Liberal Senators Delaying Ethics Bill

[scribblet]

Another reason to get rid of an unelected partisian Senate. Notice the part about charging higher fees at the convention to get around some fundraising issues.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...b3-9290453a1f5c

Liberals accused of deliberately delaying ethics bill Senators aim to benefit party leadership race, Tories, NDP say to hold up the Conservatives' accountability bill because its proposed $1,000 limitation on political donations would create problems for their party's fundraising and leadership convention this fall, the government Senate leader says.

Senator Marjory LeBreton, along with NDP critic Pat Martin, said yesterday that suggestions from the Liberals that it may take until December for the Senate to properly study the much-anticipated corruption-fighting legislation makes them suspect that the date of the Grit leadership convention in the same month may be playing a role in their slow deliberations.

"I hope they are not doing this simply because they are worrying about the date of the Liberal leadership convention because that wouldn't be appropriate," said Ms. LeBreton.

For his part, Mr. Martin predicted "the wrath of Canadians" will come down on the Liberals, who have a majority in the Senate, if they do hold up the legislation in the upper chamber after the House "rolled up its sleeves and worked some extraordinary long days" on the bill.

"These senators come from an era of unbridled patronage ... politics. They are no friends of open government, and transparency and accountability run opposite to what they are all about," Mr. Martin added.

He also pointed out that the Liberal party's decision to charge high fees for its convention in December put it in a potential conflict with the new provisions in the bill, which limit individual donations......

The House of Commons is expected to sit until midnight every day this week in order to approve the ethics package, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said is his government's top priority, before the House breaks for the summer.

It's expected the bill will be sent to the Senate for its consideration tomorrow.

[Oddman]

Harper can preach about ethics all he wants, but when push comes to shove he is as partisan and works the system as well as the Liberals.

Just ask Emmerson...

[MightyAC]

Harper’s old buddy, the current president of the NCC had qualms about the $1,000 personal donation limit as well. He had two main points the first being that it infringes on the rights of individuals to restrict how they can spend their own hard earned money. The second was that this limit is really just an attack on other parties. The Conservatives receive most of their donations in the form of small cheques from individuals. This is mainly because of the grassroots origins of the Reform party. The NDP and Liberals tend to receive fewer but larger donations. Also, it would drastically inhibit the ability of fledgling parties to gain support. Typically smaller parties like the Greens get a start by receiving large donations from a few interested individuals. Over time they use the large donations to build a larger following. It would be almost impossible to start a new party with the $1,000 cap. So the personal donation limit may really be an attack on other political parties disguised as accountability.

Also, I have heard that the new ethics package actually opens up 10 new loopholes that would allow the government to hide money from auditors. If those loopholes still exist then I really do hope the Senate blocks this bill.

[geoffrey]

It pretty much financially ruins the Liberal party. They are massively in debt, owe us money, and they got all their money from corporations and rich people. Never has the Liberal party been so directly attacked by a bill.

Even the NDP is more grassroots.

It's big trouble financially for the Liberals. Could they go bankrupt? Could we see a law that forbids a party from borrowing money to campaign (which there should be)?

[August1991]

Harper can preach about ethics all he wants, but when push comes to shove he is as partisan and works the system as well as the Liberals.

Just ask Emmerson...

Oddman, I oddly had the same question when I heard this story on the car radio this afternoon. How far should Harper go? Should he hold an election if the Senate refuses to pass this bill?

Senate vote, accountability act, Harper, election. I dunno.

I will say that the Liberal Party has no future in its current state. Some senators claim to be Liberal, and some MPs too. There's even people who want to lead the "Liberal Party". But in fact, the Liberal Party is an empty vessel - a well-known brand name that represents nothing. The Liberal Party is like Eaton's - everyone knows the name, and everyone knows it's bankrupt (except for a few in the south of France or on the Bridle Path).

