Senate holding up Bill S-4 re: term limits

[g_bambino]

The House of Commons is not omnipotent or beyond reproach. It's also against the GG's mandate to pass a bill that is glaringly unconstitutional. In our constitutional structure it's these bodies are there precicely to put a halt to unlawful actions of the Cabinet, not the SCC.

Judging the constitutionality of an Act of Parliament is the job of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Absolutely correct. But, we still operate under a concept called parliamentary supremacy in this country. That means the SCC can offer a ruling on the constitutionality of an act, but it remains up to Parliament to decide if it stays or goes. The Senate is a part of the parliamentary process - three parts, remember? Queen, Senate and Commons - and can vote down a bill and send it back to the House if the members so please. The Senate could vote on this bill, and most likely defeat it, but instead they've said Harper should put it before the SCC to see what's said about the necessity of input from the provinces - so they are indeed recognizing judging the constituionality of an act is the job of the SCC, but they also recognize they're part of the process that creates a law, not the SCC. I don't think that's an affront to the democratic process. Why should the Senate not ask the Prime Minister to seek added opinion from the SCC before casting their votes on this bill? Why should Senators not be concerned for the regions they represent and what role those regions might or might not play in these revisions to the Senate's composition? I think they're wise to remember the provinces are still constitutionally co-sovereign entities in this country and not subordinates to the federal government.

[Michael Bluth]

I don't think that's an affront to the democratic process. Why should the Senate not ask the Prime Minister to seek added opinion from the SCC before casting their votes on this bill?

Because the Senate has no legitimacy.

They have been appointed until the age of 75 with no vetting process of any kind.

You are arguing that an appointed body should thwart the will of the elected Government and don't see it as an affront to the democratic process?

[g_bambino]

I don't think that's an affront to the democratic process. Why should the Senate not ask the Prime Minister to seek added opinion from the SCC before casting their votes on this bill?

Because the Senate has no legitimacy.

They have been appointed until the age of 75 with no vetting process of any kind.

You are arguing that an appointed body should thwart the will of the elected Government and don't see it as an affront to the democratic process?

The Senate has constitutional legitimacy - it's approval must be given to a bill before it can proceed to the level of recieving Royal Assent. It can vote against a bill. This is the case, whether you like it or not. Beyond that, they're not "thwarting the will" of the government; reviewing the bill and asking for SCC input is part of the process. It seems all you're upset about it the speed at which this is being done.

[Michael Bluth]

The Senate has constitutional legitimacy - it's approval must be given to a bill before it can proceed to the level of recieving Royal Assent. It can vote against a bill. This is the case, whether you like it or not. Beyond that, they're not "thwarting the will" of the government; reviewing the bill and asking for SCC input is part of the process. It seems all you're upset about it the speed at which this is being done.

Darn right I don't like it.

The Senate should not exist in its current form.

Senators have been loathe to exert their constitutionally endowed powers for fear of losing their free lunch.

It's up to them.

If they want to use their illegitimate power they will lose it that much more quickly.

[scribblet]

Darn right I don't like it.

The Senate should not exist in its current form.

Senators have been loathe to exert their constitutionally endowed powers for fear of losing their free lunch.

It's up to them.

If they want to use their illegitimate power they will lose it that much more quickly.

I think your right, if they block the budget bill and help defeat the gov't and its splattered all over the front pages that its the fault of an unelected seante - we would see much more support for electing them. If they keep this up, they will be the authors of their own demise.

[normanchateau]

The Senate should not exist in its current form.

Agreed. The current number of senators per province has no relationship to reality. Some provinces are scandalously under-represented. Harper's proposed legislation completely ignores this.

[Michael Bluth]

Agreed. The current number of senators per province has no relationship to reality. Some provinces are scandalously under-represented. Harper's proposed legislation completely ignores this.

The proposed legislation can be done without Provincial assent.

Not so for changing the number of seats.

Better incremental change, which is easier to impelement, than wholesale change which will never get implemented.

[jdobbin]

I think your right, if they block the budget bill and help defeat the gov't and its splattered all over the front pages that its the fault of an unelected seante - we would see much more support for electing them. If they keep this up, they will be the authors of their own demise.

The Liberals have said that they won't interfere with a money bill. Any Senator who votes for against the money bill be tossed from the Liberal caucus.

[geoffrey]

The Liberals have said that they won't interfere with a money bill. Any Senator who votes for against the money bill be tossed from the Liberal caucus.

