Senate holding up Bill S-4 re: term limits

[fellowtraveller]

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.

Harper has already appointed a Senator off the list elected by the provinces, and wants to continue with this- so his 'appointments' will be democratically defined. And of course existing appoiuntments will be grandfathered so it will take decades - not two terms- to really change the nature of the place.

I reckon the Tories have missed the boat on Kyoto. They should have done exactly what the Liberals did: sign it in full and complete knowledge that the targets were completely impossible. The LIberals had no plan and no hope of meeting the targets, knew it, lied about it and their commitment to the environment was and is wholly spurious.

[jdobbin]

Harper has already appointed a Senator off the list elected by the provinces, and wants to continue with this- so his 'appointments' will be democratically defined. And of course existing appoiuntments will be grandfathered so it will take decades - not two terms- to really change the nature of the place.

I reckon the Tories have missed the boat on Kyoto. They should have done exactly what the Liberals did: sign it in full and complete knowledge that the targets were completely impossible. The LIberals had no plan and no hope of meeting the targets, knew it, lied about it and their commitment to the environment was and is wholly spurious.

I don't see Senate reform taking place without constitutional talks. Would elected senators in Nova Scotia have more power than ones from Alberta? You bet. Does Harper have an answer for this entrenched democratic deficit? No.

Do all provinces agree to elections? No. So does the federal government impose elections on provinces that don't agree? How is that democratic? What if a province wants abolition of the Senate?

This is not Senate reform. Its a joke. Where is the actual dialog on the subject?

[Michael Bluth]

This is not Senate reform. Its a joke.

No, it is not a joke.

It is telling that you characterizing letting people vote to elect their constitutionally empowered Senators a joke.

Can't trust the unwashed masses to make better choices than lifelong Liberal party hacks. tsk tsk tsk

[Knoss]

Well there at it, the age 75 limit should be removed and senators required to be Canadian Citizens rather then British subjects as Canadians born as of 1977 are not British subjects and as of this year Canadians who would otherwise qualify for senate appointment would not be British subjects thus they can not be senators.

[Guest chilipeppers]

Its time for the Senate to change entitlements for Liberals should not stand in the way of good government for the rest of us.

[jdobbin]

Its time for the Senate to change entitlements for Liberals should not stand in the way of good government for the rest of us.

I don't see any evidence of good government. If the Tories really believe that, open the debate to a constitutional hearing. Otherwise, it is pure politics. Don't expect everyone to swallow that what Harper is offering is an improvement.

[Michael Bluth]

I don't see any evidence of good government. If the Tories really believe that, open the debate to a constitutional hearing. Otherwise, it is pure politics. Don't expect everyone to swallow that what Harper is offering is an improvement.

As an amendment to the constitution s-4, by law, requires a constitutional hearing.

Ergo it is not "pure politics".

How can limiting the time appointed hacks spend in the Senate from upwards of 20 some years to a maximum of eight years be a bad thing?

[scribblet]

Its time for the Senate to change entitlements for Liberals should not stand in the way of good government for the rest of us.

I don't see any evidence of good government. If the Tories really believe that, open the debate to a constitutional hearing. Otherwise, it is pure politics. Don't expect everyone to swallow that what Harper is offering is an improvement.

Really, most people want to see some reform and sure do object to a life long cushy position almost for life...Most people object to these high cost salaries and benefits and want change, its a long time overdue.

[jdobbin]

Really, most people want to see some reform and sure do object to a life long cushy position almost for life...Most people object to these high cost salaries and benefits and want change, its a long time overdue.

Actually, I'd like it abolished. How is that for Senate reform? That is long overdue. All of the provinces got rid of their upper houses. Why not the federal government?

In any event, if they plan on doing anything, wouldn't it be appropriate to ask the provinces, open it up to hearings rather caveat acts?

[Michael Bluth]

Actually, I'd like it abolished. How is that for Senate reform?

It's an idea.

Still doesn't make Harper's plan a joke.

[scribblet]

Really, most people want to see some reform and sure do object to a life long cushy position almost for life...Most people object to these high cost salaries and benefits and want change, its a long time overdue.

Actually, I'd like it abolished. How is that for Senate reform? That is long overdue. All of the provinces got rid of their upper houses. Why not the federal government?

In any event, if they plan on doing anything, wouldn't it be appropriate to ask the provinces, open it up to hearings rather caveat acts?

I wouldn't be against abolishing it either as long as something is done about it.

He could require that elected senators, on condition of appointment, to resign after a certain period and run for re-election but it probably wouldn't pass a court test. When can you ever get the provinces to agree on anything, they would just use the opportunity for a power play.

[jdobbin]

I wouldn't be against abolishing it either as long as something is done about it.

He could require that elected senators, on condition of appointment, to resign after a certain period and run for re-election but it probably wouldn't pass a court test. When can you ever get the provinces to agree on anything, they would just use the opportunity for a power play.

Actually, I am pretty sure forcing a province to have an election on a senator wouldn't withstand a court challenge either. Some provinces want abolition and the prime minister simply ignores them in favour of his own idea. The problem is that the elections most likely require a constitutional amendment.

I don't think elections will make things better. I am in favour of dropping this upper house. If it was good enough for the provinces to do, it should be good enough for the federal government.

Harper has given no indication that an elected Senate would be an improvement or what is there now. And if he is favour of term limits for the Senate, why not the House of Commons? I have no idea where he is going with his idea for the Senate. It isn't triple E, it is likely to make things more ungainly and he doesn't say why it The Senate is needed to begin with.

