Senate holding up Bill S-4 re: term limits

[Pat Coghlan]

Apparently this bill, which is 9 lines in length and limits senators to 8 years in office, has been held up in the Liberal-dominated senate for over a year.

Wonder why eh? Perhaps they want the government to shorten it to something like 2 lines etc.

[rover1]

Yawn....

[Argus]

Apparently this bill, which is 9 lines in length and limits senators to 8 years in office, has been held up in the Liberal-dominated senate for over a year.

Wonder why eh? Perhaps they want the government to shorten it to something like 2 lines etc.

You're talking about a bunch of Liberal party bagmen and failed candidates whose primary loyalty has always been to their meal tickets. Of course they'll hold up any such thing. No Liberal ever cared about anything as much as what he can get out of the trough for himself.

[Pat Coghlan]

Apparently this bill, which is 9 lines in length and limits senators to 8 years in office, has been held up in the Liberal-dominated senate for over a year.

Wonder why eh? Perhaps they want the government to shorten it to something like 2 lines etc.

You're talking about a bunch of Liberal party bagmen and failed candidates whose primary loyalty has always been to their meal tickets. Of course they'll hold up any such thing. No Liberal ever cared about anything as much as what he can get out of the trough for himself.

Ain't it the truth?

[scribblet]

unelected, Liberal-dominated Senate continues to block the bill, even though Stéphane Dion is on the record supporting term limits for Senators

Dion’s Take-Your-Pick Term Limits – 6, 8, 10, 12 or 15 years:

"Stéphane Dion says the Liberals will back term limits of 12 to 15 years for senators, bringing the first modest step toward reforming Canada's Senate closer to reality."

(The Whitehorse Daily Star, Feb. 15, 2007.) "I agree that many senators are doing a great job. But I have a lot of sympathy for all Canadians that think that the Senate should be elected. I’m explaining why. For now, it’s not a good decision as long as the distribution of senators by provinces is not equitable. But this being said, we need to come with suggestions to improve the Senate. I support a term. I suggested in my writings six years.

I’m not against eight years."

(Liberal leadership Debate 1: June 10, 2006.) "Dion said Senators should be placed on fixed terms of six to 10 years to increase the chances of younger people being named. Currently, he said, there is an incentive for prime ministers to name Senators in their 60s, otherwise they would be in the chamber for decades."

(Canadian Press, May 29, 2006.)

[jdobbin]

You're talking about a bunch of Liberal party bagmen and failed candidates whose primary loyalty has always been to their meal tickets. Of course they'll hold up any such thing. No Liberal ever cared about anything as much as what he can get out of the trough for himself.

The Senate doesn't need time limits. It needs to be eliminated.

[jdobbin]

Apparently this bill, which is 9 lines in length and limits senators to 8 years in office, has been held up in the Liberal-dominated senate for over a year.

Wonder why eh? Perhaps they want the government to shorten it to something like 2 lines etc.

Perhaps the Liberals and Tories could do a trade off. Liberals approve the 8 years and Tories give Royal Assent to Kyoto. Why are they holding it up when the majority of the House wants it?

[geoffrey]

The Liberals have a good point... a two term PM would appoint the entire Senate.

If you do something, don't do it halfassed. This is a big halfassed peice of legislation that undermines democracy in Canada.

[Guest chilipeppers]

Apparently this bill, which is 9 lines in length and limits senators to 8 years in office, has been held up in the Liberal-dominated senate for over a year.

Wonder why eh? Perhaps they want the government to shorten it to something like 2 lines etc.

Perhaps the Liberals and Tories could do a trade off. Liberals approve the 8 years and Tories give Royal Assent to Kyoto. Why are they holding it up when the majority of the House wants it?

Funny - not. The 'house' only wants it because the tories don't - nothing more than partisan politics, the same as this board.

[jdobbin]

Funny - not. The 'house' only wants it because the tories don't - nothing more than partisan politics, the same as this board.

They probably shouldn't expect to get their bill before the end of the session then. Trade-offs are part of being in a minority.

[Michael Bluth]

They probably shouldn't expect to get their bill before the end of the session then. Trade-offs are part of being in a minority.

Kinda like the tradeoff the Liberals made in supporting the Afghanistan mission into 2009?

[Who's Doing What?]

They probably shouldn't expect to get their bill before the end of the session then. Trade-offs are part of being in a minority.

Kinda like the tradeoff the Liberals made in supporting the Afghanistan mission into 2009?

Kinda like the tradeoff the Cons made in pretending to give a rats @ss about the environment?

[scribblet]

"The fact is ... Mr. Dion said in February that he supported the Senate tenure bill. This is June and we are still waiting.''

[Michael Bluth]

"The fact is ... Mr. Dion said in February that he supported the Senate tenure bill. This is June and we are still waiting.''

Does this mean that Dion doesn't have control over his party? Or was he lying when he said he supported the bill?

[Argus]

Apparently this bill, which is 9 lines in length and limits senators to 8 years in office, has been held up in the Liberal-dominated senate for over a year.

