Harper Uses Unelected Tory Senators to Kill Climate Change Legislation

[ToadBrother]

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.

That's a delightful theory, but the Senate's powers are explicitly laid out. The only kind of constitutional doctrine you can claim has "evolved" in the sense that you're invoking is that which was organic (ie. unwritten) in nature. Since the Senate clearly has legislative powers laid out in the BNA Act, you can't claim that convention has changed over time. This isn't some ancient Royal Prerogative that has become extinct, this is very much codified.

Section 91 of the BNA Act:

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces...

Where the hell did you ever get the idea that the Senate's role was only convention? The BNA Act clearly makes the Senate part of the legislative process, giving it powers of Advise and Consent just like the House of Commons.

If you were right, then the Senate just violated the constitution, which obviously it did not.

In other words, you're just plain wrong.

Edited November 17, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

its powers would seem more legitimated by democracy.

What do you think democracy means?

[Keepitsimple]

Too much attention has been given to the process and not enough to the substance of this legislation. As a chamber of sober second thought - they've finally done their job. Does anyone really believe this legislation is good for Canada? Canadians do not want to PAY THE PRICE for the dubious and decaying Kyoto ideology.

[ToadBrother]

Too much attention has been given to the process and not enough to the substance of this legislation. As a chamber of sober second thought - they've finally done their job. Does anyone really believe this legislation is good for Canada? Canadians do not want to PAY THE PRICE for the dubious and decaying Kyoto ideology.

Oh please. If it was the Liberals in Government and the Tories in Opposition, you would be among the first here decrying the loss of democracy.

[Evening Star]

What do you think democracy means?

From the Oxford American Dictionary:

democracy |dɪˈmɒkrəsi|

noun ( pl. -cies)

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives : capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world.

• a state governed in such a way : a multiparty democracy.

• control of an organization or group by the majority of its members : the intended extension of industrial democracy.

• the practice or principles of social equality : demands for greater democracy.

ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French démocratie, via late Latin from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule.’

[Evening Star]

Does anyone really believe this legislation is good for Canada?

Yes.

[ToadBrother]

From the Oxford American Dictionary:

Argumentum ad dictionarum, as the old joke goes. Clearly "democracy" encompasses a rather wide array of systems of government. Do you think that Denmark isn't a democracy because it has an unelected head of state that still retains some substantial reserve powers?

[nicky10013]

That's a delightful theory, but the Senate's powers are explicitly laid out. The only kind of constitutional doctrine you can claim has "evolved" in the sense that you're invoking is that which was organic (ie. unwritten) in nature. Since the Senate clearly has legislative powers laid out in the BNA Act, you can't claim that convention has changed over time. This isn't some ancient Royal Prerogative that has become extinct, this is very much codified.

Section 91 of the BNA Act:

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces...

Where the hell did you ever get the idea that the Senate's role was only convention? The BNA Act clearly makes the Senate part of the legislative process, giving it powers of Advise and Consent just like the House of Commons.

If you were right, then the Senate just violated the constitution, which obviously it did not.

In other words, you're just plain wrong.

If I was right, you can't violate somethign that isn't there. THat being said, consent was always given with advice. It became the tradition precisely because the Upper House is unelected. Furthermore, I never argued it was unconstitional. I just said it's in bad taste.

[Alta4ever]

That's a delightful theory, but the Senate's powers are explicitly laid out. The only kind of constitutional doctrine you can claim has "evolved" in the sense that you're invoking is that which was organic (ie. unwritten) in nature. Since the Senate clearly has legislative powers laid out in the BNA Act, you can't claim that convention has changed over time. This isn't some ancient Royal Prerogative that has become extinct, this is very much codified.

Section 91 of the BNA Act:

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces...

Where the hell did you ever get the idea that the Senate's role was only convention? The BNA Act clearly makes the Senate part of the legislative process, giving it powers of Advise and Consent just like the House of Commons.

If you were right, then the Senate just violated the constitution, which obviously it did not.

In other words, you're just plain wrong.

Here it is expressly Defined under Legislative Power in the BNA Act

Royal Assent to Bills, etc.

55. Where a Bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor General for the Queen's Assent, he shall declare, according to his Discretion, but subject to the Provisions of this Act and to Her Majesty's Instructions, either that he assents thereto in the Queen's Name, or that he withholds the Queen's Assent, or that he reserves the Bill for the Signification of the Queen's Pleasure.

