Senate holding up Bill S-4 re: term limits

[jdobbin]

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.

The latest Angus Reid poll had Senate reform way down in a list of priorities.

I don't see how elections will improve an imbalanced Senate. Four provinces don't either.

[jdobbin]

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?

I don't know that the provinces have much sway in the present Senate.

Elections are not going to fix the problems of provincial representation in Ottawa; not when the issue of effectiveness and equality remain off the table.

I'd rather abolish the Senate and create House of Commons seats where some of the seats were represented by the entire province at large.

[jdobbin]

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.

And just how would that referendum be conducted? Canada as whole? At the provincial and territorial level? If some provinces were against and some for, would the provinces that were against it be forced to accept? Or would the country still have to follow the amending formula?

Since the last poll from Angus Reid this week ranked Senate reform low, I'd say you had better bring some mustard. Those hats can be tough.

[downtoit]

The referendum could be on the ballot, not a problem similar to the referendum to be conducted in Ontario. I would also bet that the majority of Canadians want limited terms at least. If people choose not to vote then its their problem no one elses.

[jdobbin]

The referendum could be on the ballot, not a problem similar to the referendum to be conducted in Ontario. I would also bet that the majority of Canadians want limited terms at least. If people choose not to vote then its their problem no one elses.

How about a referendum on abolishing the Senate?

[downtoit]

abolishing the Senate is second choice for me but if we can't limit terms or reform it I'd go for abolishing it. And the GG office.

[Michael Bluth]

abolishing the Senate is second choice for me but if we can't limit terms or reform it I'd go for abolishing it. And the GG office.

A truly effective Senate, both equal and elected is preferable to abolishment.

It can be done, so let's just do it...

[g_bambino]

abolishing the Senate is second choice for me but if we can't limit terms or reform it I'd go for abolishing it. And the GG office.

Ah yes, the "I want the Prime Minister to become Supreme Dictator" plan.

[Michael Bluth]

Ah yes, the "I want the Prime Minister to become Supreme Dictator" plan.

Thta's why the Senate needs to be reformed.

[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.

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.

You don't need to be an expert to know that Senate reform has been talked about for over a decade and that it is wrong to give a guaranteed (appointed, without any competition) job to age 75 to these guys when most people will be bumped out of their jobs without a pension by age 60 in Canada.

[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.

You don't need to be an expert to know that Senate reform has been talked about for over a decade and that it is wrong to give a guaranteed (appointed, without any competition) job to age 75 to these guys when most people will be bumped out of their jobs without a pension by age 60 in Canada.

Anyone can know that Senate reform has been talked about for over a decade (in fact, it has been since Confederation), but that doesn't mean they automatically understand what's being said. Further, they may not necessarily ascribe to what you think is right and wrong.

[Michael Bluth]

You don't need to be an expert to know that Senate reform has been talked about for over a decade and that it is wrong to give a guaranteed (appointed, without any competition) job to age 75 to these guys when most people will be bumped out of their jobs without a pension by age 60 in Canada.

Anyone can know that Senate reform has been talked about for over a decade (in fact, it has been since Confederation), but that doesn't mean they automatically understand what's being said. Further, they may not necessarily ascribe to what you think is right and wrong.

What about the other part of Coghlan's point? i.e. the no competition and job until 75 conditions of the job?

[g_bambino]

You don't need to be an expert to know that Senate reform has been talked about for over a decade and that it is wrong to give a guaranteed (appointed, without any competition) job to age 75 to these guys when most people will be bumped out of their jobs without a pension by age 60 in Canada.

Anyone can know that Senate reform has been talked about for over a decade (in fact, it has been since Confederation), but that doesn't mean they automatically understand what's being said. Further, they may not necessarily ascribe to what you think is right and wrong.

What about the other part of Coghlan's point? i.e. the no competition and job until 75 conditions of the job?

That's never what was being contested. What I said was that the Canadian populace might not be the best group to collectively decide how the Senate should be filled, as they're generally extremely uneducated on the functioning of Parliament.

