Harper Uses Unelected Tory Senators to Kill Climate Change Legislation

[nicky10013]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/unelected-tory-senators-kill-climate-bill-passed-by-house/article1802519/

The Conservatives have used their clout in the Senate stacked by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to kill an NDP climate change bill that was passed by a majority of the House of Commons.

Without any debate in the Red Chamber, Conservative senators caught their Liberal and unelected counterparts off-guard on Tuesday by calling a snap vote on Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act introduced by Bruce Hyer, a New Democrat who represents Thunder Bay-Superior North in the House.

The bill had required the federal government set regulations to bring greenhouse gas emissions 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and to set a long-term target to bring emissions 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Mr. Hyer said Wednesday that Conservative senators have told him the Prime Minister’s Office warned them not to talk publicly about the bill or to allow it to be debated.

And, Mr. Hyer added, there is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy of Mr. Harper “using the unelected Senate to kill bills that he doesn’t like, passed by the democratically elected House when Harper has spent most of his political career railing and raging when the Liberals did this.”

Before his Conservatives won their first election in 2006, Mr. Harper worried about the roadblocks that Liberal-appointed senators could pose for a Tory government.

“The Liberal Senate in the past was extremely unco-operative when their party wasn't in power, so it's a worry,” told reporters at that time.

“I hope that better judgment will prevail and the unelected Senate will play the role that historically it has played, which has been a useful technical role but will not try and interfere with the democratic will of the elected House.”

Although the Liberals used the majority they enjoyed in the Senate during the first years of the Harper government to suggest changes to a couple pieces of legislation, and one or two bills were delayed, they never killed bills that had been passed by a majority of the Commons.

[ToadBrother]

Because, of course, the Liberals have never used the Senate to their advantage.

[g_bambino]

Because, of course, the Liberals have never used the Senate to their advantage.

Now, now, don't you know that every time you write the word "senate" you must preceed it with the word "unelected"? It sound so much more nefarious that way.

[Wild Bill]

Now, now, don't you know that every time you write the word "senate" you must preceed it with the word "unelected"? It sound so much more nefarious that way.

Quite right! And we should also consider, who has always wanted an elected Senate? And who has opposed the idea?

[TimG]

The bill had required the federal government set regulations to bring greenhouse gas emissions 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and to set a long-term target to bring emissions 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The senate is supposed to be a place for "sober second thought". In this case it killed a ridiculous, yet politically trendy bill that was impossible to implement - exactly the kind of "sober second thought" the country needs.

In any case, I would love it if the NDP reintroduced the bill. I am pretty sure the Libs would vote it down this time because the political context for climate change bills has completely changed. I find it interesting that the death of this climate bill coincided with the one year anniversary of the release of the "climategate" emails.

Edited November 17, 2010 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

Thank God! Do you really think this legislation is good for Canada? The tide has quickly moved out regarding Climate Change. North Americans are increasingly sceptical and everytime a poll tries to ask if Canadians are willing to pay to combat "Global Warming", the issue hits a wall of resistance. When the questions are asked properly, Canadians will not pay the price that that would be required to meet the goals of this legislation. This bill was created in an attempt to demonize the Conservatives on the Environment and give the NDP the decaying and dubious honour of being Kyoto evangelists.

The bill had required the federal government set regulations to bring greenhouse gas emissions 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and to set a long-term target to bring emissions 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.

[Evening Star]

Because, of course, the Liberals have never used the Senate to their advantage.

When is the last time they actually voted down a bill that passed the Commons?

I don't even think it's a partisan issue. This was a good bill. It was ratified by the elected house. It is unfortunate IMO that the unelected upper house chose to vote it down, instead of providing 'sober second thought' and e.g. suggesting changes.

[ToadBrother]

When is the last time they actually voted down a bill that passed the Commons?

Hmmm, wonder why Brian Mulroney gave the Queen a call in 1991?

I don't even think it's a partisan issue. This was a good bill. It was ratified by the elected house. It is unfortunate IMO that the unelected upper house chose to vote it down, instead of providing 'sober second thought' and e.g. suggesting changes.

So far as I can tell the Senate did nothing that violated its constitutional role. If the House of Commons wants to strip the Senate of its powers, then I guess it better get about convincing the Provinces that it's in everyone's interest.

[nicky10013]

Quite right! And we should also consider, who has always wanted an elected Senate? And who has opposed the idea?

As far as I'm aware, the Liberals haven't taken a position vis-a-vis an elected senate. I'm against it. I'm also against the senate killing legislation outright particularly BECAUSE it's unelected. Who does want an elected Senate precisely because it is so undemocratic? Yet they do it anyway?

As some may or may not have noticed:

Although the Liberals used the majority they enjoyed in the Senate during the first years of the Harper government to suggest changes to a couple pieces of legislation, and one or two bills were delayed, they never killed bills that had been passed by a majority of the Commons.

Only one hypocritical side in all of this, and it ain't the Liberals.

[Evening Star]

I said "unfortunate" not "unconstitutional".

(And, yeah, I suspected you'd have to go back 20 years.)

[Evening Star]

I said "unfortunate" not "unconstitutional".

(And, yeah, I suspected you'd have to go back 20 years.)

Some xposts in there. That was to TB. (If we're going to get partisan, it was an NDP member's bill and the NDP has always advocated abolishing the Senate altogether. Not sure why this has become an issue about the Liberals.)

[Evening Star]

Having said all this, why were those 15 Liberal senators absent?

[ToadBrother]

I said "unfortunate" not "unconstitutional".

(And, yeah, I suspected you'd have to go back 20 years.)

What does that mean exactly? The Senate was never intended to be simply a slave to the House of Commons. Even an elected Senate would presumably have Senators sitting considerably longer than MPs, and you would still have periods when the governing party does not have a majority in the Senate (in fact, judging from the US and Australia, it would be frequent enough), so you would run up against the same wall.

