Top Stories -   

1
Minister of State for Democratic Reform Tim Uppal appears on CTV's Power Play on Tuesday, June 21, 2011. Governor General David Johnston delivers the Speech from the Throne in the Senate Chamber on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Friday June 3, 2011. (Sean Kilpatrick / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Government tables Senate reform bill

Viewer

CTV News Video

Power Play: Tim Uppal, minister
The minister of state discusses the Senate reform bill and explains why a nine-year term limit has been set for Senators.

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (63) Facebook   

Minister of State for Democratic Reform Tim Uppal appears on CTV's Power Play on Tuesday, June 21, 2011. Governor General David Johnston delivers the Speech from the Throne in the Senate Chamber on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Friday June 3, 2011. (Sean Kilpatrick / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Photos

Minister of State for Democratic Reform Tim Uppal appears on CTV's Power Play on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

View Larger Image

Date: Tue. Jun. 21 2011 9:44 PM ET

The government introduced Senate reform legislation in the House of Commons Tuesday that would limit Senators to nine-year terms, but not apply to those appointed before 2008.

The Senate Reform Act, which sets the term limit for Senators as well as a means for voters to have a say in their appointment, was tabled in the House of Commons Tuesday morning.

"Canadians want a Senate that's more accountable to Canadians, Minister of State (Democratic Reform) Tim Uppal told CTV's Power Play on Tuesday.

"The senate itself suffers with legitimacy because it doesn't have a mandate from Canadians. And Senators now can serve up to 45 years. So Canadians have given us a mandate to reform that, and we have strong support in our caucus."

Throughout his rise to the prime minister's office, Harper has often repeated his commitment to overhauling the Senate. And, given the addition of his newly elected Commons majority to the Conservative-dominated upper chamber, it seemed as though now would be a perfect time to pass his hotly contested reforms.

But when the issue was raised last week, there were rumblings of disagreement from within his own caucus highlighted in a letter written by the only elected Senator, Conservative Bert Brown.

In an apparent concession to those dissenting voices, the proposed single, nine-year term limit -- which will only start when the law takes effect -- is one year longer than originally floated.

That it will only apply to Senators appointed after the October 2008 election also suggests only those Conservative Senators appointed since then agreed to Harper's conditions.

"We felt that eight years would allow a two-term prime minister to appoint the whole Senate, nine years is just outside of that," Uppal told Power Play. "Nine years would allow a senator to gain the experience necessary, but also refresh the Senate in a meaningful time and bring new ideas into perspective."

The legislation is still being introduced in the lower chamber, bolstering the widespread belief that the prime minister wants to avoid the potential embarrassment of trying to pass it in the Senate first.

The current rules stipulate that Senators, appointed exclusively on the advice of the prime minister, can serve from the age of 30 until they are 75 years old.

That 75-year age limit will remain in place, and any Senator whose term is interrupted can be recalled to serve again for whatever balance of the nine-year term remains, according to background information on the legislation released Tuesday.

The legislation tabled Tuesday will not change the appointment process, but does aim to institutionalize the Conservative Government's existing policy of encouraging provinces and territories to seek voter input on potential additions to the upper chamber.

It would not force the provinces to implement a democratic process, however, opting instead to "strongly encourage them to do so."

Whatever the result of provincial consultations, the background document states they will not be "binding on the Prime Minister or the Governor General when making appointments to the Senate. However, it would require the Prime Minister to consider the recommended names from a list of elected Senate nominees when recommending Senate appointments."

Later Tuesday, Uppal suggested to Power Play that the prime minister "has made the commitment, will appoint whoever wins those elections."

When he was asked to comment on the prospect of the legislation during CTV's Question Period on Sunday, NDP democratic reform critic David Christopherson said the whole notion of Senate reform should be put to Canadians.

"We think the first thing we ought to do is have a straight-up referendum across the country," he said, suggesting Canadians should decide whether or not they want to overhaul the Senate.

"If they say no, then we can eliminate all this side-show stuff about term limits and electing in the provinces and all that and just get ready with a mandate to move towards abolishing the senate."

Comments are now closed for this story

David Fraser Nanoose Bay BC
said

What purpose does the Senate serve, either elected or appointed. It's a good ole boys club that feeds off the Canadian taxpayers. Reform the Senate?.......get rid of it!!


DaveH
said

Well said "viral venus" Politicians - particularly mainstream party politicians - nothing but Crooks, Thieves, Liars and Scoundrels with an outrageous sense of self-entitlement - every last one of them. Senate reform? Why stop there - Parliament is borken - fix it all.


