The move would allow him to leave a mark on Parliament for years to come, as these unelected legislators will be able to sit until the age of 75.
A source familiar with the matter says that the selection process for the future senators is already underway and should be completed before his departure. After proroguing Parliament earlier this month, Trudeau announced that he will leave power after the Liberal Party chooses a new leader on March 9.
In a written response, the Prime Minister’s Office confirmed that the advisory board for Senate appointments is at work to propose candidates for all vacancies.
From the government website. It says that they have a mandatory retirement at 75 but the only other way they leave office is if they decide to.
There are no defined terms. You get appointed then you either leave or retire at 75.
Okay. And what are the problems you see with that?
Seriously? Unelected officials having veto power over legislation?
Fuck is wrong with you?
Because electing someone in no way, shape or form means that they’re any more competent or honorable than someone who’s appointed.
The Senate is there to keep the gov’t from doing whatever it wants. It weighs the value of legislation against how it would affect citizens and the Charter.
Just wondering if you have the same issues with judgeships that are appointed across the board in Canada.
You asked about the term limits which are not defined.
You asked what an issue with how we have our senators, (them being unelected).
How does a body who votes on legislation who are unaccountable to the general public a good thing?
What ifs about their competency are not a rebuttal, but showing an issue with the entire system (one that can’t be removed).
I would prefer to chance people voting for morons than having appointed (by the then current PM) persons as the last line, regardless of record.
As far as I know judges have a level of competency to qualify, there isn’t really much in the guidelines about who can be appointed senator.
No I didn’t. I asked for the OP to, “Please explain the issues you see, and provide supporting evidence, concerning no term limits for senators.”
They rarely vote on legislation. They do debate complex proposed legislation (often before the HoC debates it, at the request of the HoC) because their schedule is more flexible than the HoC’s.
As for accountability I will point to south of the border where most political officers are elected and ask if you think that system is better than ours? Because from my 65+ years perspective it is not. Elections can be bought (Elon just did it) and manipulated (re: gerrymandering).
You think that an unelected body in the government is better than being able to vote for different representatives?
Pointing to the states is NOT a good example.
What othe country has an unelected body such as our senate?
It doesn’t have to be better, it just has to be not significantly worse (because switching systems incurs a cost, and the expected improvement has to be sufficient to justify that cost). As far as I can tell, the Senate here in Canada hasn’t been significantly worse for the population than comparable elected bodies that exist elsewhere in the world. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t run off the rails in the future, but it could just as easily do that if it were an elected body (which is where the example of the States is relevant).
In general, it’s better to leave things that work alone, unless you have a better reason for changing them than, “This doesn’t match up with my ideology.”