[ridenrain]

$1:

OTTAWA -- Liberal senators are conspiring to kill a bill that would limit Senate terms to eight years from the current 45-year ceiling, says the Conservative government.

Government House leader Peter Van Loan said yesterday he is shocked by the "undemocratic" attitude of Liberal senators, who have repeatedly stalled passage of the bill, known as S-4.

"The will of the public is being defied," said Van Loan. "We thought this might change when Stephane Dion became Liberal leader."

While running for the top job, Dion said that he favoured six-year term limits for senators.

The bill was tabled on May 30 and has floundered in the Senate for 250 calendar days and 48 sitting days.

source

[ReliableIntelligence]

The bill doesn't actually affect sitting Senators, and it's a fairly big deal - it amends the constitution and everything.

What's more, Stephen Harper said that it would be part of the larger package that would include an elected Senate - however, the Bill he has put forward in the House calls for 'consultations' that aren't binding, and several premiers have argued that it is unconstitutional.

If S-4 was passed, it would therefore allow for more patronage, because Senators would be forced to retire after 8 years, meaning the average Prime Minister will have more vacancies to fill in the future.

Is the Conservative's rookie house leader actually arguing that constitutional reforms should be done in a piecemeal, poorly considered, and incomplete way that could damage our parliamentary institutions?

[ridenrain]

..and the Libs are against elected senate too, after Martin staffed it with his lapdogs.

$1:

In addition to the subject-matter of Bill S-4, the Senate also referred a motion by Senator Lowell Murray, P.C., seconded by Senator Jack Austin, P.C., that the Constitution Act, 1867 be amended to alter the formulae for western representation in the Senate. In particular, the motion called for an amendment to recognize British Columbia and the Prairie Provinces as separate regions for purposes of Senate representation. The motion would alter the distribution of Senate seats in the western provinces as follows: British Columbia – 12 Senators (up from 6); Alberta – 10 Senators (from 6); Saskatchewan – 7 Senators (from 6); and Manitoba – 7 Senators (from 6). The revised distribution would result in a total of 117 Senate seats, rather than the current 105

source

Looks good to me.

[ridenrain]

Whatever happened with the politicians getting along for the good of all Canada, Avro? Wasn't that the whole idea?

[ReliableIntelligence]

ridenrain ridenrain:

..and the Libs are against elected senate too, after Martin staffed it with his lapdogs.

Would that include Hugh Segal?

[ridenrain]

Avro: You're whole participation in this thread is a deflection. Stick with the topic.

It would definately include that blowhard Larry Campbell. A man who's only qualification was calling the CPC "barbarians".

[hurley_108]

As far as I'm concerned the Senate is more or less fine the way it is. It may have some flaws, but if there is a "democratic deficit," It's not in the Senate. It's in the way the PM gets to decide what's a confidence matter and what isn't. It's in 65% of Alberta voters deciding 100% of the seats. It's in the PM picking and choosing not only who fills cabinet positions, but even what cabinet positions there are. I hope they manage to stall, or even kill, this bill before we have the next election. Here are my solutions to the "Democratic Deficit":

1: Electoral reform to bring in a new system which yields PR-like seat counts, but maintains regional representation. It can happen. Or, failing that, sure revamp the senate but make the senate 100% direct PR in some way or another and forget about regional representation.

2: The house should decide what cabinet positions there are, and government caucus should nominate and vote on who fills those positions in an open, transparent vote.

3: Pass a bill which states that there are just two ways to trigger non-confidence: One: the house passes a bill which states that "the house has lost confidence in the government," or Two: a bill which permits the government to spend money fails to pass.

[Zipperfish]

I'm sorry, but I consider myself a reasonably well-infomred person on the principles and mechanics of government in Canada and I have never been able to understand the point of the Senate.

If you're going to go to all the bother of changing the Consitution, then why not just abolish the Senate?

[Clogeroo]

$1:

Is the Conservative's rookie house leader actually arguing that constitutional reforms should be done in a piecemeal, poorly considered, and incomplete way that could damage our parliamentary institutions?

Not necessarily. The government before tried to do all in one big package deals but then people got sidetracked by them and were voted against such as meech lake accord and the charlottetown accord. Perhaps changing it in baby steps is the way to go.

As for our parliamentary system go look up Australia's that has been around for now 102 years and seems to be working fine. They already have an elected PR Senate and PR House of Representatives. Australia did base a lot of their system on Canada’s as well as the United States Senate and reformed and expanded on that. Canada never went far enough with reform with confederation the idea was there but wasn’t expanded upon.

I think it is time now to reform it and make it more relevant or useful again. 8 years in power is more than fair to me really and in this day and age when things change so fast it makes even more sense. Being able to elect our senators would be even better for the people of the provinces should chose who represents them not just the PM. Having it equal to serve as the regional body it was intended to be would give it more of a purpose. But since this country never really can agree on anything or takes forever I have my doubts over any reform ever actually amending the constitution.

[Clogeroo]

$1:

If you're going to go to all the bother of changing the Consitution, then why not just abolish the Senate?

I don't think you legally can and would also need a constitutional amendment for that if it is possible.