No 'but' for MPs!!!
said

@ MAX comment - WELL SAID - NO 'BUT' IF Harper felt that term limit is great in upper body and such then same should be applied to G.G., PM, Senators, and all MPs!!!! No 'BUT' no! No! No! No!


robin hood
said

Show me the stone were it is written we can’t unseat a majority government—we the people hold the power to fire anyone who does not work on our behalf—it just takes coming together—can you hear me?


Robert B
said

Senators will continue to suck off the public teat!!!! At the expense of Canadians who barely make minimum wage, then they'll retire with obscene pensions which 70% of Canadian don't have. Way to go with this meanless reform.!! And politicians wonder why the Joe public doesn't like them. and hence don't vote. Bring on the rebellion!


Sam C
said

We had a referendum on May 6th. Part of Harper's platform was Senate reform. Case closed.


Dustin Ellis
said

how about get rid of the senate all together


Doug ^^^ BC
said

I heard David Christopherson speak to this issue,and I was not impressed.This is one angry MP.Almost as vitriolic as Pat Martin.The way he spoke,it's his way,or the high way. Now I'm the last person who would give all the power to do this to PM Harper.I would not give it to ANY one party.And as long as politcal parties have a "set in stone" ideology,I see very little chance that the staus quo won't go one almost forever. Every party will have views.Just like the rst of us have.But the job requires a non partisan process if it's ever going to get done.And each side,and each view must be considered.In the end,it is up to those given the task of writing the legislation to reconcile the different views so that most of the needs of most of the regions can be best served. In the olden days,we called that "compromise", and it worked quite well.


All for Not - Ottawa
said

Doubt anything will happen...best to limit terms and that's it...Quebec will never stand for anything else...they are a Province who have always had the most Senators in the Chamber and according to Jean Charest it would be a Court Matter if Harper does anything different.. Should be on the voters cards when we vote....we want the Senate or we don't...should be up to the people as they are paid by taxpayers dollars....


pegger
said

Will the shorter terms result in their bloated pensions being reduced, or just more hogs lining up at the trough?


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

This is one small step towards the ANSWER, but it isn't the ANSWER. The ANSWER requires a big-picture SOLUTION which can only be forged with the formal legislative assistance of all provinces and all Canadians. This is a matter of our CONSTITUTION. Let's not pretend otherwise.


Larry Porter
said

Can I apply??


Davis
said

I'm a little sick and tired of this Senate nepotism and Pammy Wallen elite types and career political leeches living off of Canadian's tax dollars from cradle to grave. It seems to have become for elites "Club You Scratch My Back..and I'll Scratch Yours" with a senate appointment. These clowns on the taxpayer's dime aren't worth what they've been pitching their shiny Harvard pencil-pusher resume at us to believe. It's time we just stop believing the B.S. that they're our best and brightest because the world is financially in the gutter because of clowns like them.


Duane Edmonton
said

Great !!! Finally we can get what the people want (elected senate) and get rid of the old buzzards who sometimes warm a chair in the senate (fixed term).


savardtosavard
said

I think it is funny to attack Harper on making this a more democratic process, although the NDP have a point when they say it should be eliminated. However, if the country actually had an elect senate and one that exercised real powers, then you would not a have a PM with the absolute powers that he has. Although I trust Harper.


The scary thing about an elected senate...
said

...Is that electing it is then up to Canadians The Canadian electorate is fickle and mush brained at the best of times. Most Canadians simply do not comprehend the issues relating to the governance of this country. I say abolish the senate and save us the frustration of filling 2 elected chambers.


Brayden
said

To abolish the Senate like some of you are saying would be best would mean the Constitution would have to change. To change the Constitution would take years and millions of dollars to do so.


Ryan in Calgary
said

Why? Why bother "reforming" the Senate? It sounds all democratic I guess. But the Senate has no power... their job is an emergency in case the government loses their mind and they have to step in. Why waste millions on elections of people with no real power. We get 50% turnout for MP's who in theory have some power. What percentage will turn out for an election that has no effect.

Unless the goal is to add another layer of bureaucracy to our system. Our politicians have enough trouble getting anything done without adding in a US style Senate.


gee
said

Let's be honest. The senate is utterly useless. The senators are mostly defeated politicians or friends of the government in power. The senators are their mainly to collect high salaries, benefits and pensions. We are paying for the senators lifestyle and get nothing in return.