Notice the pural on Houses.

17. There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.

Voting in Senate

36. Questions arising in the Senate shall be decided by a Majority of Voices, and the Speaker shall in all Cases have a Vote, and when the Voices are equal the Decision shall be deemed to be in the Negative.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Const/2.html

I think those were the points you were getting at Toadbrother.

[nicky10013]

Here it is expressly Defined under Legislative Power in the BNA Act

Notice the pural on Houses.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Const/2.html

I think those were the points you were getting at Toadbrother.

And? How does this contradict what I've posted above?

[TimG]

If I was right, you can't violate somethign that isn't there. THat being said, consent was always given with advice. It became the tradition precisely because the Upper House is unelected. Furthermore, I never argued it was unconstitutional. I just said it's in bad taste.

Why? The senate killed abortion bill. It tried to block the GST. It is entitled to do this on any politically sensitive bill. If this bill truly represents the 'will of parliament' then all the opposition needs to do is resubmit it and dare the senate to block it a second time.

What pisses me off is people only complain about the irrelevant procedural delays because they know they want to do something that the people of the country don't really want. So they end up stomping their feet like a spoiled 2 year old over the 'missed opportunity' to impose their will on an unwilling populous.

My rule of thumb is: if a legislation cannot survive a procedural delay then it never should be passed. The same goes for the prorogation and the coalition. The fact that the coalition fell a part immediately shows that the GG was right to allow a cooling off period.

Edited November 17, 2010 by TimG

[myata]

The system looks more and more like a partisan joke of democracy.. or a partisan impersonation of it who cares. Wouldn't it be so much easier just to clap and cheer to whatever the Leader (oops democratic Prime Minister with supreme democratic Parliament in continuous prorogation) has to say? Looks like we're on the way there, and it'll sure cut us a lot of buck out of that deficit.

[g_bambino]

From the Oxford American Dictionary:

Then, your earier statement

its powers would seem more legitimated by democracy.

doesn't seem to make much sense.

[g_bambino]

The system looks more and more like a partisan joke of democracy..

And here we have myata, who thinks democracy is non-partisan!

[Alta4ever]

If a bill does not pass the senate it does not become law, the senate has the constitutional authority to kill bills.

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.

It has never been a post-partisan body that could only send suggestions back to the HoC, it has held more power then that since its inception in 1867. The Senate has been a partisan body since the introduction of political parties in the British Parliamentary system.

The senate has never been just what you assert it to be it's legislative authority is so much more as pointed out by Toad Brother . as Tod Brother sais "The BNA Act clearly makes the Senate part of the legislative process, giving it powers of Advise and Consent just like the House of Commons."

[waldo]

We don’t believe an unelected body should in anyway be blocking an elected body,”… “We are looking for the opportunity to elect senators, but if at some point it becomes clear some senators are not going to be elected, the government will name senators to ensure that the elected will of the House of Commons and the people of Canada is reflected in the Senate.

The government can prevent any bill from coming on to the Senate floor for debate, and they've done that for 193 days, and the first opportunity they got after not enough Liberals were around, they moved quickly to kill the bill.

A number of our Conservative senators — who darn it, won't go on the record — have told me that the Prime Minister's Office has ordered them not to speak about the climate change bill, not to allow it to come up for a vote and to kill it when they could

no debate, no committee... no “second sober thought”… killed in the night by stealth... by trickery!

[Evening Star]

Then, your earier statement

doesn't seem to make much sense.

"I, and a number of other people, would feel a little less resentful if an elected Senate, as opposed to an unelected Senate, vetoed a bill that passed the Commons. This is because it seems more legitimate in my eyes for a democratically elected body to have that power."

Better?

(Of course, this is complicated by the fact that I'd actually prefer a less powerful unelected Senate or no Senate at all to an elected one.)

[g_bambino]

Better?

Not really, because it still presumes that democracy resides only in a ballot box.

[ToadBrother]

If I was right, you can't violate somethign that isn't there. THat being said, consent was always given with advice. It became the tradition precisely because the Upper House is unelected. Furthermore, I never argued it was unconstitional. I just said it's in bad taste.