Wonder why eh? Perhaps they want the government to shorten it to something like 2 lines etc.

Perhaps the Liberals and Tories could do a trade off. Liberals approve the 8 years and Tories give Royal Assent to Kyoto. Why are they holding it up when the majority of the House wants it?

The Liberals don't want Kyoto. That is patently obvious. A few ex-politicos have already stated they never had any intention of meeting the Kyoto goals, and certainly, the Liberal government never made any efforts in that regard. I expect, if the Liberals get back in, a few wishy-washy programs not much different than what the Tories have put up, and then an end to any attention towards Kyoto. The "Environmental groups" which the Liberals used to pay off with regular cheques - and which responded by not bothering to make any noises on Kyoto - will be paid off again and this will drop from the news.

[Michael Bluth]

The Liberals have a good point... a two term PM would appoint the entire Senate.

If you do something, don't do it halfassed. This is a big halfassed peice of legislation that undermines democracy in Canada.

A two term PM probably wouldn't be able to appoint the entire Senate.

Two full, elected terms will be exactly eight years. The Senators terms will be eight years. There is usually a bit of an overlap from appointment, to actually taking office yada yada.

Besides there are 24 Senators who are set to retire in 2020 or later.

The provisions of S-4 allow for currently sitting Senators to serve until they are 75. Bert Brown will be limited to an eight year term, not sure how old he is though...

[jdobbin]

The Liberals don't want Kyoto. That is patently obvious. A few ex-politicos have already stated they never had any intention of meeting the Kyoto goals, and certainly, the Liberal government never made any efforts in that regard. I expect, if the Liberals get back in, a few wishy-washy programs not much different than what the Tories have put up, and then an end to any attention towards Kyoto. The "Environmental groups" which the Liberals used to pay off with regular cheques - and which responded by not bothering to make any noises on Kyoto - will be paid off again and this will drop from the news.

I'm not sure that the Tories really want Senate reform. It sounds well and good but is just as likely to tie up the House of Commons. Many of the people elected to that body if it ever came to be would likely not owe a thing to either the Liberals or Tories and would probably believe their legislative body to be more legitimate than the House of Commons.

[Michael Bluth]

I'm not sure that the Tories really want Senate reform. It sounds well and good but is just as likely to tie up the House of Commons. Many of the people elected to that body if it ever came to be would likely not owe a thing to either the Liberals or Tories and would probably believe their legislative body to be more legitimate than the House of Commons.

Anything to backup that assertion?

The Conservatives have done more to reform the body than any Government in the past 50 years.

Fixed terms in the Senate is one piece of a reform package.

[scribblet]

I'm not sure that the Tories really want Senate reform. It sounds well and good but is just as likely to tie up the House of Commons. Many of the people elected to that body if it ever came to be would likely not owe a thing to either the Liberals or Tories and would probably believe their legislative body to be more legitimate than the House of Commons.

I'm sure they do - but if you have something to back that up please put it forward.

[jdobbin]

I'm sure they do - but if you have something to back that up please put it forward.

I think if they really wanted it, they would compromise in Parliament. Since they aren't, I don't think they are interested.

They are also not speaking to the provinces. The premiers wanted to raise the subject at this first ministers meeting. Harper cancelled that.

[Michael Bluth]

I think if they really wanted it, they would compromise in Parliament. Since they aren't, I don't think they are interested.

They are also not speaking to the provinces. The premiers wanted to raise the subject at this first ministers meeting. Harper cancelled that.

So your premise isn't that they don't want Senate reform.

It's "look how bad the Government is".

Surprise, surprise!

[Topaz]

Tell me guys , have any of you actually watched the committee talk about this topic. The senate may have more Libs than others, but I have watch the Conservative senators say they don't like this idea either. So don't put All the blame on just one party. Do you really think a Con senator wants to lose their job?? I heard one of the Con woman say, she thinks 8 years is not enough time for a new senator and the time should be 12-15 instead of eight.

[Michael Bluth]

Do you really think a Con senator wants to lose their job??

All current Senator's will be allowed to serve until they are 75 if they want.

Nobody will be losing their jobs...

[geoffrey]

A two term PM probably wouldn't be able to appoint the entire Senate.

Sure, if the retirements were in year 1 and 5 or in 2 and 6 or 3 and 7... it's all quite easy. Lester B could have appointed the entire senate Liberal without ever winning a majority.

I was assuming this would be US style, half go up for election kind of dealio. Could be wrong. Even so, I'd say it's theoretically possible enough to somewhat concern me.

[Michael Bluth]

Sure, if the retirements were in year 1 and 5 or in 2 and 6 or 3 and 7... it's all quite easy. Lester B could have appointed the entire senate Liberal without ever winning a majority.

I was assuming this would be US style, half go up for election kind of dealio. Could be wrong. Even so, I'd say it's theoretically possible enough to somewhat concern me.

Why assume at all?

If the term limit comes in with no other changes there will be a regular flow of resignations and appointments. AFter most of the hacks serve out until 75 that is.

If it's an election style dealio then the new Senators have been elected and it doesn't matter who the PM was a the time.