Max in Vancouver
said

Canadians have already said they are in favour of Senate reform. They did this when they elected a majority Conservative Government. The expense of a referendum is just a waste of taxpayer's money. As the NDP critic, you have to say something; maybe you could come up with something intelligent. We all know Senate reform is well past due and I applaud Harper for coming through on his election promises (something rather unique in politics these days).


Guy
said

Another meaningless law from Harper Conservatives.

What will stop Harper and future Prime Minister from appointing whoever they want to the Senate? Nothing. It's the PM's constitutional right to do so. The PM can and will simply ignore this legislation.

What will stop any Senator from sitting until they are 75? Nothing. It's their constitutional right to do so. This legislation will be ignored.

In order to really change the Senate, you need a Constitutional amendment. Harper knows that this legislation, like the legislation on fixed election dates, is a cheap promise that cannot be kept.

Harper does not have the courage, conviction, or strength as a leader to bring about the constitutional change necessary to truly reform the Senate.




viral venus
said

Pointless minor gesture given the limited number of senators affected. Just do what you said you were going to do and who cares if these gravy sucking pigs like it. And as usual there are plenty of conservative hipocrites whose party campaigned endlessly on senate reform and how it was all "the other guys" that had a "culture of entitlement". Well, if it wasn't already apparent to some conservative supporter/apologists that all politicians share that "me first, screw you" ethos this should shut them up for good. Your guys are just as bad, just as greedy, just as self focused and cash and power grubbing as any party. Please, please, please stop yattering about how much better the conservatives ethics are - There are no good guys in politics looking simply to "serve the public", stop pretending there are.


BP from WPG
said

Yes. Lets have a referendum about the Senate. Lets hear what's evberybody have to say about the Senate. Good or Bad.



tolduso
said

If it goes through does it mean we Islanders can vote out that oversized no-nothing Harper appointed for PEI


Doug ^^^ BC
said

The problem I have with electing Senators in the same way as we elect MP's,has already been pointed out by "Vancouver Dave".The same politcal parties would be running candidates for the Senate,and the same voters would be voting for those candidates.Mostly on a party loyalty basis.This offers no improvement from what we have now.Senators would still be loyal and comitted to a federal political party.That is no way to represent the region whose seat you are occupying.Although,the way they do it in Alberta hold some promise.Voters maintain a list of possible Senators,and when a seat becomes vacant,one of them moves into it. But for what I envision as a legitimat and democratic Senate,the process would be long and difficult.I do not think any PM could do all that in a single term in office.All the provinces and regions have ideas that have to be considered and discussed.They,just when they get close to an agreement,provincial or federal elections come up,and there are new people at the table, and past progress becomes irrelevant. Given our regional nature,abolishing the Senate would probably be easier than reforming it.But easy is not always best.And I want to leave my country and my province in a better state for my children.If there is a tough job ahead to do that,so be it.This is a job that could go on for a decade.Possibly longer.But we are the ones who need to start this process.The status quo is clearly not good enoght.I think most of us agree on that.Now,let's take the next step.We owe that to the next generation of Canadians,no matter how difficult the challenge.And let's all try to take off our politcal party hats.We can build a Senate that is functional,democratic,that represents the regions.I know we can.In spite of political parties.


Fred N Ont
said

Finally a government that keeps their promises ,, maybe not exactly what was promised but as close as possible for the times. As long as they keep working on keeping promises they got my vote.


Sad
said

It's funny how easy this Conservative party has it when it comes to manipulating it's dutiful little followers. They're told that being progressive is bad. Unless they do it, then it's good. Lead around like little children. . .there has to be a way for me to make money off these people.


John
said

I agree while were fixing things lets privatize the KGB Oops I mean the CBC


Mark
said

A half-ass job by the government if I ever seen one. Please just get rid of the Senate. It’s not necessary and has no added value to the democratic process. Stop this nonsense of millions wasted on salaries, retirement packages and pensions when the average Jo makes but minimum wage.


