Categories: Potter Gold

On Two-tier Senators

And so, with the economy booming and the country’s books shipshape, we can now…

by Andrew Potter on Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:10pm - 30 Comments

And so, with the economy booming and the country’s books shipshape, we can now return to the pressing topic of Senate reform.

Today, Steven Fletcher introduced a bill to set term limits for new senators: eight years, non-renewable. after which they are pasture-ized, and given “the same severance as Members of the House of Commons.”

Whoops, did I say new senators? Not quite. The press release hasn’t been posted yet, but the new bill will apply to all senators appointed after the 2008 General Election, including the 18 that Harper appointed in a panic.

I’m not sure how this is supposed to work. Were Duffy, Brazeau, et al told that this bill was in the works? Was it a condition of appointment that these new senators promise to support this legislation? Is that legal?

I’m genuinely at sea here, not sure what I think about this. So like everything else, I toss it out to the crowd.

Tags:

Bookmark and Share
  • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

    Can this be changed via legislation?

    • KOL

      The last time the Conservatives introduced a bill to limit terms to eight years, the Senate committee studying the issue recommended that the goverment seek an opinion from the Supreme Court on the bill’s constitutional legality. That was the end of that. I don’t know why anyone would expect a different outcome the second time around. They are just reviving this issue to ensure the little people remain happy and keep sending cheques to the Conservative Party.

      • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

        Ah, that’s interesting, KOL, thanks.

      • LeenieJ

        why the fear of the Supreme Court? too Supreme? too Courtly? too Fair-minded? too Just?

  • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

    If so, it seems Steven Fletcher is creating the most powerful patronage tool known to man.

    • T.Thwim

      No kidding. Serve 8 years with basically no scrutiny to ensure that you’re doing.. well.. anything.. and then go on to MP level retirement, all at the whim of the Prime Minister.

      • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

        Plus you can be appointed at any age after 35. Right now a 35-year-old would sit for 35 years, and it’s only 67-year-olds that would have an equivalent 8-year run. IIRC the average age of new Senators tends to be in the early-to-mid-60′s. They are then, generally speaking, approaching that twilight calm in which service to Parliament as a whole is just as attractive as partisan loyalty. Not so the average 40-year-old. Count on it: we’re going to have 40-year-old Kory Teneckyes in the Senate, retiring at age 48 with the sweetest pension deal around. That’s a carrot that will ensure total compliance with the party system (and eviscerate the independence of the Senate). “Democratic Reform” my ass. Also, the cost of those pensions will be sky-high.

        • Andrew Potter

          I agree entirely — assuming that this is the end of the matter. But it may be that this is merely an incremental step, designed to first stack the senate with reform-minded folks, who will then turn around and support an amendment to eventually turn it into an elective chamber.

          • Jenn

            What on earth would be in it for the Senators, now “forced” to collect a pension after eight years on the job, to vote for a bill that imposes election campaigns, the possibility of losing and therefore NOT getting the pension, etc.

            Remember, any Senate reform bill must, you know, pass the then-current Senate before it becomes law.

          • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

            Theoretically speaking, can the provenance and duration of Senate appointments be altered by statute? KOL (above) mentioned that the Senate had earlier recommended a SC opinion on term limits, but KOL implied that it was never settled. Elected vs. appointed seems to me a whole other ballgame; does anyone know if Parliament has the power to alter itself so radically?

  • Mike T.

    Since stacking the senate to get a specific result has deliberately and obviously been done before, on an unresearched opinion I would guess it is indeed legal.

  • Douglass

    Well that would be one expensive retirement package we would have to start paying out in 8 years time. There were 18 recently reported, right? That would mean we would not only lose all of those senators at once, but we would be footing the bill for their retirement when we can least afford it.

    • Tom

      My I-am-not-a-lawyer sense is that back-dating the shortening of Senate terms would fail to pass constitutional muster were it challenged in court, but Harper is counting on the 18 Tories in question not to do such a thing.

      • T.Thwim

        But it doesn’t have to be any of them that challenges it either.

