Liberal Senators May Split Conservative Budget

[FiveParadox]

The most recent budget brought down by Her Majesty’s Government for Canada may see some changes made very soon — by the Honourable the Senate of Canada. The Government’s budget not only included budgetary measures, but several other legislative measures (as an omnibus bill) that the Government knew that opposition parties would probably not support as independent pieces of legislation. By keeping those measures bundled to a budget (the defeat of which would have forced a general election), the Government would be able to see some more controversial and unpalatable measures passed by the House of Commons.

However, as the Government is not responsible to the Senate, our honourable senators have the freedom to amend and change the budget as they deem appropriate without the risk of sending Canadians to the polls. Honourable senators for Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the Senate (with the support of an honourable senator for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada) look set to use the majority of non-Government senators to force the budget to be split into multiple pieces of legislation; the actual budget would only keep budgetary provisions, and other issues would be moved to separate bills.

The revised budget would then be returned to the Commons, where the Government could attempt to replace the provisions that had been removed. Should the Senate and Commons be unable to agree on a budget to be passed, the prime minister could either (a) request that Her Majesty the Queen of Canada authorise the summons of an extra eight Government senators to pass the budget pursuant to s. 26 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or (b) request the prorogation of the Parliament of Canada so that a new budget can be proposed upon its return (as the Commons cannot introduce legislation of the same subject matter twice during the same session of the legislature). The Commons cannot override the Senate.

I entirely support this move by Liberal senators; Canada has always avoided the use of omnibus legislation. The Senate would not be changing the budget, but only moving unrelated policy to separate pieces of legislation to be debated on their own merits rather than forcing the Commons to accept those measures to avoid an election. What do you think? Should the Senate split this omnibus budget into separate bills, or leave it as-is? Should the Senate have the power to amend or reject budgets passed by the House of Commons? Should the Senate have any role at all when it comes to budgets? Let’s discuss.

 

[Colpy]

I am actually unsure what was in the bill other than budgetary measures......so I can't offer an opinion......

The gov't has talked of much legislation of which I disapprove.........so we'll see how they split it and what is in each part.

 

[Liberalman]

Split it and send it back but since the Conservatives control the Senate it will probably be passed

 

[Tonington]

I am actually unsure what was in the bill other than budgetary measures......so I can't offer an opinion......

The gov't has talked of much legislation of which I disapprove.........so we'll see how they split it and what is in each part.

Other amendments include giving the Environment Minister the authority to deem when an environmental impact assessment needs to be done. Giving the Cabinet the power to sell off assets from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

Clearly contentious, and clearly not related to normal budgetary actions.

 

[Colpy]

Other amendments include giving the Environment Minister the authority to deem when an environmental impact assessment needs to be done. Giving the Cabinet the power to sell off assets from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

Clearly contentious, and clearly not related to normal budgetary actions.

Actually, I think the second item is within the parameters of a budget......or close enough.

I hate the idea of the unelected, Liberal-dominated Senate playing politics with the gov't, which is exactly what they are doing.

BUT, after some reflection, Five is correct. The use of an omnibus bill to try to force non-confidence items through Parliament is a misuse of process, leaving the normal operation of Parliament open to undue manipulation....so, regretfully, I voted "YES" the Senate should split the bill on a matter of principle.

 

[TenPenny]

I have always thought the idea of dumping all kinds of stuff together is simply a way to get things passed that wouldn't stand on their own, or to slide things through without much public notice. I really hate how the US system seems to rely on these completely unrelated things stuck into bills with other things.

I am completely against omnibus bills.

 

[Colpy]

I have always thought the idea of dumping all kinds of stuff together is simply a way to get things passed that wouldn't stand on their own, or to slide things through without much public notice. I really hate how the US system seems to rely on these completely unrelated things stuck into bills with other things.

I am completely against omnibus bills.

Yeah, the American example had much to do with my final position on the matter....

Omnibus bills are a blight on democracy.

 

[The Old Medic]

What you really are trying to say is:

A group of appointed people, who hold their office for life, and are beholden to the party that lost the last two elections by large margins and who have very little support from the people of Canada, will thwart the government and prevent any budget from being passed unless their ideas are forced through.

In other words, they will act like spoiled little children, have a temper tantrum and scream and pound the ground until they get their way.

I sincerely hope that they do indeed do as you are suggesting. NOTHING could damage the Liberals more than the Senate acting like this. It would be so patently obvious that they were doing this for solely political reasons, that it would backfire in their faces, and probably result in an election that would bring to Tories to an actual majority in Parliament.