Doug ^^^ BC
said

No one hates the current form of the Senate any more than I do.But I think abolishing it would be a huge mistake,and something Canadians will come to regret. First of all,is that I do not trust the MP's that we elect to hold ALL the power,ALL the time.Without a Senate,a majority government becomes little more than an elected dictatorship.They could pass any legialation they wanted to.There would be less debate,and NO institution to challenge their agenda.And,since we cannot unseat a majority government,we would be stuck with what we have until the next election.And it's clear a majority government running amuk can do a lot of damage in just a couple of years.Provinces and regions MUST have an institution with some authority,where they can debate the implications of federal legislation,on each of their regions.It is often the case,that what is good for Ontario,is detrimental to BC.Those differences MUST be aired in a very public forum.And a functional Senate is as good as any.Just not the Senate we have now. Concentrating all power in fewer hands is a recipe for disaster.It would also leave more populous provinces with more power to dictate to smaller provinces,with less populated areas not even having an opportunity to voice it's concerns. I hate the Senate as it is.But I honestly think we need a body to oversee the whackos and parties who sit in Parliament.History shows that those in Parliament get it wrong on a regular basis.A functional Senate would be a good place to tell, say,a Liberal government which has a majority because of Ontario voters,that their policy will impact BC in a negative way.Or,vice-versa.


Dannyboy
said

Enough with this abolish the Senate. An elected Senate would be good for Canada.


Cambob in Toronto
said

Having only a single body of politicians (House of Commons) is a bad idea. The Senate and the Supreme Court are supposed to provide balance to the Commons. Abolishing the Senate is a frustrated reaction, and reforming it makes much more sense. It's going to take ages to remove the pork and graft, but at least PM Harper has started the process.


Mark J.
said

No changes to the senate would take place if the Liberals had their way.


oddmelee
said

why do we need the senate anyways --don't do anything but collect money from taxpayers and then get a BIG pension when they retire--give to the seniors who worked all there life to get a measly pension --abolish the senate now



Simon Choisnet
said

I think that the Senate should be representative of the popular vote in the last election.Each party would then be able to select a number of senators and it would prevent the current case where the majority of the population has not voted for the current government.


consensus seeker
said

Since the Senate was created by the partners colonies/provinces) when they created Canada wouldn't you think the PM would consult them (provinces) on any proposed changes?


Craig from NS
said

Nine years still seems excessive. I'm guessing some high earning pension kicks in at the eighth anniversary. Not only should Canadians vote for senators, there should be reductions in salary and benefits. Is Harper willing to take it that far? There should also be a minimum attendance required. That should apply to the MP's as well. Do not make the minimum number of sittings ... take a pay hit.


Max
said

Now let's limit the term of MP's to 9 years


Redneck Albertan
said

It's a good first step. However, until there is equal representation in the senate and all of the provinces sign onto senate elections, it remains a very flawed arm of government. Having watched David Christopherson's ridiculous behavior on CTV the other day, I believe the Tories at least are taking an intelligent approach to reforming the system, unlike the NDP loons.


Gord
said

Electing nominees to the senate will not make it democratic when the representation is completely and utterly anti-democratic. Abolish this useless and redundant institution. Call a national referendum before making any change to our governing institutions.


Mac
said

DON'T REFORM. ABOLISH! If it becomes an elected body we will end up like the U.S. where no legislation gets passed because the two houses fight each other. We elect the MPs, that's enough. ABOLISH the senate. REFORM is a bigger mistake than it's creation.


donna
said

lets just abolish the senate. it is only used for the government of the day to make patronage appointments. the only purpose it serves is to give cushey jobs to friends of the governmentthese senators are not even elected and as such have no right to make decisions for the people. a total waste of money indeed. this is the only thing i agree with the ndp on.


Arby
said

Probably the only politician and Prime Minister of Canada who has made a very real effort to fufill his campaign promises. Hats off to Harper!


Jimmy Boy
said

Its time to dump the entire Senate.


Bruce
said

This is a waste. There is still no accountability, which MUST be to Canadians. If the senate is not to be elected, as the commons is, by Canadian citizens, Then abolish it once and for all. That'll save c rtuck load of money in salaries, benefits and perks that not one of these people earned. Other than beng friends with the serving Prime Minister.


Dave in Qc.
said

I thought all of Harpers appointees already agreed to serve only 8 years from the time of their appointments.This should give them all a few more years at the trough.Slurp slurp slurp.then again harper stood in parliament and gave his word that he would never appoint an unelected senator no matter what.


Gisabun
said

I'd like to see how this will work when terms for some senators finish off. Will there be elections to vote for new ones or appointed by the province. Maybe this will be corrected if and when Harper decides to have a fixed election date every 4 years. But this gets screwed up because the senators get 9 years - 1 year more than 2 four year terms.


Alberta Boy
said

Way to go Mr. Harper another promise kept! Now with a majority we can get to governing this big beautiful country of ours.


