Senate kill climate bill

[Cobalt_Kid]

If there was any doubt to who the federal conservatives really work for that was erased on tuesday as the now conservative stacked UN-ELECTED senate killed a bill passed by the elected House of Commons. The senate sat on the clmate change bill for six months then killed it in the runup to the Cancun UN climate summit.

Our PM and his party claim they're going to try and cut greenhouse gas emissions, but their actions show a protectionist policy towards towards the fossil fuel sector. Emission controls need to be mandatory and reflect the science behind anthropogenic climate change, not the short terms interests of the energy sector. We're already seeing serious effects of climate change in this country, just look at recent events in B.C., Newfoundland, and the Maritimes this year to get a mild forcast of what our future holds...

This is bad for our democracy, our country and the planet as a whole, way to disappoint once again Harper.

 

[FiveParadox]

Just to be clear, the Honourable the Senate of Canada was not "sitting on" Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act. Private member's business is moved slowly in both Houses, because Government business is the priority for passage. The Rules of the Senate provide for very little time for the consideration of private member's business (as is also the case in the House of Commons). It is not unprecedented for the Senate to reject legislation from the House of Commons--it is unprecedented in modern times, though, to reject that legislation at second reading.

Yesterday's sitting in the Senate was largely dominated by procedural debate and wrangling over what happened to cause the defeat of the bill at second reading. Senator the Honourable Marjory LeBreton P.C. (Ontario), the Leader of Her Majesty's Government in the Senate, stated that the Government couldn't pass up the chance to defeat a bill that the Government opposed, notwithstanding it coming from the elected House of Commons. Question period in the Upper House has been dominated with opposition senators outraged that the House exercised its authority in that way before giving the bill any serious consideration (only Liberal senators had spoken to the bill so far).

The Senate has only rejected four House of Commons bills in the last seventy years: a bill to prevent convicts from publishing books, a bill to rename Pearson Airport, a bill to restrict abortion (which was negatived on a tie), and a budget bill. These four bills were only rejected, though, after comprehensive consideration at second reading and committee, hearing from dozens of witnesses each, and were then rejected at third reading. These were principled defeats, based on the testimony of dozens of expert Canadians; the defeat that we saw in the Senate two days ago was unprecedented in our current legislative framework. I don't argue that the Senate doesn't have the right to flex its constitutional muscles, but I argue that its massive powers should be exercised responsibly.

 

[Spade]

The decline and fall of Canadian democracy (such as it was).

 

[FiveParadox]

I don't think this is a fall or decline in Canadian democracy; it was a questionable practice, on the part of Conservative senators, certainly. The Senate plays an important role in our Canadian democracy; the House of Commons does not have the time resources needed to commit bills to a truly comprehensive study, and this is where the Senate truly shines--its committee work. For the Senate to be effective, we must be sure that it retains its current powers (that is, the power to amend and defeat bills); however, we need to be just as sure that honourable senators understand how very serious a decision it must be to reject Commons legislation.

 

[Spade]

A senate appointed by political elites with the power to thwart the will of elected representatives of the people is structurally undemocratic. You are wrong, but no apology is needed!

 

[Colpy]

Okay, let's get sensible here.....I listen to lots of people going off about the demise of Bill C-311. I have one question:

Do you know what the bill required???

It required the government to lower greenhouse gases to a level 25% less that it was in 1990 by the year 2020.

It also required the government to lower GHG to a level 80% less than 1990 levels by the year 2050.

In other words the Bill was insane. It was a propaganda ploy by the Liberals and NDP, a Bill planted to give them an issue to beat the Conservatives with continuously for the rest of their time in government. A bill to play to the deluded, who never get past the soundbite to realize the reality of the situation. Harper was absolutely correct to kill it in the Senate.....you know, the place of "sober second thought".

The Bill, if ignored (as the Liberals ignored Kyoto), would have been a handy political cudgel.

If implemented, it would have cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, and gone a long way towards destroying the Canadian economy.

As passed by the Coalition vote in the house, it was a Bill by Idiots, for Idiots, to the detriment of the nation.

Killing it was the best thing the Senate has done in 50 years.

