Senate holding up Bill S-4 re: term limits

[normanchateau]

LOL not a bad idea. I don't get why people would want to see the same old patronage system carry on, at the very least the terms should be limited. Not hard to figure though why the Senate itself will shelve the bill, have to protect themselves - right! The Liberals are proposing amendments so that senators would be limited to serving one non-renewable 15-year term and would still have to retire at age 75. 15 years is still too long.

It is? Why?

Because it wasn't proposed by the Conservatives.

[scribblet]

LOL not a bad idea. I don't get why people would want to see the same old patronage system carry on, at the very least the terms should be limited. Not hard to figure though why the Senate itself will shelve the bill, have to protect themselves - right! The Liberals are proposing amendments so that senators would be limited to serving one non-renewable 15-year term and would still have to retire at age 75. 15 years is still too long.

It is? Why?

It gives legitimacy with no accountability for 15 years - too long for that.

[Pat Coghlan]

I favour bricking up the senate, with the senators inside.

R U a "Dark Shadows" fan?

Funniest post I've seen on this site :-)

[normanchateau]

Almost as bad as Harper appointing his unelected friend, party fundraiser and former campaign manager to the Senate.

[jdobbin]

It gives legitimacy with no accountability for 15 years - too long for that.

How so? Do you think the more frequent the elections, the more accountable? I guess that makes the U.S. Reps the most accountable political office in the world.

[Argus]

I never spoke of electing individuals; electing your MP to the House is not the same thing as voting on reform of the House.

Though I do often wonder how much people who cast their vote on election day know about the person and/or the party they're voting for.

So you favour an elected Senate?

I favour bricking up the senate, with the senators inside.

LOL not a bad idea. I don't get why people would want to see the same old patronage system carry on, at the very least the terms should be limited. Not hard to figure though why the Senate itself will shelve the bill, have to protect themselves - right! The Liberals are proposing amendments so that senators would be limited to serving one non-renewable 15-year term and would still have to retire at age 75. 15 years is still too long.

The idea of a senior chamber for "sober second thought" is not a bad one. It went astray in that instead of great Canadians of noted accomplishment, achievement and wisdom it became a dumping ground for party hacks of little accomplishment or achievement, few of whom cared nearly as much for Canada as they did for themselves. Perhaps the Senate could be reformed to ban the appointment of anyone who was ever an active member of a political party without the consent of the official opposition. Then we might get some kind of use for the place.

[scribblet]

It gives legitimacy with no accountability for 15 years - too long for that.

How so? Do you think the more frequent the elections, the more accountable? I guess that makes the U.S. Reps the most accountable political office in the world.

We are talking about appointments lasting for 15 years, not elections every 4 years where there would be some accountability. If we can't elect them, then their terms should at least be limited to 8 years, I think appointments every four years would be a bit unstabilizing. Maybe, maybe not.

There's no chance of abolishing the Senate, and besides it is supposed to be the chamber of sober second thought, if elected at least it might give them pause for more sober thought.

[jdobbin]

We are talking about appointments lasting for 15 years, not elections every 4 years where there would be some accountability. If we can't elect them, then their terms should at least be limited to 8 years, I think appointments every four years would be a bit unstabilizing. Maybe, maybe not.

There's no chance of abolishing the Senate, and besides it is supposed to be the chamber of sober second thought, if elected at least it might give them pause for more sober thought.

You see, if you are wondering if 8 years versus four years is better. This is the type of discussion that is not happening over the issue.

I personally think that any changes that the House of Commons makes to the Senate probably wouldn't withstand a challenge from the Supreme Court.

The debate on accountability, elections and effectiveness versus abolishing it can be thoroughly discussed.

If they are going to do it at all, open it up to a constitutional debate.

[geoffrey]

You see, if you are wondering if 8 years versus four years is better. This is the type of discussion that is not happening over the issue.

I personally think that any changes that the House of Commons makes to the Senate probably wouldn't withstand a challenge from the Supreme Court.

The debate on accountability, elections and effectiveness versus abolishing it can be thoroughly discussed.

If they are going to do it at all, open it up to a constitutional debate.

The senate has no consitutional mandate to stall or quash legislation based on policy. If they believe it won't pass the constitutional test, the only way to find out is to pass the law and have it challenged (which it would be).

The senate has no authority to ask opinions of the Supreme Court, that power is soley the discretion of cabinet.

There will be a constitutional debate on this for sure if the senate continues to destroy and erode the power of the democratically elected house of commons. The bill was passed by people representing the majority of Canadians. Let's move on.

[hiti]

The senate HAS to vote down this bill and send it to the Supremes because 4 provinces with more than 50% of the population are against his bill.