But they'll hold it up I'm sure.

Dion has no control over his party, what if they all (or most) dissent together? Will he dismiss all the Liberals in the Senate?! He hasn't been able to convince them not to interfere on the other bills, despite him pleading the senate to let them pass.

[scribblet]

I think your right, if they block the budget bill and help defeat the gov't and its splattered all over the front pages that its the fault of an unelected seante - we would see much more support for electing them. If they keep this up, they will be the authors of their own demise.

The Liberals have said that they won't interfere with a money bill. Any Senator who votes for against the money bill be tossed from the Liberal caucus.

But the Liberal Senators have said they will ignore Dion's wishes - what's it going to be, besides they can't be tossed from the Senate -"It's even the law," Dion said of the Senate's responsibility not to block budget bills

Liberal Senator George Baker

"Normally the Senate does not interfere … with something [like] a money bill passed by the House of Commons," Baker, a former Newfoundland MP, told CBC News..... but.....

[jdobbin]

But the Liberal Senators have said they will ignore Dion's wishes - what's it going to be, besides they can't be tossed from the Senate -"It's even the law," Dion said of the Senate's responsibility not to block budget bills

Liberal Senator George Baker

"Normally the Senate does not interfere … with something [like] a money bill passed by the House of Commons," Baker, a former Newfoundland MP, told CBC News..... but.....

If they are independent Senators, Dion has no control over them. As I said, he can kick them out of the caucus but the system as it stands lets them vote down a bill but they can't defeat it if it is a money bill.

The money bill will pass. The Commons would just turn it around as per the law and even the Liberals in the Commons would vote for it then.

[jdobbin]

But they'll hold it up I'm sure.

Dion has no control over his party, what if they all (or most) dissent together? Will he dismiss all the Liberals in the Senate?! He hasn't been able to convince them not to interfere on the other bills, despite him pleading the senate to let them pass.

From the talk I heard on CBC radio, Dion is prepared to oust every Liberal Senator in the caucus if they try to defeat or delay the money bill. How is that for control of the party?

[geoffrey]

But they'll hold it up I'm sure.

Dion has no control over his party, what if they all (or most) dissent together? Will he dismiss all the Liberals in the Senate?! He hasn't been able to convince them not to interfere on the other bills, despite him pleading the senate to let them pass.

From the talk I heard on CBC radio, Dion is prepared to oust every Liberal Senator in the caucus if they try to defeat or delay the money bill. How is that for control of the party?

I'll believe it when I see it.

[Michael Bluth]

From the talk I heard on CBC radio, Dion is prepared to oust every Liberal Senator in the caucus if they try to defeat or delay the money bill. How is that for control of the party?

I'll believe it when I see it.

That is such a ridiculous threat.

Threats of kicking an MP out of caucus are serious because of the difficulty winning re-election as an independent or with a new party.

If these guys get kicked out of the Liberal caucus they are still Senators for life.

It will never happen and Dion will be the one forced to blink in this game of chicken.

[scribblet]

That is such a ridiculous threat.

Threats of kicking an MP out of caucus are serious because of the difficulty winning re-election as an independent or with a new party.

If these guys get kicked out of the Liberal caucus they are still Senators for life.

It will never happen and Dion will be the one forced to blink in this game of chicken.

We are talking about the Senate not MPs, Dion can't do a darn thing about it. Mind you, it isn't likely the Senate will give up their summer holidays over this now so in the end they'll likely pass it and if not, the CPC will gain back their lead. from the Star: "With his differences with his senators already public, a blockade in the Upper House could do more damage to Dion's credibility than to the battered budget itself."

"I call on Liberal senators to put politics aside, respect the will of the House, listen to your leader Stephane Dion and deliver the gains that people, provinces and not-for-profit organizations are waiting for," Conservative Senator Marjorie LeBreton said at a news conference with Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan.

Delaying the budget past June 30 would delay almost $4-billion in benefits to Canadians, including tax cuts for working families and investments in the environment and health care."

I'm kind of hoping that the Liberal Senators will do us a favour and be the cause of their own demise (Senate wise that is) -

[Michael Bluth]

I'm kind of hoping that the Liberal Senators will do us a favour and be the cause of their own demise (Senate wise that is) -

Sadly they'd never have the balls to take such action.

[Knoss]

abolishing the Senate is second choice for me but if we can't limit terms or reform it I'd go for abolishing it. And the GG office.

A truly effective Senate, both equal and elected is preferable to abolishment.