So, I wonder whether Harper should push the Liberal Party into oblivion. If he were partisan, he would. Like a cat tortures a mouse before consuming its adrenalin produced vitamins. Frankly though, I don't think Harper has any desire to destroy the federal Liberal Party. The guy is simply too English Canadian.

The Liberals may or may not pass this bill in the Senate. If they don't? Then what? The future of Canada hardly turns on the answer. And I suspect Harper knows this. Then again, if the Liberals were so foolish...

[Nocrap]

The so-called ethics bill is one of the biggest deceptions in Canadian history. (Next to Reform Harper's 'I'm a Tory'). The timing was designed to impede the Liberal leadership race and keep the Liberals in financial straits.

As for the CPC only getting small cheques. You'd best check elections Canada website. They received more large donations (maximum $ 5,000 but in many cases husbands, wives and sometimes even children coughed up the maximum to make family dontations run anywhere from 10-20,000 dollars. Naturally, they were corporate execs, mostly from Alberta Oil or Private Healthcare hopefuls.

The 1,000 limit will only work if the names are STILL MADE PUBLIC. Never should they be able to hide their identity.

Harper is crafty and with Baird helping to draft his Accountability Act...boy are we in trouble.

Senators do whatever it takes to postpone this bill until Canadians have had a chance to study it in depth. We at least deserve that.

[MightyAC]

The 1,000 limit will only work if the names are STILL MADE PUBLIC. Never should they be able to hide their identity.

I would much rather that all donors be made public than have a limit placed on my personal donation.

[scribblet]

The so-called ethics bill is one of the biggest deceptions in Canadian history. (Next to Reform Harper's 'I'm a Tory'). The timing was designed to impede the Liberal leadership race and keep the Liberals in financial straits.

As for the CPC only getting small cheques. You'd best check elections Canada website. They received more large donations (maximum $ 5,000 but in many cases husbands, wives and sometimes even children coughed up the maximum to make family dontations run anywhere from 10-20,000 dollars. Naturally, they were corporate execs, mostly from Alberta Oil or Private Healthcare hopefuls.

The 1,000 limit will only work if the names are STILL MADE PUBLIC. Never should they be able to hide their identity.

Parties are required to disclose the source of any donation over $100.

Maybe you could provide a link to back up your claims, this one says otherwise. http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000172.html

The next time that someone tells you that the Conservatives are controlled by the corporations, show them these figures. Tell them to take a closer look.

That should settle the debate.

[wellandboy]

The so-called ethics bill is one of the biggest deceptions in Canadian history. (Next to Reform Harper's 'I'm a Tory'). The timing was designed to impede the Liberal leadership race and keep the Liberals in financial straits.

As for the CPC only getting small cheques. You'd best check elections Canada website. They received more large donations (maximum $ 5,000 but in many cases husbands, wives and sometimes even children coughed up the maximum to make family dontations run anywhere from 10-20,000 dollars. Naturally, they were corporate execs, mostly from Alberta Oil or Private Healthcare hopefuls.

The 1,000 limit will only work if the names are STILL MADE PUBLIC. Never should they be able to hide their identity.

Harper is crafty and with Baird helping to draft his Accountability Act...boy are we in trouble.

Senators do whatever it takes to postpone this bill until Canadians have had a chance to study it in depth. We at least deserve that.

The only "deception" is you calling it a nefarious plot against Liberals. The rules will change and the Liberals and everbody else will adapt by appealing directly to average Canadians to finance their political party of choice. Of course if you want to make the argument that average Canadians can't afford it, they must have been over-taxed in the last 12 or so years.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Harper can preach about ethics all he wants, but when push comes to shove he is as partisan and works the system as well as the Liberals.

Just ask Emmerson...

Oddman, I oddly had the same question when I heard this story on the car radio this afternoon. How far should Harper go? Should he hold an election if the Senate refuses to pass this bill?

The Libs won't hold up the bill. They know that would give Harper all he needs to call an election. But they might amend it and send it back to the House for further review.