Liberals to derail Harper Senate reform plan

[sanctus]

By Joan Bryden
OTTAWA (CP) - Liberals are poised to derail Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cherished Senate reform agenda.
Sources told The Canadian Press that Liberal members of the Senate's legal and constitutional affairs committee will recommend Wednesday shelving a bill that would impose eight-year limits on senatorial terms.
Liberals, who hold a big majority in the upper house, will insist that the Senate not proceed with the bill until the Supreme Court of Canada determines whether it's constitutional for Parliament to proceed unilaterally, without provincial consent.
The Liberal move follows submissions from four provinces - Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador - insisting that provincial consent is needed to reform the Senate.
The four have demanded a halt to both the term-limit bill and another bill, currently before the House of Commons, that would create a process for electing senators.
To break the impasse, Harper's government would have to agree to refer the matter to the top court.
Even if that happened and the court gave the green light to resuscitate the bill, 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.
Given the depth of provincial opposition, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said Wednesday that Harper needs to rethink Senate reform.
"I think the prime minister should start from scratch," Dion said.
"He started a process about the Senate that was politically driven again, about his own agenda, and the constitutional partners of our federation are saying, 'Hey, what are you doing? We need to look at that together. What is this unilateral way to proceed?' "
The Tories recently launched a fourth series of TV attack ads against Dion, portraying him as a weak leader who's unable to persuade Liberal senators to endorse the term-limit bill. Dion initially endorsed the idea in principle but wanted longer, non-renewable terms of up to 15 years.
Dion said it's ironic that the Tories' are attacking him on Senate reform when the problem clearly lies with a prime minister who is dismissive of the provinces.
"Federalist practice is that you work with your constitutional partners on these issues and the prime minister didn't."
He noted that Harper, after almost 18 months in office, still hasn't bothered to hold a formal first ministers meeting.
"Is it open federalism? Come on," Dion scoffed.


Copyright © 2007 Canadian Press

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Derailed Senate Reform

Thank goodness!

This is a victory not only for the Senate of Canada, but for all Canadians.

Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the Senate has united with a number of other opposition senators, and even an honourable senator of the Government of Canada, in putting a stop to this senseless and reckless legislation (in exemplia, Bill S-4, the Constitution Act, 2006 (Senate tenure)). This legislation could cause irrepairable harm to Canada’s legislature, and thus it is rightly so that the Provinces of Canada are indicating their opposition to this Government’s irresponsible reform plans.

It should be interesting to see the opinions of The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin P.C., the Chief Justice of Canada and her puisne justices, in relation to this important issue. References tend to hold great weight in the Parliament of Canada—the most recent reference having paved the way for the establishment of Canadians’ irrefutable right to access same-sex civil marriage. Thank God the Liberal Party of Canada is standing up for Canadians.

 

[unspoken]

I personally don't care if a senator is in for 20 straight terms, as long as he/she is put there by the people of the country. How anyone could oppose having a choice in who represents them is beyond me.

 

[FiveParadox]

Really?

I oppose Senate elections wholeheartedly; in my opinion, the selection process should continue as it does now, and honourable senators should continue to serve for longer tenures (until seventy-five), as they do now. This gives Canada the best of both worlds; a democratic House of Commons, changing for the split-second opinions of the electorate, and a chamber of sober second thought, as a check on the democratic excesses of the Commons.

 

[BitWhys]

I agree, 5P. A second elected house is redundant.

things are going to get a lot more heated...

Tories: Grits provoking constitutional crisis on Senate reform

OTTAWA (CP) - The Harper government is accusing the Liberals of provoking a constitutional crisis over Senate reform.

The accusation comes in the wake of the Liberal-dominated Senate's decision to shelve a bill imposing an eight-year limit on senatorial terms until the Supreme Court determines if it's constitutional.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is standing behind his senators' move, contending that they have a duty to ensure legislation is constitutional before proceeding with it.

But Government House Leader Peter Van Loan says the unelected Grit senators are over-stepping their rightful authority and attempting to usurp the powers of the federal cabinet.

Moreover, Van Loan says Liberals are provoking a constitutional crisis rather than forfeit any of their entitlements in the unelected Red Chamber.

procedural crisis, sure. constitutional? I'd love to hear him actually explain that. I'd also like to see Cabinet state flat-out act is constitutional and put it on letterhead. and none their goddamn hedging.

Eight years is stupid, btw. Two full terms in office and a PM can completely load the house.

Point of interest, the current average length of terms actually served in the Senate is 12 years.

 

[gc]

If we want to keep the senate unelected, I propose that we cut their wages so that senate appointments don't look like "patronage" appointments.

 

[BitWhys]

If we want to keep the senate unelected, I propose that we cut their wages so that senate appointments don't look like "patronage" appointments.