It's in the BNA Act, save for the exceptions on money bills, the Senate enjoys similar powers to the Commons. An argument for convention only works where you don't actually have proscriptive constitutional documents. Where such documents exist, that makes up the "written" part of the Constitution, and the BNA Act is a written part of our Constitution which affords the Senate those powers.

So we can both agree then that the Senate does indeed have the right to block this sort of legislation. Nothing to do with conventions, and everything to do with the black and white of our written constitution.

[ToadBrother]

"I, and a number of other people, would feel a little less resentful if an elected Senate, as opposed to an unelected Senate, vetoed a bill that passed the Commons. This is because it seems more legitimate in my eyes for a democratically elected body to have that power."

Better?

It makes it clear that there is no convention as you claimed it. You were trying to make a clearly false assertion about the Senate's powers. Those powers, as I quoted from the document that in fact created the Senate, are defined. Read further in the BNA Act and you will find where the Senate's limitations are (for instance, money bills cannot be introduced in the Senate).

(Of course, this is complicated by the fact that I'd actually prefer a less powerful unelected Senate or no Senate at all to an elected one.)

That's an entirely different debate. There are pros and cons to be argued about, but what isn't debatable is that the Senate has legislative powers, both to introduce legislation, and requiring that legislation be accepted by the Senate before going off for Royal Assent.

[g_bambino]

So we can both agree then that the Senate does indeed have the right to block this sort of legislation.

Quite right:

The Senate can initiate any bills except bills providing for the expenditure of public money or imposing taxes. It can amend or reject any bill whatsoever. It can reject any bill as often as it sees fit. No bill can become law unless it has been passed by the Senate.

How Canadians Govern Themselves

However:

In theory these powers are formidable. But the Senate rarely rejects a bill passed by the House of Commons, and has very rarely insisted on an amendment that the House of Commons rejected. In other cases, the Senate has simply not adopted bills before the end of a session, thereby effectively stopping them from becoming law.

How Canadians Govern Themselves

[Evening Star]

When did I claim anything about the Senate's constitutionally defined powers? All I said was that I thought this was unfortunate, by which I meant that I don't like it, mainly because I liked the bill itself. Oh, I guess I agreed with Nicky that I'd prefer for the Senate to debate and suggest changes to legislation instead of actually voting it down. I freely acknowledge that there's not really any common-law tradition stipulating that's what the Senate should do. You're completely right about the constitutional and legal issues, TB.

G_Bambino, if your point is that Senators are appointed on the recommendations of democratically elected officials, I suppose you've got me there. If anything, I guess it's actually kind of neat that we have a living document of Canadian political history changing more gradually in the Senate.

[Alta4ever]

"I, and a number of other people, would feel a little less resentful if an elected Senate, as opposed to an unelected Senate, vetoed a bill that passed the Commons. This is because it seems more legitimate in my eyes for a democratically elected body to have that power."

Better?

(Of course, this is complicated by the fact that I'd actually prefer a less powerful unelected Senate or no Senate at all to an elected one.)

Funny how attitudes change when the roles are reversed. Bet your wishing the Liberals and NDP had supported the Tories when they brought forward the term limit legislation on senators, and used Alberta Senate elections as a possible model for the rest of the country. Maybe the Liberals and the NDP will support it the next time it is brought up.

Maybe you should vote CPC in the next election since they are the only party who has tried to bring forward senate reform.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Alta4ever

[blueblood]

Oh please. If it was the Liberals in Government and the Tories in Opposition, you would be among the first here decrying the loss of democracy.

It is funny to see that some Left posters are in a tizzy over this when only a year or so ago we had the senate gridlocking tory bills and those same posters were trotting out the constitution.

Personally I'd prefer an elected senate similar to the senate set up in the states, but I am only one person, and that would be up to the gov't in charge to have the stones to go to the provinces about that matter, which would take up to much time and money.

So, the only thing to do about it is to elect a gov't which is going to try and stack the senate their way. If Harper gets a majority, I don't think he'll be going after an elected senate with so much zeal as he'd have it stacked by now.

[g_bambino]

G_Bambino, if your point is that Senators are appointed on the recommendations of democratically elected officials, I suppose you've got me there.

That pretty much is my point, yes. I don't know when in this country the word "appointment" became a synonym for "evil act against human freedom".