Liberal Senators amend Crime Bill

[Mr.Canada]

The Conservative government is expressing outrage after Liberal senators amended a piece of "tough on crime" legislation that had already passed the House of Commons -- and that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff had supported.

Ignatieff supports the tough-on-crime bill. The move by Liberal senators only enhances the perception that the Liberal party is not fully behind its leader.

Source

Liberal Senators amend the Crime Bill that would effectively end the 2 for 1 DC time that judges automatically apply to all sentences handed out in this country.

The Bill originally had stated that it would end the 2 for 1 and all parties supported it. It didn't even need to go up for a vote as there was vocal support from every party. It should have just cruised through the Senate without opposition but now we have Liberal senators amending a Bill that sailed through the House.

The have amended the original Bill to make the 2 for 1 time 2 to 1.2 which makes no sense at all and without any explanation as of yet.

Ignatieff needs to touch base with his Senators and let them know that he himself supported this Bill in its original form and that they should do the same.

However this appears to be just smoke and mirrors as the Liberals can pass it in the House then oppose it in the Senate. They aren't going to get away with itthis time.

I hope crime is an election issue.

[Who's Doing What?]

Liberal Senators amend the Crime Bill that would effectively end the 2 for 1 DC time that judges automatically apply to all sentences handed out in this country.

The Bill originally had stated that it would end the 2 for 1 and all parties supported it. It didn't even need to go up for a vote as there was vocal support from every party. It should have just cruised through the Senate without opposition but now we have Liberal senators amending a Bill that sailed through the House.

The have amended the original Bill to make the 2 for 1 time 2 to 1.2 which makes no sense at all and without any explanation as of yet.

Ignatieff needs to touch base with his Senators and let them know that he himself supported this Bill in its original form and that they should do the same.

However this appears to be just smoke and mirrors as the Liberals can pass it in the House then oppose it in the Senate. They aren't going to get away with itthis time.

I hope crime is an election issue.

Seems fishy. I would like to hear the reasoning behind the decision to make changes.

[waldo]

Seems fishy. I would like to hear the reasoning behind the decision to make changes.

"they're soft on crime"... always go-to rhetoric from the Conservatives!

hmmm - was/is the Senate intended to simply be a rubber-stamp chamber, or do Senate committee amendments reinforce the independent nature of the Senate/review process?

considering there is no actual law that supports the 2:1 credit practice that evolved over time... in response to raised concerns about the status/quality of remand centers and the need for more expeditious processing through the courts. Does the Conservative crime bill guarantee that the introduced legislation for 1:1 credit for time served will not negatively impact the overall time for the justice system to get people moved through the courts quickly? Yes - perhaps there actually is more to the proposed Senate amendments... other than providing another opportunity for the Conservatives to beak-off about "soft on crime".

[ba1614]

Seems fishy. I would like to hear the reasoning behind the decision to make changes.

Yes, it is interesting. I too would like to hear some input on the reasoning myself.

[Dave_ON]

Liberal Senators amend the Crime Bill that would effectively end the 2 for 1 DC time that judges automatically apply to all sentences handed out in this country.

The Bill originally had stated that it would end the 2 for 1 and all parties supported it. It didn't even need to go up for a vote as there was vocal support from every party. It should have just cruised through the Senate without opposition but now we have Liberal senators amending a Bill that sailed through the House.

The have amended the original Bill to make the 2 for 1 time 2 to 1.2 which makes no sense at all and without any explanation as of yet.

Ignatieff needs to touch base with his Senators and let them know that he himself supported this Bill in its original form and that they should do the same.

However this appears to be just smoke and mirrors as the Liberals can pass it in the House then oppose it in the Senate. They aren't going to get away with itthis time.

I hope crime is an election issue.

Gasp! You mean the Senate is actually doing its job by amending legislation how scandalous! There are two houses for a reason, because it sails through one doesn't mean it gets an automatic approval from the senate. That's not the way our system works, and thankfully so.

It's funny, the main reason a lot of people give for senate abolition is that they don't "do" anything, this of course is an untrue statement, but when they actually do "do" something it's anathema to democracy and somewhere God kills a kitten in protest.