And this will also bring about a movement to finally destroy this last bastion of the privileged, an unelected Senate, where people hold office for life. It is more than time that Canada finally get rid of the vestiges of the past, and have an elected Senate, for fixed terms.

The only reason the Senate is in the form it is, is because it was to ensure that the upper crust remained in office for life. It is nothing more than a version of the House of Lords, a place where those that are totally loyal to a PM (no matter how wrong that PM may be), get their reward.

Please, Senate of Canada, do exactly what you are threatening to do. Absolutely nothing will bring about your downfall more quickly than this kind of action.

 

[TenPenny]

What you really are trying to say is:

A group of appointed people, who hold their office for life, and are beholden to the party that lost the last two elections by large margins and who have very little support from the people of Canada, will thwart the government and prevent any budget from being passed unless their ideas are forced through.

Well, not quite.

The Senators are NOT beholden to anyone, that's the point of being appointed.

Also, the whole point of the Senate is to give 'sober second thought' to things like this, to think carefully about foolish ideas.

 

[FiveParadox]

The Old Medic, I take it then that you support Governments using omnibus legislation?

 

[Colpy]

The Old Medic, I take it then that you support Governments using omnibus legislation?

I believe he would be the single vote against the Senate splitting the Bill.........

I don't know why, just a feeling I have.

 

[FiveParadox]

It’s a public vote, and yes, he was. :lol:

 

[lone wolf]

Paid "witnesses" are like that. Never trust a "yes man"

 

[wulfie68]

Lets see this in terms of pros and cons...

- Omnibus bills violate Canadian parliamentary tradition
vs.
- the Senate acting in this manner is also against parliamentary tradition

- the environmental impact issue is unrelated to budgetary matters
vs.
- selling off assets of ANY gov't holding IS a budgetary matter

I hate anything that smacks of giving a group of appointees like the Senate more power over governmental function. I also despise the fact that the gov't is forcing this issue through the use of an omnibus bill... its a classic two wrongs not making a right but which is the worse wrong? I have a hard time saying.

 

[FiveParadox]

wulfie68, it is not against the traditions of Parliament for our honourable senators to make changes to the budget. The only restriction on the Senate is that it cannot create money bills, and even then, this only applies to money bills that would require the recommendation of the Governor General of Canada (as the Governor General cannot recommend that bills be introduced in the Senate, only the Commons). The Senate has made hundreds of amendments to Commons bills, and they are almost always accepted by the House.

 

[The Old Medic]

I am neither a "paid witness" for anyone.

This type of action has never been done by the Senate.

The Senators are in fact beholden, to the party that appointed them to the Senate. They only get appointed by being slavishly loyal, in all aspects of their political life.

But, over time, if the Conservatives remain in power, the balance will tip. And then, once the Liberals get back in, they will scream and shout about how the Senate is obstructing them.

And why pray tell, do so many of you oppose the concept of the people electing those Senators?

 

[taxslave]

In the US all the little extras included in the budget are usually vote buying deals to make the bill pass.
Our Senate regularly proposes changes to bills that come before them. Splitting non monetary items out of the budget is a good idea to keep Harper and his wing-nuts under control.
It doesn't matter much if senators are elected or appointed they will still vote the party line.

 

[FiveParadox]

This type of action has never been done by the Senate.

Absolutely false.

The Senate has made hundreds of amendments to bills—including budget implementation bills—that have been graciously accepted by the House of Commons, because our honourable senators’ feedback has been sound and of great benefit and advantage to Canadians.

The Senators are in fact beholden, to the party that appointed them to the Senate. They only get appointed by being slavishly loyal, in all aspects of their political life.

Also false.

Our honourable senators are free to sit under whichever party they wish—it is very much unlike the House of Commons, where members must cower before the party leader to remain in caucus. Our senators very often exercise greater control over their own voices than our elected members are able to do in the Commons.

And why pray tell, do so many of you oppose the concept of the people electing those Senators?

I am probably the only one in this discussion who supports a continued appointed Senate.

 

[CDNBear]

I am probably the only one in this discussion who supports a continued appointed Senate.

You're talking to someone that has a selective and skewed reading comprehension issue Paradox. Soon he'll be telling you that you're wrong about your whole conservative outlook and that you wanting an elected Senate is erroneous...

Trust me on this one.