It is a constitutional matter and as such Steve has no business trying to force the Senate to pass an unconstitutional bill that will effect provinces and without any consultation by the provinces.

Heil Steve needs to get a grip. He is not allowed to do as he pleases.

Quote:

The Senate is a group of 104 people who are appointed until age 75 by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Senators represent regions of Canada and are intended to be a careful second look at anything the House of Commons does. The Senate's power is theoretically equal to the Commons except on decisions about money. It can delay bills from the Commons and change them if it desires. Usually the Senate because it is not elected does not try to go completely against the will of the Commons which is elected.

Canada has another branch of government which is known as the judicial branch. This branch is the court system and its purpose is to make sure everyone, people and governments, obey the laws of Canada. The highest court in Canada is the Supreme Court, and its job is to make sure that all laws that are passed do not violate the Constitution of Canada.

http://tinyurl.com/2rbjnx

The Senate has every right to consult the Supreme Court. It is Steve who is wrong.

[geoffrey]

The senate HAS to vote down this bill and send it to the Supremes because 4 provinces with more than 50% of the population are against his bill.

Since when did the senate get that authority. The only way the Courts will look at this without Harper asking them to is if it's passed. That's the bottom line.

It is a constitutional matter and as such Steve has no business trying to force the Senate to pass an unconstitutional bill that will effect provinces and without any consultation by the provinces.

Most experts don't think it's unconstitutional, and it's already been passed by the will of the house.

Heil Steve needs to get a grip. He is not allowed to do as he pleases.

Should the House of Common's be prevented from expressing the will of the majority by a bunch of appointed party hacks?

The Senate has every right to consult the Supreme Court. It is Steve who is wrong.

Sure. By passing the bill it will almost surely go before the court. The senate has no ability to consult the Court. It's not part of our system.

The senate cannot vote down a bill on a matter of policy. If they do, you'll being seeing a much larger constitutional crisis then we've seen in this country ever before.

But leave it up to Liberal senators. They tried the same stunt on Mulroney and were left with egg on their faces. Same will happen here, give it time.

[jdobbin]

The senate has no consitutional mandate to stall or quash legislation based on policy. If they believe it won't pass the constitutional test, the only way to find out is to pass the law and have it challenged (which it would be).

The senate has no authority to ask opinions of the Supreme Court, that power is soley the discretion of cabinet.

There will be a constitutional debate on this for sure if the senate continues to destroy and erode the power of the democratically elected house of commons. The bill was passed by people representing the majority of Canadians. Let's move on.

The Senate can and does have the right to go the Supreme Court according to many constitutional and legal experts.

[Michael Bluth]

The Senate can and does have the right to go the Supreme Court according to many constitutional and legal experts.

Which constitutional and legal experts are those?

[g_bambino]

It is a constitutional matter and as such Steve has no business trying to force the Senate to pass an unconstitutional bill that will effect provinces and without any consultation by the provinces.

hate to say it, but Hiti may be right here. Though this bill doesn't affect the number of seats each region has in the Senate, it does alter the Constitution Act 1867, and touches on the provinces regarding how their regions will be senatorially represented.

Trudeau was directed by the Supreme Court to seek the agreement of the provinces on the patriation of the Constitution in '82. I don't see how Harper should not be subject to the same direction here; the provinces are co-sovereign entities, not subordinates to Ottawa. I thought Harper, of all people, knew that.

[jdobbin]

hate to say it, but Hiti may be right here. Though this bill doesn't affect the number of seats each region has in the Senate, it does alter the Constitution Act 1867, and touches on the provinces regarding how their regions will be senatorially represented.

Trudeau was directed by the Supreme Court to seek the agreement of the provinces on the patriation of the Constitution in '82. I don't see how Harper should not be subject to the same direction here; the provinces are co-sovereign entities, not subordinates to Ottawa. I thought Harper, of all people, knew that.

In the news earlier this week...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columni...ea8478f3b46&p=2

The current situation is not intractable. Patrick Monahan, dean of the Osgoode Hall School of Law, said the senators are within their legal rights to call for the government to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. He suggested that if Mr. Harper really wants the bill passed, he should pass the question on to the court and proceed with the bill's passage through the House of Commons.

[geoffrey]

I'm starting to take the abolish the senate position. It's becoming a major hinderance to democracy. The elected will of the people is being ignored.

[jdobbin]

I'm starting to take the abolish the senate position. It's becoming a major hinderance to democracy. The elected will of the people is being ignored.

I think that the Reform party roots to the new Conservative party make some in the party now believe that fixing the Senate with fix federalism. The fix might be to simply abolish the Senate like smart provinces did ages ago.