[Sir Bandelot]

WHich clearly shows, Ignatieff is not actually a Liberal. and thats why he will fail, in my opinion.

is the Senate intended to simply be a rubber-stamp chamber, or do Senate committee amendments reinforce the independent nature of the Senate/review process?

Precisely. Although i don't know much yet about this amendment, the point is that the Senate has its own a role to play. Otherwise we don't need a senate at all.

[Mr.Canada]

"they're soft on crime"... always go-to rhetoric from the Conservatives!

hmmm - was/is the Senate intended to simply be a rubber-stamp chamber, or do Senate committee amendments reinforce the independent nature of the Senate/review process?

considering there is no actual law that supports the 2:1 credit practice that evolved over time... in response to raised concerns about the status/quality of remand centers and the need for more expeditious processing through the courts. Does the Conservative crime bill guarantee that the introduced legislation for 1:1 credit for time served will not negatively impact the overall time for the justice system to get people moved through the courts quickly? Yes - perhaps there actually is more to the proposed Senate amendments... other than providing another opportunity for the Conservatives to beak-off about "soft on crime".

All this does is adds credibility that Liberals may be soft on crime. It gets criminals back onto the streets sooner then they should be. No there's no law that says that but every judge grants 2 for 1, it's a given. I've spent and continue to spend a lot of time in court rooms I see it everyday I'm in court. The legislation all but stops the practice making it only available in certain circumstances.

Taking 2 for 1 and making it 2 for 1. 2 does essentially nothing. It's not going to matter because the Bill has to go back to House so they can vote on the amendments and everyone will vote against the amendments then back to the Senate it will go again without amendments. All this does is prolong the Bill from being passed and lets more criminals out onto the street sooner then they should be.

This is a non partisan issue every party and MP supported it it didn't even need to go to a vote. There's no way any MP would be seen voting against this Bill, they'd get wiped out in the next election and it would take away the ability for their party to say anything at all about crime as the public wouldn't believe it.

[Keepitsimple]

Although last night on Power Play, I heard they've amended it from 2 to 1.2...the article and today's newspapers say they've amended it from 2 to 1.5 and also provides judicial "discretion" which basically guts the bill.

One of the major concepts of the Senate is that they are supposed to look at legislation from a regional perspective to see if all parts on Canada are served well. These amendments appear to be more in line with either ideology or knee-jerk opposition to a Conservative government. I can't see regional implications in such a basic piece of legislation that has been unanimously endorsed by Parliament.

Canadians are getting another look at why the Conservatives accuse the Liberal dominated Senate of being obstructionist.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Dave_ON]

This is a non partisan issue every party and MP supported it it didn't even need to go to a vote. There's no way any MP would be seen voting against this Bill, they'd get wiped out in the next election and it would take away the ability for their party to say anything at all about crime as the public wouldn't believe it.

You've hit the nail on the head, no MP would vote against it, that's why we have an appointed senate who isn't subject to whims of the electorate, it provides the balance of power in our law making body. The idea isn't to prolong the process, it's to point out what the senate sees as a flaw in the legislation. I personally don't like the 2 for 1 credit, but this demonstrates to me that the senate does work and is necessary and SHOULDN'T be elected. What's the point of having two elected houses? Both are subject to the whims of the electorate which change with the weather.

[Mr.Canada]

You've hit the nail on the head, no MP would vote against it, that's why we have an appointed senate who isn't subject to whims of the electorate, it provides the balance of power in our law making body. The idea isn't to prolong the process, it's to point out what the senate sees as a flaw in the legislation. I personally don't like the 2 for 1 credit, but this demonstrates to me that the senate does work and is necessary and SHOULDN'T be elected. What's the point of having two elected houses? Both are subject to the whims of the electorate which change with the weather.

Well come January 2010 it'll work the way Harper wants it to work as the Senate will be under Tory control and their won't be a thing that the Liberal Senators will be able to do. Harper will be bale to pass whatever he wants. If the HoC votes against him we'll go to an election and we'll come back with a majority then Harper can really do whatever he wants.

This is the last desperate grasp by the Liberals to retain whatever power had been built up during those 13 years of Liberal power. It's taken 4 years of Tory power to reverse it but it's finally coming to an end for the Liberals.

