Tories to propose fixed terms for new senators

[Scoobie Newbie]

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060529/tories_senate_060529

The Conservative government will move to impose term limits on new, unelected senators, CTV News has learned.

The changes will be included in a wider package of democratic reforms, such as fixed terms for federal elections.

Currently, Senators can sit until age 75, although until 1965, their appointments were for life. Under the Conservative proposal expected Tuesday, that will be restricted to eight years.

The prime minister appoints senators. Alberta and B.C. have legislation to hold elections for senators, although the previous Liberal government did not appoint the senators-elect.

Asked when there would be a full elected Senate, CTV's Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife said: "Somewhere before hell freezes over."

Changing the Senate to an elected model would require a constitutional amendment, with at least seven provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population signing on, he said, adding, "no one wants to open that basket of crabs."

Ontario and Saskatchewan would like the Senate abolished, he said.

Asked why Prime Minister Stephen Harper might be making these changes, Fife said to get the ball rolling on reforming the institution, but "he's also sending a very subtle message to the Liberal-dominated Senate -- if they obstruct his government's agenda, he'll go to the people to get a mandate to force constitutional change."

 

[vangemeren]

We haven't tried constitutional change this decade yet, maybe it'll work this time.

I would like to see senate reform, but I haven't decided the best course of action. It's a minority government, will this idea be dead in the water?

Maybe if I sift through the ginormous thread about this somewhere on this site, It can give me some solutions to think about.

 

[Infanteer]

I think Australia offers a perfect example of how an elected Senate would fit well within our Westminster style of parliamentary democracy - hopefully it starts getting colder in hell soon....

 

[McG]

The Conservative government will move to impose term limits on new, unelected senators, CTV News has learned.

...

Currently, Senators can sit until age 75, although until 1965, their appointments were for life. Under the Conservative proposal expected Tuesday, that will be restricted to eight years.

Fixed terms & unelected senators just sounds like a mechanism to ensure the government of the day can always stack the upper house in its favour.  Let's just go for the elected senate.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25692.0.html

 

[GAP]

If Harper tried that he would lose massive support in Quebec, and that's where a large part of any future majority is going to come from.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

You don't have to open the constituition to do it.  If provinces put in the legislature the PM can draw from pers from those provinces.  I realize I am not explaining it nearly as well as the expert on the news made it.

 

[karl28]

I have always wondered why do we need a senate any how what do they do ? I may be wrong cause I don't understand how the senate works but I think its a big waste of money that could be used else where

 

[GAP]

I have always wondered why do we need a senate any how what do they do ? I may be wrong cause I don't understand how the senate works but I think its a big waste of money that could be used else where

The way it works now and for past few decades, it is a waste. Remember, it was originally set up under a class system where the sober judgment of the "senators", read upper class, could moderate the radical views of the common elected person, read "lower class"

 

[vangemeren]

I think Australia offers a perfect example of how an elected Senate would fit well within our Westminster style of parliamentary democracy - hopefully it starts getting colder in hell soon....

I've had a look on wikipedia. It is a very different and interesting system. I like some of the ideas, but would change some of the other though. If/when I do, I will do so when I have more time to make thoughtful arguments.

I would have to agree with MCG, in respect to possible stacking.

From what I understand Senate committees are important (at least that's what I've been told) and it is supposed to prevent "radical" legislation by slowing it down and giving a "sober second thought."

Abolishing the Senate would save money in terms of pay, pension, and election costs. But in the end before we do anything radical we have to decide exactly what we want the a Senate (or lack of one) to do and the best way to do it.

 

[Kirkhill]

karl28:

I don't want to pawn you off but this subject has attracted a lot of comment in the past.  Perhaps you might like to review this previous thread:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25692.0.html

It might help to put your question in perspective.

And GAP, I take some exception to your characterization of the Senate as a class based entity.  While the House of Lords in the UK was the model for the Senate, and in the Lords (originally) geographical territory, personal power and wealth all went hand-in-hand, the Canadian Senate was seen primarily as a regional house, representing the interests of the regions so that the populous provinces of Quebec and Ontario couldn't dominate the Maritimes.  Admittedly the people appointed to the Senate have tended to be well-heeled friends of the Government.  But, as discussed on the thread I mentioned above, a lot of folks find merit in the concept of a functioning Senate.

Cheers.

Cheers.

 

[GAP]

karl28:



And GAP, I take some exception to your characterization of the Senate as a class based entity.  While the House of Lords in the was the model for the Senate, and in the Lords (originally) geographical territory, personal power and wealth all went hand-in-hand, the Canadian Senate was seen primarily as a regional house, representing the interests of the regions so that the populous provinces of Quebec and Ontario couldn't dominate the Maritimes.  Admittedly the people appointed to the Senate have tended to be well-heeled friends of the Government.  But, as discussed on the thread I mentioned above, a lot of folks find merit in the concept of a functioning Senate.

Cheers.

Cheers.

And that was my point. Appointment was based on the class system. Not saying it was right or wrong...I was not there and times are different (I think).

 

[karl28]

Kirkhill thanks for the link I will most definitely look into  and also Gap thanks for you input also hope that you folks have a great day

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I have always wondered why do we need a senate any how what do they do ? I may be wrong cause I don't understand how the senate works but I think its a big waste of money that could be used else where

It's not the institution that's a waste so much as that the people who occupy it have not chosen to make the most of the opportunity to do useful things for Canada.

The role of the Senate is to be a check on the House of Commons.  (Whether or not either was originally intended to be a voice of the people or a voice of the gentry is irrelevant to the general idea of a check-and-balance.)  In case anyone hasn't noticed, there is a substantial concentration of political power in Canada, with much of it by law, by custom, or by default in the Prime Minister's hands.