"Sober second thought" doesn't mean "We thought about it, we hate it, but we'll pass it anyways."

[The_Squid]

"Sober second thought"

No debate... just quash the bill. There was no thought to this, sober or otherwise, other than doing what the PM told them to do.

For Con supporters to applaud this is hypocritical in the extreme and shows that you are nothing but a bunch of partisan hacks.

“I hope that better judgment will prevail and the unelected Senate will play the role that historically it has played, which has been a useful technical role but will not try and interfere with the democratic will of the elected House.”

Mr. Harper is a liar and a disgrace. I actually considered voting for his party because of the Senate issue. Glad I didn't.

[ToadBrother]

Some xposts in there. That was to TB. (If we're going to get partisan, it was an NDP member's bill and the NDP has always advocated abolishing the Senate altogether. Not sure why this has become an issue about the Liberals.)

Frankly I think having an upper house with at least some power to delay bills, if not to reject at least certain classes of bills, isn't a bad thing. The NDP has some pretty idiotic notions, and this is at the top of the list.

[nicky10013]

Having said all this, why were those 15 Liberal senators absent?

No one expected the vote to be called. The Liberal Senator that sponsored the bill said he didn't want the bill to stand for a vote when asked by the speaker, but the speaker called it anyway. Here's the hansard record.

n the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mitchell, seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks, for the second reading of Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

The Hon. the Speaker: I would now ask the table to call the current item.

Hon. Grant Mitchell: I do not want it to stand.

The Hon. the Speaker: If debate has concluded on this item, are honourable senators ready for the question?

Senator Comeau: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: The question has been called.

It was moved by the Honourable Senator Mitchell, seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks, that Bill C-311, an Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibility in preventing dangerous climate change, be read a second time.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will signify by saying "yea."

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed to the motion will signify by saying "nay."

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the nays have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker: Call in the senators.

Do the whips have advice as to the length of the bell?

It will be a one-hour bell. Honourable senators, the vote will take place at 20 minutes before 5:00.

[wyly]

Frankly I think having an upper house with at least some power to delay bills, if not to reject at least certain classes of bills, isn't a bad thing. The NDP has some pretty idiotic notions, and this is at the top of the list.

the senate only offers gridlock and an elected senate is even more gridlock and we'll end up with a horrific american style of government, gridlock hell...

senate is nothing more than welfare for party hacks it serves no usefull purpose... abolish it and let the useless fuckers in it find real jobs...

[g_bambino]

And we should also consider, who has always wanted an elected Senate? And who has opposed the idea?

Oh, I understand Harper's self-contradiction, and there's nothing wrong with raising that point. However, drawing attention at every opportunity to the obvious fact that the Senate is an appointed body is just a smarmy way of needlessly insinuating that there's something inherently immoral about the upper chamber.

[g_bambino]

the senate only offers gridlock and an elected senate is even more gridlock and we'll end up with a horrific american style of government, gridlock hell...

There isn't a federation in the world that doesn't have an upper house in its federal parliament. In countries that are amalgamations of states, fickle popular representation needs to be balanced by more staid regional representation. You'll never convince the provinces to be rid of the Senate.

[+]

Edited November 17, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

the senate only offers gridlock and an elected senate is even more gridlock and we'll end up with a horrific american style of government, gridlock hell...

Considering that, at least during majority governments, the Commons can become little more than a convenience, I sometimes think gridlock would be a good thing.

[nicky10013]

Considering that, at least during majority governments, the Commons can become little more than a convenience, I sometimes think gridlock would be a good thing.

I don't see how this matters as during a majority goverment, the likelyhood of the senate being in a majority for the same party is pretty good. For the most part, I'd like to see the senate return to what it was. A primarily post-partisan body of sober second thought that sends suggestions back to the HoC on legislation.

[Evening Star]

Frankly I think having an upper house with at least some power to delay bills, if not to reject at least certain classes of bills, isn't a bad thing.

I don't entirely disagree here but I'm not that thrilled about an unelected body killing a bill in the way that they did, even though I know that it is perfectly legal and constitutional. "Sober second thought" also doesn't mean forcing an unexpected vote and defeating a bill without sufficient debate. But "unfortunate" mostly just meant that I liked the bill and thought it was unfortunate that it was defeated in this way. I'm allowed, right?

You're right that an elected Senate could often offer even stiffer opposition to the Commons but its powers would seem more legitimated by democracy. I actually don't advocate an elected Senate though.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

For the most part, I'd like to see the senate return to what it was. A primarily post-partisan body of sober second thought that sends suggestions back to the HoC on legislation.

I basically agree with this.

[ToadBrother]

I don't see how this matters as during a majority goverment, the likelyhood of the senate being in a majority for the same party is pretty good. For the most part, I'd like to see the senate return to what it was. A primarily post-partisan body of sober second thought that sends suggestions back to the HoC on legislation.

That wasn't the Senate's purpose. It was meant to have some limited power over the passage of legislation. If the Fathers of Confederation had not intended that, they would not have required that legislation passed in the Commons had to flow through the Senate before it could gain Royal Assent.

You're attempting a post hoc redefining of its role, and that won't do.

Edited November 17, 2010 by ToadBrother

[nicky10013]

That wasn't the Senate's purpose. It was meant to have some limited power over the passage of legislation. If the Fathers of Confederation had not intended that, they would not have required that legislation passed in the Commons had to flow through the Senate before it could gain Royal Assent.

You're attempting a post hoc redefining of its role, and that won't do.

The senate's purpose isn't defined within the BNA act. The intent of the senate may have started out as that, but as tradition has evolved, the senate has turned into a consultative body rather than an effective check.