[noahbody]

Liberal Senate spokesman Marc Roy said the justice committee did its job based on the testimony.

"They are there to be independent," Roy said.

"If these (amendments) don't happen every once in a while then we really don't have an independent chamber or review process."

This sounds like the senate taking a stand on an issue to say to Canadians, "see, we do serve a purpose." But they picked the wrong issue.

[Dave_ON]

Well come January 2010 it'll work the way Harper wants it to work as the Senate will be under Tory control and their won't be a thing that the Liberal Senators will be able to do. Harper will be bale to pass whatever he wants. If the HoC votes against him we'll go to an election and we'll come back with a majority then Harper can really do whatever he wants.

This is the last desperate grasp by the Liberals to retain whatever power had been built up during those 13 years of Liberal power. It's taken 4 years of Tory power to reverse it but it's finally coming to an end for the Liberals.

I find it troubling that you think its ok for one person to have so much power. Mr. Harper or any PM should not be able to do whatever they want. That's one of the reasons why the senate is set up. That's why the separation of powers is enshrined in the constitution. As much as you long for Harpertopia surely you realize that even with a Majority the PM is constrained by the constitution. I'm not sure a majority will serve Mr. Harper as well as he hopes. Many of the reforms he has promised are impossible to fulfill unless you're satisfied with window dressing legislation that is. Further if he tries to pass any laws contrary to the constitution he'll find the courts there to strike them down. A Majority in the HoC and the Senate will only remove the legislative block that has been frustrating him these past years; I think he's ill prepared to handle the Judicial and Executive branches of government.

Fixed election dates are a prime example of this. Without fundamental constitutional change the law is meaningless, the same will hold true with the senate reforms. No one in the legislative body has the power to change this without constitutional reform, Mulroney has proven that's nigh on impossible.

[noahbody]

"I continue to believe that the bill should be supported unamended and that was Mr.Ignatieff's position every time it was voted in the House of Commons," Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc said Wednesday.

Good for him.

Rae has refused to criticize the senators' decision, leaving the impression of a divide between him and his former rival Ignatieff.

The Liberal Party really needs to dump Rae.

[noahbody]

I find it troubling that you think its ok for one person to have so much power. Mr. Harper or any PM should not be able to do whatever

This isn't about any one person though. This is about what the people of Canada want. The show of power in this case is coming from the Senate.

I've never seen reason for giving credit in the first place. Shouldn't two people who commit the same crime serve the same amount of time?

[ToadBrother]

Well come January 2010 it'll work the way Harper wants it to work as the Senate will be under Tory control and their won't be a thing that the Liberal Senators will be able to do. Harper will be bale to pass whatever he wants. If the HoC votes against him we'll go to an election and we'll come back with a majority then Harper can really do whatever he wants.

Last time I looked, it's still a minority Parliament.

This is the last desperate grasp by the Liberals to retain whatever power had been built up during those 13 years of Liberal power. It's taken 4 years of Tory power to reverse it but it's finally coming to an end for the Liberals.

And with it one of the last bastions of Reform. Senate reform is dead.

[Dave_ON]

Last time I looked, it's still a minority Parliament.

And with it one of the last bastions of Reform. Senate reform is dead.

Indeed, it's funny how the more things change the more they stay the same. The CPC will have their senate majority, and find they like, even though they criticized the LPC so harshly for it. I do fully expect Mr. Harper to try and pass some window dressing senate reform legislation that will lack any constitutional clout. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Mr.Canada]

Indeed, it's funny how the more things change the more they stay the same. The CPC will have their senate majority, and find they like, even though they criticized the LPC so harshly for it. I do fully expect Mr. Harper to try and pass some window dressing senate reform legislation that will lack any constitutional clout. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

With a Tory majority comes change I'm hoping. Smaller government, less spending(after the stimulus) and less taxes.

[Who's Doing What?]

With a Tory majority comes change I'm hoping. Smaller government, less spending(after the stimulus) and less taxes.

And what has Harper done since being PM to lead you to think he will be spending less?

[Mr.Canada]

And what has Harper done since being PM to lead you to think he will be spending less?

Once the stimulus spending is phased out I'll expect the spending to drop by huge amounts. I want spending cut to social programs as well as taxes lowered.