Of course most Canadians will have a knee-jerk reaction against the notion of someone holding a post, uncontested, until age 75; the majority of our citizenry seems to have been conditioned to see merit in the American dogma that teaches the natural order of society is being in a constant battle against each other; the idea of democracy has come to be equated solely with the notion that everyone else should be viewed as your enemy, against whom you must fight to maintain what you have (also illustrated in the misunderstandings over the Governor General and the Canadian Monarch). But, there are certain benefits to having a post where the incumbent does not have to worry about every so often fighting off an opponent to win their position back. That's not to say they shouldn't be held accountable on their performance once in there, but they maybe shouldn't be required to invest a large chunk of their time and energy purely in ensuring they'll be able to win enough support - both financial and ideological - from a certain group of the populace to beat down their opponents in an election, nor have the position itself become one which people will vie for only as a means towards personal gain.

I've come to the conclusion that the latter is the better for certain positions, but as I've said, I'm unconvinced either way when it comes to senators. I tend to weigh more towards the side of retaining an appointed Senate, though perhaps with more stringent restrictions - up the minimum age for appointment, perhaps? More scrutiny, etc., etc. I don't really know. But asking the populace to decide on the fate of an important body of Parliament, given their present lack of knowledge about the subject, would, in my opinion, be a waste of money and time. We’d need some major education initiatives to get everyone up to a point where they’d be knowledgeable enough to cast a worthy vote.

[Michael Bluth]

But asking the populace to decide on the fate of an important body of Parliament, given their present lack of knowledge about the subject, would, in my opinion, be a waste of money and time. We’d need some major education initiatives to get everyone up to a point where they’d be knowledgeable enough to cast a worthy vote.

The House of Commons isn't an important body?

Does the populace really understand the functioning of the House any more than they do the functioning of the Senate?

Fairly, you gotta answer that is a no.

So, following your logic, shouldn't the House of Commons be elected as well?

[jdobbin]

You don't need to be an expert to know that Senate reform has been talked about for over a decade and that it is wrong to give a guaranteed (appointed, without any competition) job to age 75 to these guys when most people will be bumped out of their jobs without a pension by age 60 in Canada.

So you think judges should be elected as well?

[Michael Bluth]

So you think judges should be elected as well?

Only Court of Queen's Bench and the Supremes should be appointed.

[g_bambino]

But asking the populace to decide on the fate of an important body of Parliament, given their present lack of knowledge about the subject, would, in my opinion, be a waste of money and time. We’d need some major education initiatives to get everyone up to a point where they’d be knowledgeable enough to cast a worthy vote.

The House of Commons isn't an important body?

Does the populace really understand the functioning of the House any more than they do the functioning of the Senate?

Fairly, you gotta answer that is a no.

So, following your logic, shouldn't the House of Commons be elected as well?

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.

[Michael Bluth]

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?

[Argus]

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.

The latest Angus Reid poll had Senate reform way down in a list of priorities.

I don't see how elections will improve an imbalanced Senate. Four provinces don't either.

Two of the provinces are Ontario and Quebec - who are unlikely to gain from senate support, and the third is that whiny begger boy from Newfoundland who will oppose anything the Tories do out of pure spite.

[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.

[jdobbin]

Two of the provinces are Ontario and Quebec - who are unlikely to gain from senate support, and the third is that whiny begger boy from Newfoundland who will oppose anything the Tories do out of pure spite.

I suppose it is pure spite after Harper broke the deal he earlier supported.

Some provinces favour abolition. I prefer that to tinkering that is probably unconstitutional anyways.

[g_bambino]

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?

As I've said a couple of times now, I'm as of yet undecided. I need to know more about it.

[normanchateau]

abolishing the Senate is second choice for me but if we can't limit terms or reform it I'd go for abolishing it. And the GG office.

A truly effective Senate, both equal and elected is preferable to abolishment.

Equal?

Do you really think that the chameleon-like Harper, who supported an "equal" Senate as a Reform MP and Leader of the Canadian Alliance, would now dare propose that PEI should have as many Senators as Quebec?

Do you really think that the hypocrite who promised Quebec more than an additional four billion dollars next year, ensuring that the BQ supported the 2007 federal budget and allowing Charest to deliver a tax cut to Quebecers at the expense of the rest of us, has sufficient gonads to deliver additional Senate seats to British Columbia and Alberta at the cost of Quebec Senate seats?

Do you really think that the man who said "As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed" maintains the same principles as the man who appointed his former campaign manager and Quebec Conservative party fundraiser to the unelected Senate?

[scribblet]

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.

[jdobbin]

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?