Senate holding up Bill S-4 re: term limits

[Pat Coghlan]

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.

I've just run into so many former tech workers who, at 50+ have to take jobs driving buses, working at Home Depot, selling insurance etc. that it drives me crazy that anyone would defend the practice of guaranteeing a job until age 75 to someone who never had to compete for their post.

[Michael Bluth]

I've just run into so many former tech workers who, at 50+ have to take jobs driving buses, working at Home Depot, selling insurance etc. that it drives me crazy that anyone would defend the practice of guaranteeing a job until age 75 to someone who never had to compete for their post.

It ain't just tech workers.

The 75 year old retirement thing is a joke.

Senators should be elected or appointed to a reasonable term.

[g_bambino]

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.

I've just run into so many former tech workers who, at 50+ have to take jobs driving buses, working at Home Depot, selling insurance etc. that it drives me crazy that anyone would defend the practice of guaranteeing a job until age 75 to someone who never had to compete for their post.

Do you also take offence to the fact that our Supreme Court judges are appointed until age 75? How about that our monarch holds office until death? I'm not going to argue that Senators should be given the same consideration - I'm still undecided on the issue of electing them - but sometimes it's better to have someone in a particular post who didn't achieve their position through direct competition.

[Michael Bluth]

Do you also take offence to the fact that our Supreme Court judges are appointed until age 75? How about that our monarch holds office until death? I'm not going to argue that Senators should be given the same consideration - I'm still undecided on the issue of electing them - but sometimes it's better to have someone in a particular post who didn't achieve their position through direct competition.

And that's fine for the Supremes.

Queen, far too emotional an issue for some people to get into.

there should be competition for the Senate. It has no legitimacy as an appointed body.

[jdobbin]

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?

If Harper believes that, open it up to a constitutional hearing and entrench it. At the moment, his reforms can be overturned by whatever government comes into power.

My personal opinion is get rid of it if you area actually going to open it up the that type of debate. I am not convinced an elected Senate would not be worse than what exists now. Why have two legislative bodies?

[g_bambino]

My personal opinion is get rid of it if you area actually going to open it up the that type of debate. I am not convinced an elected Senate would not be worse than what exists now. Why have two legislative bodies?

This is what I wonder too. But then I think that Australia's had an elected senate since their federation in 1901. Then again, that's the only country I know of where an elected senate flexing its muscle against the prime minsiter forced the Governor General to dismiss the government.

[jdobbin]

This is what I wonder too. But then I think that Australia's had an elected senate since their federation in 1901. Then again, that's the only country I know of where an elected senate flexing its muscle against the prime minsiter forced the Governor General to dismiss the government.

The Senate in Australia is so powerful that its legitimacy can outrank that of the lower house. John Howard tried to find a way to stop the continual roadblocks but was unsuccessful.

Australians seem to like it but if Harper thinks that this will make for a more effective government, he is probably not paying attention to what type of problems the Australian Senate seems to make for the government there.

[Michael Bluth]

The Senate in Australia is so powerful that its legitimacy can outrank that of the lower house. John Howard tried to find a way to stop the continual roadblocks but was unsuccessful.

Australians seem to like it but if Harper thinks that this will make for a more effective government, he is probably not paying attention to what type of problems the Australian Senate seems to make for the government there.

There's the rub. The Senate is constitutionally as powerful here in Canada.

With an ongoing stream of minority Governments the House is kept in check.

But there have been excesses by all majority Governments. A check needs to be put in place.

[g_bambino]

There's the rub. The Senate is constitutionally as powerful here in Canada.

With an ongoing stream of minority Governments the House is kept in check.

But there have been excesses by all majority Governments. A check needs to be put in place.

I hope then that Canadians are prepared for the possibility (though a slim one) of the vice-regal having to interfere to end a stalemate, as happened in Oz in '75.

[Michael Bluth]

I hope then that Canadians are prepared for the possibility (though a slim one) of the vice-regal having to interfere to end a stalemate, as happened in Oz in '75.

We are a long, long, long way from even having to consider that option.

The following issues will have to be resolved before the Senate would ever have the moral authority to consider forcing a stalemate the GG would have to resolve. (Not necessarily in any given order.)

1. Term limits will have to pass.

2. All the old grandfathered appointed to 75 Senators will have to retire. (You gotta know at least one will hold on forever and ever and ever.)

3. The number of seats in the Senate will have to be redistributed.

4. A law for elected Senators will have to be passed.

Then we might have to face the (slim) possibility of the GG having to come in to break up a stalemate.

[g_bambino]

I hope then that Canadians are prepared for the possibility (though a slim one) of the vice-regal having to interfere to end a stalemate, as happened in Oz in '75.

We are a long, long, long way from even having to consider that option.

The following issues will have to be resolved before the Senate would ever have the moral authority to consider forcing a stalemate the GG would have to resolve. (Not necessarily in any given order.)

1. Term limits will have to pass.

2. All the old grandfathered appointed to 75 Senators will have to retire. (You gotta know at least one will hold on forever and ever and ever.)

3. The number of seats in the Senate will have to be redistributed.

4. A law for elected Senators will have to be passed.

Then we might have to face the (slim) possibility of the GG having to come in to break up a stalemate.

Oh, yes, I realise. It's just that undertaking the tasks you laid out above puts us on a path to a potential stalemate between the House and the Senate, a la Australia. There was a huge public uproar over the necessity of the GG intervening to dismiss his government, which still, over 30 years later, hasn't quite died down. It may not happen for a few decades, it may never happen at all, but the reforms we make now must take future scenarios into consideration. I'm frankly not sure whether electing senators will provide for a better, more stable, more effective government for the generations that follow us.