If he doesn't do this once the economy is stable he won't last much past the next leadership review held. We'll see what he has to say at the next Conservative convention. The grassroots do not like all this spending and Harper will be under a lot of pressure from us to curb it once the economy stabilizes or we'll turf him. Simple as that.

If you guys want to get rid of Harper then you should hope he keeps spending and refuses to listen to his grassroots.

But we're hoping once he gets a majority he'll get back to being a small c conservative.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[ToadBrother]

Once the stimulus spending is phased out I'll expect the spending to drop by huge amounts. I want spending cut to social programs as well as taxes lowered.

What you want seems rather irrelevant to what Harper will do.

If he doesn't do this once the economy is stable he won't last much past the next leadership review held. We'll see what he has to say at the next Conservative convention. The grassroots do not like all this spending and Harper will be under a lot of pressure from us to curb it once the economy stabilizes or we'll turf him. Simple as that.

By grassroots you mean the old Reform rump. They'd better get used to the new Tory party. There's a song that amply describes the situation the Reformers are in, and it ends with "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

If you guys want to get rid of Harper then you should hope he keeps spending and refuses to listen to his grassroots.

But we're hoping once he gets a majority he'll get back to being a small c conservative.

You're all going to be disappointed by Harper. If he wants the job (and there's every indication he does), he will do by essentially raising the Progressive Conservative party from the ashes.

[eyeball]

I would have preferred to see the senate say something like, 'Bill C-25 is a piece of ideological shit designed for one thing, getting Conservatives elected'.

So I wonder what a senate that recently called for less conservative marijuana laws will say about C-15 - 'Bill C-15 is another piece of ideological shit designed for one thing, getting Conservatives elected'?

They should, because its just as true.

[Dave_ON]

With a Tory majority comes change I'm hoping. Smaller government, less spending(after the stimulus) and less taxes.

Well you should already be disappointed considering Harper increased the size of his cabinent last election. Further there are many indications that taxes will go rather than down. No one wants to discuss taxes going up, and rightly so, but it will come eventually, and Mr. Harper may just wish he wasn't PM when it comes time to break the news to the country.

[Mr.Canada]

I would have preferred to see the senate say something like, 'Bill C-25 is a piece of ideological shit designed for one thing, getting Conservatives elected'.

So I wonder what a senate that recently called for less conservative marijuana laws will say about C-15 - 'Bill C-15 is another piece of ideological shit designed for one thing, getting Conservatives elected'?

They should, because its just as true.

Well if it gets Conservatives elected then they are doing their jobs by representing their constituency just like Ruby Dhalla did. Her constituents want easier access to OAS money. Conservative constituents are concerned about higher crime rates that's why we vote the way we do.

[fellowtraveller]

Gasp! You mean the Senate is actually doing its job by amending legislation how scandalous! There are two houses for a reason, because it sails through one doesn't mean it gets an automatic approval from the senate. That's not the way our system works, and thankfully so.

Good question, which has an easy answer.

Senate cooperation depends entirely on whether or not the House of Commons is Liberal or Tory.

[Argus]

You've hit the nail on the head, no MP would vote against it, that's why we have an appointed senate who isn't subject to whims of the electorate, it provides the balance of power in our law making body. The idea isn't to prolong the process, it's to point out what the senate sees as a flaw in the legislation.

No, it's strictly ideological. Most of the senate are Trudeau and Chretien Liberals who cry every time a criminal is sent to prison.

This bill was passed unanimously by the House. The provinces have been clamouring for it, and it has overwhelming public support. Portraying the Senate as 'sober second thought" is ludicrous and laughable. They are a bunch of old party hacks rewarded for their loyaty to Trudeau and Chreten.

The Liberal senators are doing two things by shooting it down. One, they're giving a gift to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, for the Tories can continue to use this agaist the Liberals in an election, whenever it is called. Two, they're telling everyone who wants to listen that they don't like Ignatieff. They are far more left wing than him and prefer someone like Bob Rae and his way of looking at things. This, of course, further damages his leadership.

It's funny, but the Liberals like to alternate between a French and an English leader. But the French leaders seem to get overwhelming support among them and stay on for years, while the English leaders barely have time to order the curtains before they're thrown out to make room for another Francophone.