Equal?

Do you really think that the chameleon-like Harper, who supported an "equal" Senate as a Reform MP and Leader of the Canadian Alliance, would now dare propose that PEI should have as many Senators as Quebec?

Do you really think that the hypocrite who promised Quebec more than an additional four billion dollars next year, ensuring that the BQ supported the 2007 federal budget and allowing Charest to deliver a tax cut to Quebecers at the expense of the rest of us, has sufficient gonads to deliver additional Senate seats to British Columbia and Alberta at the cost of Quebec Senate seats?

Do you really think that the man who said "As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed" maintains the same principles as the man who appointed his former campaign manager and Quebec Conservative party fundraiser to the unelected Senate?

Of course then he wouldn't have to appease the BQ as the senate would turn over any non -confedence motion.

[Michael Bluth]

Of course then he wouldn't have to appease the BQ as the senate would turn over any non -confedence motion.

Not without more changes to the way Parliament functions.

The interesting thing about is that Harper is being charged with being a "control freak" for taking power out of the hands of the Prime Minister.

1. Fixed election dates - take away the power of the PM to pick the most advantageous date of the next election for his own political gain.

2. Senate reform (term limits and elections) - give the Senate more power. Power that reduces the role of the PM.

Harper would simply have to appease the Senate more often and the BQ less often.

[August1991]

What is this supposed to mean?

Another bill held up by the Senate would have limited the terms of senators from up to 45 years down to a maximum of eight, Harper said.

"They have not merely defied the government, they are defying elected members of parliament, public opinion and all common sense," Harper said Friday afternoon, speaking to reporters.

Harper, who has made senate reform a major priority since he was elected, said the Liberal-dominated senate has made a "terrible error."

"I believe Senate reform will happen one way or another and I believe they've made a tragic mistake that will exclude them from the process," he warned.

CTV

Is that a threat?

I suspect that Harper is planning to run the next campaign on the arrogance of the Liberals and he'll use as prima facie evidence the fat cat Liberals in the Senate.

First, this is a good overall strategy because it is populist and plays to the ordinary, honest taxpaying citizen against the elites in this country. These elites, too often in this country, didn't earn their lifestyle by making a better lightbulb. They earned it by being friends with the party in power. Senators are the most egregious example.

Second, this strategy fits well with the Reform wing of the Tories and with the populism in the West. It will work in rural central Canada and in suburbs. It was the strategy of the Liberals under King and the Democrats under Truman.

[jdobbin]

Is that a threat?

I suspect that Harper is planning to run the next campaign on the arrogance of the Liberals and he'll use as prima facie evidence the fat cat Liberals in the Senate.

First, this is a good overall strategy because it is populist and plays to the ordinary, honest taxpaying citizen against the elites in this country. These elites, too often in this country, didn't earn their lifestyle by making a better lightbulb. They earned it by being friends with the party in power. Senators are the most egregious example.

Second, this strategy fits well with the Reform wing of the Tories and with the populism in the West. It will work in rural central Canada and in suburbs. It was the strategy of the Liberals under King and the Democrats under Truman.

If Harper wants to change the Senate, refer it to the Supreme Court and get consensus from the provinces.

If it is good enough for his new revised policy on Afghanistan, it is good enough for Senate reform.

[geoffrey]

If wants to change the Senate, refer it to the Supreme Court and get consensus from the provinces.

That's an option. Harper doesn't want to though. So tough. The senate is obligated (like Dion said) to pass the budget, to pass the senate bill, ect. ect.. They can provide recommendations and non-material changes. They cannot stall or vote down legislation.

The provinces can take it to court if they wish. Still awaiting Calvert's lawsuit. Oh wait... that was just posturing? Right.

[jdobbin]

That's an option. Harper doesn't want to though. So tough. The senate is obligated (like Dion said) to pass the budget, to pass the senate bill, ect. ect.. They can provide recommendations and non-material changes. They cannot stall or vote down legislation.

The provinces can take it to court if they wish. Still awaiting Calvert's lawsuit. Oh wait... that was just posturing? Right.

They can vote down a money bill, they just can't defeat it.

They can vote down a Senate bill and defeat it.

As for Saskatchewan's lawsuit, it is supposed to filed in federal court next week.

[Michael Bluth]

The provinces can take it to court if they wish. Still awaiting Calvert's lawsuit. Oh wait... that was just posturing? Right.

Yes, it's just posturing.

Calvert has made his point. Anything else would be frivolous.