Times Are A Changing
said

Is it just me, or is there a wee gap in the speed of government vs the speed of change in the real world? Technology changes in the blink of an eye-phone, (pun), life changes daily and the way we govern changes, yes century by century.


Jim Lad
said

Game on!


VancouverDave
said

This proposal simply makes the Senate a carbon copy of the Commons. What's needed is a completely non-political institution - have senators appointed by the Governor General, and have the Governor General, in turn, appointed by the Senate. This would remove the necessity of party politics and allow for a true chamber of sober second thought untainted by "loyalty" to one Commons party or another.


Geter Done
said

Good. Now lets get rid of the Long Gun Registry.Than privatize the CBC.Than some flat tax and eliminate the majority of Revenue agents.We are on a roll.


JPC near Regina
said

Common sense is finally coming back to Ottawa...


AJ
said

Just Abolish it. These reforms will mean more money from the taxpayer. Now we will have to pay for more elections, more campaigns, more pensions as more people will be revolving through the Senate. All while still producing little to no revelant work.


Geof from the West
said

Well, at least it's a start. I would personally like to see the senate totally elected with equal representation from all blocks of the country. They would be BC, the prairie provinces, Ontario, Quebec, the North and the Eastern provinces. That way no single block of supporters could soley dictate the outcome of a Bill. But actually better than all of this would be to abolish it altogether.


Chris
said

This excellent work. It's good to force Senators to turn over from time to time. Having people who are 1 minded and think 1 way for 45 years is not a progressive state. We need new ideas, new minds and new ways of thinking in the Senate and this would enable that. 9 Years is long enough to have a say in influencing the direction of the country without an actual mandate.


Think!
said

This government is great at legislation that simply serves as a veneer without teeth. Like their election law - turns out it doesn't actually mean anything and no government is required to follow it. This Senate bill is the same. Doesn't actually change anything and further governments will be fine to ignore it without changing it. Why do people fall for this crap so easily? We need to make critical thinking courses mandatory.


Rob in Alberta
said

And if a Senator refuses to step down after the 9 year period? Constitutionally I can't see there being much to do about it. I'm all for Senate Reform/Abolition - but it has to be done the right way. This is going to wind up being a waste of money when this goes to the Supreme Court and the government of the day has to defend it.


Rob
said

I am a long life Conservative , but the arrogance that some of these Senators display is perplexing, (Pamela Wallin comes to mind). It is time for these people's presence to the Senate to be limited, and if they do not comply, abolish the Senate. It is time for these people to realize that they work for the people of Canada.


Art
said

That's great if the senate also passes this legislation . I'm not sure if the senate can defeat this and make it a non start. If they can, that just confirms the senate needs to be reformed. If a non elected group can direct the elected government that's just plain wrong.


Dean in Abby
said

I doubt we will ever be rid of that parasitic body known as the Senate. The people involved in it would never vote for their own demise and I suspect the government, (of any stripe), would eliminate a place for rewarding patrons. Why should we require a Senate to "pass" or read over legislation that we entrust to our ELECTED officials? We elect people whom we theoretically trust to run our country. The days for " a sober second thought" have long since gone by. I despise having to pay for these loafers and all of their perks and staff that really have no right to be deciding on laws they weren't elected to decide or have input on. Get rid of the Senate and look how much tax money could be saved. Limiting the time for Senators is a start but, abolish it altogether and perhaps we could even have all of the real gov't offices in Ottawa instead of across the river in Quebec.


It's what it is
said

FINALLY! Let's just hope that Harper's appointed anchormen, women, and has-been politicians support this!


Steve T
said

For those who ask "Why did Harper make patronage appointments, if he wanted to reform the Senate?", I would suggest it is because he wants to minimize the possibility of the Senate blocking passage of these (and other) bills.It's a stupid system, but Harper understands it, and knows how to use it. Perhaps these proposed reforms will finally make some meaningful change.


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's Top Stories

Labour Minister Lisa Raitt appears on CTV's Power Play on Monday, May 28, 2012.

Federal government orders end to CP Rail strike

More   51 Comments 51    12 Video(s) 12

Dominic and Abby Maryk were found in Mexico four years after allegedly being abducted by their father.

Extradition sought in Winnipeg missing children case

More   4 Comments 4    3 Video(s) 3

Protesters opposing Quebec student tuition fee hikes demonstrate in Montreal, Sunday, May 27, 2012. (Graham Hughes / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Quebec, students resume talks on tuition hikes

More   26 Comments 26    1 Video(s) 1