I say we don't bother bullsh!tting ourselves and live with the fact they ARE patronage appointments. IF we keep the appointment system we could always come up with a priority system that gives the government of the day dibs on maintaining the same proportion of partisans as there is in the Commons. If they're already maxxed out then the choice goes to the party that's furthest behind in the tally. Something like that.

 

[unspoken]

I say we don't bother bullsh!tting ourselves and live with the fact they ARE patronage appointments. IF we keep the appointment system we could always come up with a priority system that gives the government of the day dibs on maintaining the same proportion of partisans as there is in the Commons. If they're already maxxed out then the choice goes to the party that's furthest behind in the tally. Something like that.

The problem with that system is that with the same representation in the House as there is in the Senate, the Senate becomes basically useless due to redundancy.

 

[DaSleeper]

I wish someone would tell me why the Canadian taxpayer has to foot the bill for 105 people, whose salary is $127,000. + per year, for simply rubber-stamping any bill passed by the house of commons. And that don't include the fringe benefits.:angryfire:

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I wish someone would tell me why the Canadian taxpayer has to foot the bill for 105 people, whose salary is $127,000. + per year, for simply rubber-stamping any bill passed by the house of commons. And that don't include the fringe benefits.:angryfire:

Yes, we should just get rid of the Senate entirely. Some ancient Fiberal has-been sleeping through Senate sessions is not representing me in any way shape or form and is not doing sweet ****-all for Canada or Canadians except costing us $$$$$.

As to the Fiberal shenanigans, lets keep the circus in the house of commons. Let Dion fight his own fight (if he can).

 

[BitWhys]

The problem with that system is that with the same representation in the House as there is in the Senate, the Senate becomes basically useless due to redundancy.

yes and no. For one thing I don't think constantly balancing toward the same proportions as preferred by the electorate is a problem. Secondly it avoids direct elections which I don't think are appropriate for selecting the type of person I would think most suited for the job. There's a certain set of personal qualities required to weather an election campaign not all of which are particularly savory. The Senate should be filled with movers and shakers, not another set of salesmen.

That last point is what already keeps the Senate from being redundant. The tone of Senate committees are entirely different from Commons committees. If its an elected Senate that source of information will dry up in an instant.

The appointment system keeps the backroom boys in plain sight. Besides, I kinda like the idea of having the dodgy old codgers around. They have a way of showing the Commoners a thing or two on occassion. Case in point, what's happening right now.

 

[FiveParadox]

Hear, hear!

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

That last point is what already keeps the Senate from being redundant. The tone of Senate committees are entirely different from Commons committees.

The snoring is louder?

 

[FiveParadox]

Some members here have obviously never reviewed the proceedings of the Senate, whether it be reading the Debates of the Senate, or watching the proceedings of one of their several wise and professional Senate Committees. It is becoming ever so apparent that honourable senators are working far harder for Canadians than members of the Commons ever have, or will be; it’s simply in the nature of the job.

 

[DaSleeper]

I've looked high and low for a bill that the Senate had actually rejected and this is the closest I've come http://www.cbc.ca/newsinreview/apr98/senate/legisl.htm
I'm willing to change my mind if enough proof is shown that the Senate actually does something for those millions of dollars that is being spent on them

 

[BitWhys]

I've looked high and low for a bill that the Senate had actually rejected and this is the closest I've come http://www.cbc.ca/newsinreview/apr98/senate/legisl.htm
I'm willing to change my mind if enough proof is shown that the Senate actually does something for those millions of dollars that is being spent on them

Its works out to about a buck fifty a head to keep the people who know where the bodies are buried wandering the halls and if you need an example that might justify their existence put your imagination to what the Accountability(sic) Act would've looked like being 90 amendments shy of a final product.

 

[DaSleeper]

Oh Lord.......Don't ask me to read all of it.........

 

[BitWhys]

Oh Lord.......Don't ask me to read all of it.........

exactly

for a 6 dollars a year a family of four gets to put all the rounders in the same room, make them keep an eye on each other and let nature take its course from there.

 

[Featherchucker]

The senate could be elected proportionly to the vote and the commons first past the post... Gives the smaller rural population a opportunity to even out the large urban centres riding roughshod over the law of the land. The senate unfortunately has been used for mostly giving useless party loyalists hacks and hasbeens a free meal ticket. ( note* IMHO the leadership of both the liberals and red tories should be in prison for the theft they have perpetrated the years in power).

 

[wallyj]

Quelle surprise? The entitled are up in arms over someone taking thier entitlement away. I suspect that more than a few of the conservative senators are happy to kill this bill,but stay quiet because they know that the immoral liberals will do the dirty work. For those that think the senate is a useful institution,I have 2 words " Art Eggleton". Cheers 5p.