        • LeenieJ

          that’s good to know. be nice if the govt governed instead of tampering with the institutions we have. guess that’s a major prob right now.

  • neilt

    Could somebody please explain to me how term limits (and any of the other reform recommendations like “Triple E”) do anything at all to ensure that the Senate performs its proscribed job – provide a voice for regional representation? Cause all of this just seems like trying to change it up for the sake of changing it up (and to appease the Western Reformers…who for some reason have a REAL hate on for the Upper Chamber, for reasons that have always escaped me)

    Honestly, what does being limited to 8 years have to do with regional representation?

    Not that the current organization does it’s job, but what with FMCs and the potential for a Council of Premiers (that grew out of CHA 2005?), regional issues are dealt with fairly competently in our maddeningly informal federal system.

  • madeyoulook

    Senate, shmenate! I am just delighted to hear that the economy is booming and the country’s books are shipshape. What a relief!

    • Jenn

      Lol! That was perfect.

    • LeenieJ

      8-D

  • Sisyphus

    As I recall the Harper 18 signed on to support this as a condition of their appointment.

    And , again as I recall , this initiative has failed in the past because some provinces see it as something that requires a constitutional amendment.

    Nice diversion, though.

  • neilt

    Jack Mitchell above,

    I fail to see how any attempts at Senate reform would not be beholden to the 7/50 amending formula. I mean we’re talking about meddling with the Constitution here, and not only that, but the shape and nature of governance (I know, I know, the Senate does nothing, but like it or not it’s one of our two chambers of representation). I mean if a government can unilaterally alter the Senate, then who’s to say another government couldn’t change, say, the upper limit on terms for Parliament?

    (I generally hate ‘slippery slope’ arguments, but from this amateur’s perspective, this is kinda one of those times where it’s apt)

    • Mike T.

      IIRC, the argument in favour is that its an exclusive aspect of the federal parliament and so specifically in the language of the constitution doesn’t require the 7/50 (that’s is why the 7/50 wasn’t required when the max. age of senators was altered). The argument against is that its such a fundamental change to the structure of government and Canada as a whole that it requires it.

      for the record, I prefer the latter argument.

    • LeenieJ

      slippery sloping…leads to a lot of unintended things…

  • Clayton

    Truth be told, Steven Fletcher’s legislation is not worth the paper it is printed on just like fixed election dates.

    The Constitution says these appointments continue until a senator’s 75th birth day. Any bill passed by Parliament to compel a senator to step down earlier (even those appointed after this legislation were passed) is unconstitutional. As such it would be struck down by the Supreme Court if it were ever challenged by anyone.

    What annoys me is that the Conservatives all know this. Yet they are willing to send bills to Parliament that are clearly contrary to the very constitution which they all swore to uphold.

    • T.Thwim

      Why not? After all, it costs them nothing to send the bill forward, and then they can turn to the party faithful and say, “Yeah, well, we’re stuck with the deficit, but see what we’re trying to do for you in the Senate.. if only those evil Liberals wouldn’t hold us up all the time.. Ooo.. they get us so mad too.”

      • T.Thwim

        PS.. please send money so we can fight those dirty Liberals!

        • LeenieJ

          yes; don’t worry, that’s not your car or house being repossessed; and that’s not your stomach rumbling; and your kids are just being bratty–aren’t there breakfast programs in their schools? just send the money.

      • Two Hats

        “Why not? After all, it costs them nothing to send the bill forward…”

        Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? It costs the CPC nothing, but it costs us a lot — parliamentary and public servant time and energy that would be better spent on worthwhile initiatives. And if it passes, there’s even more $$ wasted in the courts.

        They are supposed to be governing the country, not acting in their own narrow short-term interests.

  • Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

    Here’s a problem: after any two term majority government, any Senators appointed by the previous regime will have retired, and the Senate will be entirely stacked with members appointed by the current government. Will there be constructive debate?

    Secondly, when that government is defeated, the new government will face a Senate composed entirely of appointees of the previous regime. This sounds like a recipe for deadlock, if not constitutional crisis.

Previous

Next

From Macleans