Conservative renew bid to limit Senate terms

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
29,386
11,073
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Conservative renew bid to limit Senate terms


By Mia Rabson, Winnipeg Free Press
Source: Conservative renew bid to limit Senate terms

OTTAWA — Canadian senators would be limited to terms of eight years under
legislation introduced by the Conservatives Thursday.


Steven Fletcher, the minister of state for democratic reform, said Canadians
believe it's time to modernize Parliament's upper chamber.


"Placing term limits on senators is one of the important steps to making the Senate
worthy of a 21st century institution," Fletcher said Thursday.


Currently senators have no fixed term limit and can serve until mandatory
retirement age of 75, regardless of how old they are when they are appointed.


Fletcher said that means a senator could serve for 45 years, because the minimum
age for being appointed to the Senate is 30.


The bill was introduced in the Senate Thursday. It will be debated in the House of
Commons only if it passes the upper chamber first.


This is the second time the Conservatives have tried to get term limits in the
Senate. The first bill, introduced in 2006 in the Senate, wasn't passed. The Liberals
in the Senate, who hold the majority of votes, wanted the issue studied by the
Supreme Court to ensure the government was within its constitutional bounds to
introduce term limits in the Senate.


Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs of Manitoba said she likes the idea of term limits
but said eight years is too short.


"I think 12 or 15 years is more reasonable," she said.


She also said, however, that this bill is unconstitutional because the federal
government cannot make substantive changes to the Senate without consulting
with the provinces.


Several provinces — Quebec being the most vocal — have threatened court action to
prevent changes to the Senate without provincial consultation.


Manitoba held public hearings this year to let Manitobans weigh in on Senate
reform. MLA Erna Braun, chair of the committee that hosted the hearings, said
the suggestions varied from abolishing the Senate completely to introducing elected
senators and various types of term limits. A report from that committee will be
finished shortly, she said.


Carstairs said the government should call a federal-provincial meeting to discuss
Senate reform and get an agreement before moving ahead.


Fletcher said this change is not one that requires the approval of the provinces.


"It's within the federal government purview to do so and that is what we are
seeking to do," he said. "It is just that simple."


The Harper government had held off from filling most Senate vacancies since 2006,
saying it would rather wait until the senators can be elected. But in December,
when the opposition parties former a coalition and threatened to take over the
government, Harper rapidly filled 18 vacancies. Among those appointees were
former CTV personalities Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin and Olympic skiing
champion Nancy Greene Raine.


All 18 would be subject to the eight-year limit if it passes.
____________________________________
________________________
 

pegger

Electoral Member
Dec 4, 2008
397
8
18
Cambridge, Ontario
This proposal is still stupid.

If the Senate is to act like a "chamber of sober second thought," and a check and balance against the power of the PM, how effective will it be when the sitting PM will be able to appoint essentially ALL senators, within his term in office? Does that not seem like a conflict of interest to anyone else?

Restricting terms is only PART of the solution.

If the senate is to be "rotated' every 8 years, then take the power of appointment away from the PM - and give it to the provinces. Then, if the provinces want to elect the Senators, or appoint them, fine - it is up to the province.

Or abolish the entire house, and save the salaries and pensions that go along with the position. Giving more unfetered power to the PM is not the answer.

Furthermore, if the Conservatives are so wanting of this change, then why not lead by example? There are many Conservative senators that have been there more than 8 years...why not ask them to resign, and reappoint new ones? Or is this only a political game to make the Liberals look bad? (rhetorical question there.)
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
29,386
11,073
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I think Mr. Harper is watching the Polls, and the Attack Ads aren't achieving
their desired effect....& this is an old standard (Senate Reform) to have the
Liberal Party argue against so that they drop in the Polls (except in Quebec).

If The Conservatives called for abolishing the Senate, I think the NDP would
jump onside with the Conservatives and it would be a done deal, but the Polls
would indicate the NDP are gaining, Con's stable, & Lib's dropping...but that's
not the goal. 8O

The goal is Con's gaining, NDP idling stable, and Lib's dropping in the Polls...
It's all a game. It really (in my opinion) has nothing to do with the Senate itself. :lol:
 

GreenFish66

House Member
Apr 16, 2008
2,717
10
38
www.myspace.com
Rotating the senate every 8 - 10 even 15 yrs is a good idea...But I agree changing the senate every 8 yrs.Isn't gonna to change the games of politicians..
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
If Harper really wanted to do something about the senate why did he make all those new senators? Harper is between a rock and a hard place. The Liberals would likely win an election if called now. They wouldn't get a majority but they seem to be getting stronger and Harper knows this.
 

GreenFish66

House Member
Apr 16, 2008
2,717
10
38
www.myspace.com
Maybe I'm wrong...(all ways possible , but not probable)8O;-)

But

Didn't Harper,at 1 time, want easier access to ei for for small business owners.Small business owners pay in.Can't get out...?.If the liberals win.. Harper get's 1 of his goals...E.I. open to More who contribute..Part of Harper legacy?...Part of liberal E.I. reform?

Anyone remember Harper talking about this ,oh probably about a year ago...?...Can't find it in my records ,but I am sure he said somethng about wanting to open E.I. up to small business owners..NON?

Harper legacy ?


I know who knows ....Bob Rae knows...He got 2 standing "O"'s from conservative oppostion yesterday..lol
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
As long as the pigs with their snouts in our back pockets get to vote on their own status not much will change. If we are to have a senate it must be as the reformers originally intended. Elected Equal Effective. Anything less is just a waste of money that could be put to better uses like eliminating the deficit.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
This proposal is still stupid.

If the Senate is to act like a "chamber of sober second thought," and a check and balance against the power of the PM, how effective will it be when the sitting PM will be able to appoint essentially ALL senators, within his term in office? Does that not seem like a conflict of interest to anyone else?

It does sound like power consolidation all right.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
What is wrong with the existing senate? Elected doesn't mean it's anymore equal or effective. It only means more politics.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
This proposal is still stupid.

If the Senate is to act like a "chamber of sober second thought," and a check and balance against the power of the PM, how effective will it be when the sitting PM will be able to appoint essentially ALL senators, within his term in office? Does that not seem like a conflict of interest to anyone else?

Restricting terms is only PART of the solution.

If the senate is to be "rotated' every 8 years, then take the power of appointment away from the PM - and give it to the provinces. Then, if the provinces want to elect the Senators, or appoint them, fine - it is up to the province.

Or abolish the entire house, and save the salaries and pensions that go along with the position. Giving more unfetered power to the PM is not the answer.

Furthermore, if the Conservatives are so wanting of this change, then why not lead by example? There are many Conservative senators that have been there more than 8 years...why not ask them to resign, and reappoint new ones? Or is this only a political game to make the Liberals look bad? (rhetorical question there.)

Senate reform is required. Good idea, have one Conservative senator resign, then a Liberal senator. But what party wants this?