[Michael Bluth]

Oh, yes, I realise. It's just that undertaking the tasks you laid out above puts us on a path to a potential stalemate between the House and the Senate, a la Australia. There was a huge public uproar over the necessity of the GG intervening to dismiss his government, which still, over 30 years later, hasn't quite died down. It may not happen for a few decades, it may never happen at all, but the reforms we make now must take future scenarios into consideration. I'm frankly not sure whether electing senators will provide for a better, more stable, more effective government for the generations that follow us.

You can build in a "tie-breaker" into the deal.

Like the Presidential veto in the US, which can be overridden with a super-majority(2/3rds) of the Senators.

The slim possibility of a deadlock needs to be considered, but it shouldn't be a deal breaker for elected Senators.

[jdobbin]

I hope then that Canadians are prepared for the possibility (though a slim one) of the vice-regal having to interfere to end a stalemate, as happened in Oz in '75.

One of the reasons the Howard government is looking ineffective is because the Senate there has been holding up everything. Howard would probably long for Canada's Senate.

I say get rid of the Senate in Canada. I don't see it making government better in Canada and have seen no evidence that would make it better if reformed.

[scribblet]

They are going to shelve the bill - gee I wonder why

[jdobbin]

They are going to shelve the bill - gee I wonder why

If Harper really believes in reforming the Senate, open it up to a Constitutional debate where the Senate can't simply delay the bill like they are doing now.

[Knoss]

Do you also take offence to the fact that our Supreme Court judges are appointed until age 75? How about that our monarch holds office until death? I'm not going to argue that Senators should be given the same consideration - I'm still undecided on the issue of electing them - but sometimes it's better to have someone in a particular post who didn't achieve their position through direct competition.

Not sure about judges but Iwould like to see the GG as head of state elected every 4 or 5 years.

[jdobbin]

Not sure about judges but Iwould like to see the GG as head of state elected every 4 or 5 years.

This is another area that requires a constitutional change. Harper is mistaken if he thinks he can make an incremental change to the Senate or any other area like Governor-General without opening it up to a national and provincial debate. He can't simply push it through and not expect it to be overturned by following governments if it doesn't suit them.

[Michael Bluth]

Not sure about judges but Iwould like to see the GG as head of state elected every 4 or 5 years.

Yup. It could happen with an Act of Parliament.

Sure some might argue that the move could be overturned by another government.

Technically right. But what are the odds of any Government risking political suicide in that case.

[jdobbin]

I'm frankly not sure whether electing senators will provide for a better, more stable, more effective government for the generations that follow us.

Harper hasn't explained that at all when introducing the bill.

Some of the Harper supporters are basically taking it as an article of faith that it will be so much better or that it is a small improvement. Since four provinces disagree with the change, who is it exactly helping?

[Michael Bluth]

Some of the Harper supporters are basically taking it as an article of faith that it will be so much better or that it is a small improvement. Since four provinces disagree with the change, who is it exactly helping?

Here is a direct quote from the Bill.

WHEREAS it is important that Canada’s representative institutions, including the Senate, continue to evolve in accordance with the principles of modern democracy and the expectations of Canadians.

Democratically elected legislators.

It's the wave of the future.

[Argus]

They are going to shelve the bill - gee I wonder why

If Harper really believes in reforming the Senate, open it up to a Constitutional debate where the Senate can't simply delay the bill like they are doing now.

The formula for constitutional change in this country ensures there will be NO constitutional change on any issue. But in any event, the Liberal Party will be saddled as the party that likes and approves of the current senate set-up of overpaid party bagmen riding the trough. It won't mean much in central Canada but they will have to wear it out west.

[g_bambino]

I hope then that Canadians are prepared for the possibility (though a slim one) of the vice-regal having to interfere to end a stalemate, as happened in Oz in '75.

One of the reasons the Howard government is looking ineffective is because the Senate there has been holding up everything. Howard would probably long for Canada's Senate.

I say get rid of the Senate in Canada. I don't see it making government better in Canada and have seen no evidence that would make it better if reformed.

Well, doesn't the fact that we're a federation of sorts make the Senate an important body? New Zealand abolished their upper house, but they're a unitary state. On the other hand the UK with the House of Lords, and Canada and Australia (and even the US) with their Senates, are federations comprised of semi-autonomous smaller states. Wouldn't the provinces here have less sway if the Senate were abolished, never mind even less check on the PM's use of power?

[g_bambino]

Do you also take offence to the fact that our Supreme Court judges are appointed until age 75? How about that our monarch holds office until death? I'm not going to argue that Senators should be given the same consideration - I'm still undecided on the issue of electing them - but sometimes it's better to have someone in a particular post who didn't achieve their position through direct competition.

Not sure about judges but Iwould like to see the GG as head of state elected every 4 or 5 years.

Problem 1) the GG isn't head of state. Problem 2) the position is out of the arena of politics. Papua New Guinea's Governor General is chosen via parliamentary election. Their last one was a disaster.

[Pat Coghlan]

Some of the Harper supporters are basically taking it as an article of faith that it will be so much better or that it is a small improvement. Since four provinces disagree with the change, who is it exactly helping?

Four premiers disagree.

Let's have a referendum and see how many Canadians disagree with this change.

If it's less than 75%, I'll eat my hat.

[g_bambino]

Some of the Harper supporters are basically taking it as an article of faith that it will be so much better or that it is a small improvement. Since four provinces disagree with the change, who is it exactly helping?

Four premiers disagree.

Let's have a referendum and see how many Canadians disagree with this change.

If it's less than 75%, I'll eat my hat.

Do more than 75% of Canadians know anything about Parliamentary mechanics or constitutional law? Only 5% can identify our head of state, 69% thought it was the Prime Minister... so I doubt they're really experts on Senate reform.