Arrogant Liberal Senators

[Keepitsimple]

Upon creation, the Senate's major role was to provide sober second thought to how a piece of legislation would affect regions across Canada. This was primarily to provide a counter-balance to the power wielded by Ontario and Quebec. As such, many bills should really be rubber stamped if there is no compelling unfair "regional" impact. Since the Conservatives have come to power, the Senate has been trying to "water down" and delay crime legislation but has also bogged itself down in details of bills that are not within their traditional mandate - as such, they are subverting the will of Parliament. As mentioned previously, this Liberal-dominated Senate knows that only the Liberals will protect their cushy jobs so it is in their best interest to do all they can to help the Liberals regain power. The NDP want to abolish the Senate - the Conservatives want to reform it. The Liberals want the Status Quo - it's their "ace in the hole" when another party gains power.

[jdobbin]

The Liberals want the Status Quo - it's their "ace in the hole" when another party gains power.

There are a number of provinces that don't want change either. If Harper wants change, introduce a constitutional amendment.

As it is, he has no power over the Senate. If he wants, he can go to the Governor-General and call an election. Otherwise, let the Senate do its job.

[Borg]

Snip - Otherwise, let the Senate do its job. Snip

Job? Sober second thought?

Nope - bunch of money grubbing - cash for life appointees who give a damn about anything other than playing games.

Elect them or boot them - at present they are not accountable to anyone.

Borg

[eyeball]

You know, I find the arguments put forward by Senator Carstairs to be a little... strange.

First of all, she is complaining about the crime bill including 'reverse onus'. But the thing is, the Canadian criminal code already has several crimes for which reverse onus applies (and those particular sections of the criminal code were in effect when the Liberals were in power). The Tory crime bill does expand the number of situations where reverse onus applies, but the concept (requiring people to prove they are not a threat before they are let out on bail) already exists.

Secondly, she is complaining about the raising of the age of consent, and claiming it will affect underage prostitutes. But why should it matter? We already have laws regarding prostitution (and if I remember correctly there are stronger penalties for johns using underage prostitutes.) So why should a change in the laws regarding consentual sex affect prostitution?

Exactly, we've had plenty enough laws for dealing with crime. The old 'get tough and crack down on crime' shtick is and always has been about get elected by exploiting unfounded fear. Now we have both the Conservatives and the Liberals using this non-issue in one way shape or another to either call or avoid an election on their terms. Crime, war, budget its all strictly about politics.

It's hard to rephrase "fool me once shame on you..." when there's more than enough foolishness and shame to go around to smear everyone with it, including anyone who votes for any of these clowns.

[jdobbin]

Nope - bunch of money grubbing - cash for life appointees who give a damn about anything other than playing games.

Elect them or boot them - at present they are not accountable to anyone.

Tell Harper to introduce a constitutional amendment or call an election. Otherwise, he should stop whining.

[margrace]

If anyone is arrogant it is Harper, If our area is any example he had better stay away from an election.

[scribblet]

Upon creation, the Senate's major role was to provide sober second thought to how a piece of legislation would affect regions across Canada. This was primarily to provide a counter-balance to the power wielded by Ontario and Quebec. As such, many bills should really be rubber stamped if there is no compelling unfair "regional" impact. Since the Conservatives have come to power, the Senate has been trying to "water down" and delay crime legislation but has also bogged itself down in details of bills that are not within their traditional mandate - as such, they are subverting the will of Parliament. As mentioned previously, this Liberal-dominated Senate knows that only the Liberals will protect their cushy jobs so it is in their best interest to do all they can to help the Liberals regain power. The NDP want to abolish the Senate - the Conservatives want to reform it. The Liberals want the Status Quo - it's their "ace in the hole" when another party gains power.

Well said !!!

The Liberal senate is going to have to concede on the crime bills, if they don't they can say goodbye to a Liberal majority. Coming out against against such a bread and butter issue for the conservatives would be akin to campaigning against Mother Teresa.

Add to that Dion coming out against freedom of speech - not a good time for the Liberals to force an election.

[jdobbin]

The Liberal senate is going to have to concede on the crime bills, if they don't they can say goodbye to a Liberal majority. Coming out against against such a bread and butter issue for the conservatives would be akin to campaigning against Mother Teresa.

Add to that Dion coming out against freedom of speech - not a good time for the Liberals to force an election.

I haven't heard that the Senate is going to reject the bill in the first place. The Tories just don't like how long it will take for them to review it and suggest amendments.

Do you think that if the Senate was elected that they would be faster or do you think that they would be about the same time?

The House of Commons cannot impose a deadline on the Senate like the one the Tories have. It is a separate legislative body.

[scribblet]

If the Senate were elected it likely wouldn't have as heavy a Liberal majority, so might not take as long.

[jdobbin]

If the Senate were elected it likely wouldn't have as heavy a Liberal majority, so might not take as long.

If the Senate is elected, it would still not have to answer to the House of Commons. It would still be a separate legislative body. Does the House of Reps tell the Senate in the U.S. how long to debate and what to debate?