There appears to be broad support for establishing term limits for Canadian Senators. It's being suggested that appointments be limited to 12-to 15-years.
On balance, this seems like a good idea. It ensures some prospect of replacing those who've become unfit to serve due to age or impairment.
A sticking point is term length. The Tories want an 8-year term. Stephane Dion points out that such a short term would mean that a long-serving prime minister would be able to replace the entire senate to one of his own liking. To avoid that, the Libs want the term limit extended to between 12 and 15-years.
The Liberals remain staunchly opposed to any attempt to make the senate elected. Despite all the noise about electing senators, it is pretty much a naive proposal. The provinces would undoubtedly want a say in it and, probably, a constitutional amendment.
In an elected senate it would be hard to justify allocating seats other than on a provincial population basis. That would increase the representation of Central Canada at the expense of the West.
An elected senate would also bring partisanship to the forefront and those elected would have a legitimate argument that they also had a legislative function similar to MPs.
2 comments:
I believe that 15 years would be appropriate. 12 years still falls short of providing institutional memory.
Dion is fil flop on his 6 year mandate becuase he realizes that without a 15 year mandate, the liberals will no longer dominate the Senate. Even though a 6 - 8 year term is the right thing to do, Dion is being a partisan hack and putting the liberals interests ahead of Canadians.
Post a Comment