[hiti]

So Steve wants to screw up the constitution and screw over the provinces with his 9 worded bill that would allow a two term PM to totally change every senator in the Chamber. And the kool-aid drinkers are using this to vilify Dion.

Well I say... go Dion go... stand up for the provinces and the senators who provide a sober second thought to idiots that get elected PM by lying. Make the term 15 or 20 years and the bill will be passed, right now.

[Michael Bluth]

So Steve wants to screw up the constitution and screw over the provinces with his 9 worded bill that would allow a two term PM to totally change every senator in the Chamber. And the kool-aid drinkers are using this to vilify Dion.

Well I say... go Dion go... stand up for the provinces and the senators who provide a sober second thought to idiots that get elected PM by lying. Make the term 15 or 20 years and the bill will be passed, right now.

It isn't sober second thought now?

15 or 20 years? You gotta be kidding me.

So a two-term PM could appoint the whole Senate.

If he is egregious in his appointments he'll be coming into an election and have to deal with his appointments as an issue in the election.

This is a bad thing how?

[scribblet]

It isn't sober second thought now?

15 or 20 years? You gotta be kidding me.

So a two-term PM could appoint the whole Senate.

If he is egregious in his appointments he'll be coming into an election and have to deal with his appointments as an issue in the election.

This is a bad thing how?

It sure isn't a bad thing, its just the start of reforming the Senate. The next step will be elected Senators.

[Michael Bluth]

It sure isn't a bad thing, its just the start of reforming the Senate. The next step will be elected Senators.

Yup. We have our second ever elected Senator soon to take office.

[jdobbin]

It sure isn't a bad thing, its just the start of reforming the Senate. The next step will be elected Senators.

I'm glad you are satisfied with it. How about Harper ask the premiers now what they think about it? Is he is going to force elections on a province that would rather have the the upper house shut down?

[Knoss]

It sure isn't a bad thing, its just the start of reforming the Senate. The next step will be elected Senators.

I'm glad you are satisfied with it. How about Harper ask the premiers now what they think about it? Is he is going to force elections on a province that would rather have the the upper house shut down?

As i understand all of the provinces are open to Senate reform even if some would prefer abolishment of the upper house. I thinkt the government is limited being in a minority and this will be a small step.

[jdobbin]

As i understand all of the provinces are open to Senate reform even if some would prefer abolishment of the upper house. I thinkt the government is limited being in a minority and this will be a small step.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of three provinces that have expressed concern about elected senators and the whole issue of Senate reform.

Elected senators by their very number would have more power in PEI than Alberta and there is no "small" measure that will make that change.

[Michael Bluth]

As i understand all of the provinces are open to Senate reform even if some would prefer abolishment of the upper house. I thinkt the government is limited being in a minority and this will be a small step.

Knoss, welcome to the board.

Everybody realizes that the current Senate doesn't really work.

An eight year term limit is a small step.

Sadly, those opposing it are in to camps.

1. The unrealistic who think it's gotta be all or nothing. Small changes people.

2. The anti-Conservative forces who oppose *everything* the Government does.

[Knoss]

2. The anti-Conservative forces who oppose *everything* the Government does.

This is the stronger one, if the CPC can get a reform bill passed as a minority it will increase their chances of forming a majority. If a senator retires the government should refuse appointment and call for a bi-election, of corse by doing so they are taking the of not getting a torry in that seat.

[Michael Bluth]

This is the stronger one, if the CPC can get a reform bill passed as a minority it will increase their chances of forming a majority. If a senator retires the government should refuse appointment and call for a bi-election, of corse by doing so they are taking the of not getting a torry in that seat.

There are currently a dozen vacancies in the Senate.

We'll have to see what the Conservatives do.

It got so ridiculous after 13 years of Liberal rule that PM PM appointed a PC Senator. Ohhhh, so very clever.

[jdobbin]

It looks like the Senate holding up the bill is gaining provincial support.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...04?hub=Politics

Stephen Harper's vaunted Senate reform agenda is in jeopardy, with Newfoundland becoming the fourth province to insist that provincial consent must be obtained to change Canada's upper house.

In a letter to the prime minister, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams joins Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick in contending that Parliament cannot unilaterally reform the Senate.

Williams asks that Harper withdraw both Bill S-4, which would impose eight-year term limits on senators, and Bill C-43, which would create a process for electing senators.

"If you are intent on Senate reform, then it must be done correctly,'' Williams says in the letter.

"Any changes should be carefully considered by both (federal and provincial) constitutional orders of government in the context of a national public debate. The current piecemeal and unilateral approach does not suffice.''

[Pat Coghlan]

So Steve wants to screw up the constitution and screw over the provinces with his 9 worded bill that would allow a two term PM to totally change every senator in the Chamber. And the kool-aid drinkers are using this to vilify Dion.

Well I say... go Dion go... stand up for the provinces and the senators who provide a sober second thought to idiots that get elected PM by lying. Make the term 15 or 20 years and the bill will be passed, right now.

Why? Is YOUR job guaranteed for 15-20 years?

What percentage of senators do ANYTHING after leaving the senate?

At least with most public service jobs there is a competition so that the best (?) candidate gets hired. If senators want similar job security, shouldn't they at least have to compete for their jobs as well?

[Michael Bluth]

Why? Is YOUR job guaranteed for 15-20 years?

What percentage of senators do ANYTHING after leaving the senate?

At least with most public service jobs there is a competition so that the best (?) candidate gets hired. If senators want similar job security, shouldn't they at least have to compete for their jobs as well?

Pat, reasonable questions. You won't get a reasonable response.

Really though, you were replying to a post about Danny Williams starting another fight with the Feds.

Yeah, Danny is standing on principal on that one.