to travel back $& forth-- for personal business, never entering the senate doors for years on end. Boot the suckers out, boot the Queen out, forget Governor gens, Lt Govs & run our country without a Royal shafting overlook. The convenience of having someone to launch ships, cutting bridge ribbons & spending 25 million bux a year is too costly. I'll bet there are a lot of people would do it for 100 G & expenses--- Hey, I'd do it for 75 G & expenses Quote
Saipan Posted May 31, 2011 Report Posted May 31, 2011 I can cut ribbon for mere five hundred bucks. Make it four. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 31, 2011 Report Posted May 31, 2011 Boot the suckers out, boot the Queen out, forget Governor gens, Lt Govs & run our country without a Royal shafting overlook. So you prefer dictatorship. Well, there's plenty of countries for you to move to where you'd find what you're looking for. Quote
Shwa Posted May 31, 2011 Report Posted May 31, 2011 The convenience of having someone to launch ships, cutting bridge ribbons & spending 25 million bux a year is too costly. Meh. For the cost of an extra-large at Timmies each, we get to keep the Queen. God Save Our Double-Double. I'll bet there are a lot of people would do it for 100 G & expenses--- Hey, I'd do it for 75 G & expenses Yeah but, no one would care. And no advertisers would buy sponsorships to the event nor ads on TV when such events get airtime. But tell you what - why not write a nice note to your MP offering your services for whatever salary you think is reasonable and let us all know what reply you get, if any. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted May 31, 2011 Report Posted May 31, 2011 And none of this is binding to future PMs either, so what is it worth ? If a province "elected" a Senator and the PM did not appoint them, how many votes do you think that PM would get from that Province in the next election? It's non-binding but circumvent it at your own peril. Quote Back to Basics
g_bambino Posted May 31, 2011 Report Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) If a province "elected" a Senator and the PM did not appoint them, how many votes do you think that PM would get from that Province in the next election? It's non-binding but circumvent it at your own peril. That's already the case now. This legislation changes nothing. [sp] Edited May 31, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
Keepitsimple Posted May 31, 2011 Report Posted May 31, 2011 That's already the case now. This legilation changes nothing. How so? Alberta is the only province that has elected a Senatorial candidate. Quote Back to Basics
g_bambino Posted May 31, 2011 Report Posted May 31, 2011 How so? Alberta is the only province that has elected a Senatorial candidate. Yes... And it may well be the only one that continues to do so after this Senate elections bill is passed (assuming it is). Quote
August1991 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Posted May 31, 2011 Nothing. The bill dealing with elections changes not a single thing; it's a bit of a sham, along the lines of the "fixed election date" amendment to the Elections Act. It's not that I want an elected Senate or rigidly fixed parliamentary terms; but, why waste time with these pretentious statutes?Bambino, you know otherwise.Trudeau, without recourse to a constitutional amendment, reduced a Senate term from life to a forced retirement at age 75. Harper's change to a term of 8 years (or 10 or 12) is similar. As to the PM appointing elected Senators, I think Harper is hoping to establish a precedent that may become part of the constitution in the future. As noted above, let a future PM refuse to name an elected senator and suffer the consequences. It was precisely this kind of situation that lead to the US 17th Amendment. Quebec has said that it may contest Harper's senate reform to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. On what basis, I don't know. Quote
KeyStone Posted May 31, 2011 Report Posted May 31, 2011 It doesn't really make a lot of sense to have two houses, that are essentially voted in the same way. In the US, one house represents the population as a whole, and one represents the states equally. In Canada, we have one that represents the population as a whole, but what purpose does the second one serve (Senate), if we don't change the model as to how they are elected. It is still possible to do this in a way that makes sense, but only if the formula for determining how many senators each province/territory gets is significantly changed from the current system. Given that Ontario is already underrepresented in Federal elections, this does not bode well for Ontario. Harper will likely be looking to give a bigger voice to the West, given that is where his base is. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.