Improving House of Commons representation should be the goal, not creating two national legislative bodies at war with each other.

[g_bambino]

I'm starting to take the abolish the senate position. It's becoming a major hinderance to democracy. The elected will of the people is being ignored.

The fact that it's being looked at with such scrutiny hardly supports the claim that the "will of the people" is being ignored. This is a pretty major shift in our 140 year old parliamentary system, which itself is based on one 1000 years older. I don't think things like this should be rammed through in some sort of tyranny of the majority situation.

Too many changes too quickly will cause instability.

[geoffrey]

The fact that it's being looked at with such scrutiny hardly supports the claim that the "will of the people" is being ignored. This is a pretty major shift in our 140 year old parliamentary system, which itself is based on one 1000 years older. I don't think things like this should be rammed through in some sort of tyranny of the majority situation.

Too many changes too quickly will cause instability.

Don't be ridiculous. It's being intentionally held up. The senate has no mandate to do so. If the House of Common decides something needs to be law, it should become that. Regardless of what the senate thinks.

If they don't like it, allow the bill to be passed and have a premier appeal for leave to a SCC. Only the cabinet can refer legislation to the SCC and it's not going to happen.

[Michael Bluth]

Don't be ridiculous. It's being intentionally held up. The senate has no mandate to do so. If the House of Common decides something needs to be law, it should become that. Regardless of what the senate thinks.

If they don't like it, allow the bill to be passed and have a premier appeal for leave to a SCC. Only the cabinet can refer legislation to the SCC and it's not going to happen.

The Senate is such a joke, and cases like this are exactly why we need reform.

The country is better of with a reformed, effective senate than with none at all.

[jdobbin]

Don't be ridiculous. It's being intentionally held up. The senate has no mandate to do so. If the House of Common decides something needs to be law, it should become that. Regardless of what the senate thinks.

If they don't like it, allow the bill to be passed and have a premier appeal for leave to a SCC. Only the cabinet can refer legislation to the SCC and it's not going to happen.

The Dean of Osgoode Hall law and a constitutional expert is among several in recent days who have said that the Senate can and does have the authority to refer this to the Supreme Court for an opinion.

[Michael Bluth]

Seems like somebody is always posting after me.

Could the false accuser of stalking be the real stalker?

You provided information on a quote from the dean of Wasgoode. Any other of these "several" constitutional experts?

[g_bambino]

The fact that it's being looked at with such scrutiny hardly supports the claim that the "will of the people" is being ignored. This is a pretty major shift in our 140 year old parliamentary system, which itself is based on one 1000 years older. I don't think things like this should be rammed through in some sort of tyranny of the majority situation.

Too many changes too quickly will cause instability.

Don't be ridiculous. It's being intentionally held up. The senate has no mandate to do so. If the House of Common decides something needs to be law, it should become that. Regardless of what the senate thinks.

If they don't like it, allow the bill to be passed and have a premier appeal for leave to a SCC. Only the cabinet can refer legislation to the SCC and it's not going to happen.

It is exactly the Senate's mandate to hold up bills; "hose of sober second thought," and all that.

The Senate can initiate any bills except bills providing for the expenditure of public money or imposing taxes. It can amend or reject any bill whatsoever. It can reject any bill as often as it sees fit. No bill can become law unless it has been passed by the Senate... The Senate’s main work is done in its committees, where it goes over bills clause by clause and hears evidence, often voluminous, from groups and individuals who would be affected by the particular bill under review. This committee work is especially effective because the Senate has many members with specialized knowledge and long years of legal, business or administrative experience.

Eugene Forsey - How Canadians Govern Themselves

The House of Commons is not omnipotent or beyond reproach. It's also against the GG's mandate to pass a bill that is glaringly unconstitutional. In our constitutional structure it's these bodies are there precicely to put a halt to unlawful actions of the Cabinet, not the SCC.

[Michael Bluth]

The House of Commons is not omnipotent or beyond reproach. It's also against the GG's mandate to pass a bill that is glaringly unconstitutional. In our constitutional structure it's these bodies are there precicely to put a halt to unlawful actions of the Cabinet, not the SCC.

Judging the constitutionality of an Act of Parliament is the job of the Supreme Court of Canada.

[geoffrey]

Judging the constitutionality of an Act of Parliament is the job of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Bingo. And once it's passed. The senate has absolutely no mandate to vote something down or hold something up just because they don't like the policy.

I don't like the policy. I think Harper's plan is a step backwards, a complete joke really. But I think the unelected senate needs to let the will of the people rule the day and let the SCC deal with the aftermath.