 

[Unforgiven]

Harper campaigned on Senate reform, got elected, stacked the Senate and used it just the way it's been used when he campaigned against it. If it was wrong then it's wrong now. He's doing what he knows is wrong to the detriment of the country. To top that off, the Conservatives are liars. They make promises to get elected and once elected, they break their promise. Worse that that, they never intended to make the changes they promised to make during the election.

So let's trot all these neo-con supporters out with their apologists leading the way to tells us all why it is that the Neo Cons are justified in their lies, using what they used to refer to as the undemocratic and unelected Senate to make an end run around the House to kill a bill that would give us a place to stand in the up coming Climate Summit.

I see the most frothing of them are already started here. Bravo!

 

[Spade]

There was no "sober second thought." There was no debate; there were no committee hearings; there were no amendments proposed. Democratic "sober second thought"? Nonsense!

 

[Tonington]

Do you know what the bill required???

It required Canada to fulfill our obligations. It required the government to make plans and present those plans to Parliament.

China will not only be manufacturing the crap we buy, but it will also be manufacturing the energy infrastructure that most of the world uses. Good paying jobs can be created here...but the free market doesn't consider externalities that don't exist on a balance sheet.

 

[coldstream]

The fact that this Bill was proposed in the first place and championed by the NDP.. shows how completely alienated this former 'worker's party' has become from the working people of Canada. First of all you have to be an out and out fool not to realize that Anthropogenic Global Warming is an out and out fraud, completely without scientific merit. Second of all you have to realize the disastrous effects these type of carbon targets would have on Canadian manufacturing, already decimated by Free Trade. The NDP these days is propelled by New Age, radical feminist gobbledy gook. They're basically useless, wallowing in half baked, post structural, enviro nutcase ideologies. .

 

[FiveParadox]

It was unfortunate, of course, that the Government let the bill be defeated at second reading. The responsible thing to do, at the very least, would have been to let the bill proceed to the committee stage so that honourable senators could have heard from a number of expert Canadians on the issues that the bill would have addressed, and the issues that it may have caused. This has been the Senate's practice these past seventy years; even the bills that the Upper House has defeated (and let us be clear, the Senate absolutely does have the legitimate authority to defeat legislation--it can even defeat budgets) were studied comprehensively at the report stage before the whole chamber rejected the particulars of the legislation. This practice has been forgotten, apparently, by the Government.

The problem here is not with the Senate.

The Senate has done exactly what it was designed to do--and that is, to review the work done by the House of Commons, and to exercise the power to pass, amend or reject bills as it believes is in the national interest. Moreover, the reforms to the Senate being proposed by the Government--term limits, and changes to the selection process--are clearly changes of a constitutional nature, changing the fundamental characteristics of the Senate. Therefore, these changes cannot be made through a simple Act of the Parliament of Canada; these changes must be made pursuant to the amendment formula set forth in section 42(1)(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which requires the support of the Senate, the House of Commons, and two-thirds of provincial legislative assemblies.

And besides, today's developments demonstrate that this may have been an intentional political ploy by the Conservatives to push their flawed Senate reform bills. At the conclusion of oral questions today in the House of Commons, The Honourable John Baird P.C., M.P. (Ottawa West--Nepean), the Leader of Her Majesty's Government in the House of Commons and the Minister of the Environment, sought the unanimous consent of the House to fast-track a bill that the Government has introduced to impose eight-year term limits on senators. The motion was proposed without consultation with the opposition parties and so, of course, the opposition parties refused to consent. Drawing on this unusual decision by Conservative senators, the Government is now attempting to use it against the Red Chamber in reform discussions--the Government clearly is trying to sabotage the Senate from within, and this is unacceptable. If Conservative senators are not willing to work within the framework that they were appointed in, then they should not be senators.

Not only should Bill S-8, the Senatorial Selection Act, and Bill C-10, the Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits) be rejected on the basis that they are unconstitutional if passed by the Parliament of Canada without formal provincial engagement; but moreover, Senator the Honourable Marjory LeBreton P.C. (Ontario), the Leader of Her Majesty's Government in the Senate, should resign immediately in leading her Government's caucus to attempted self-destruction in the Red Chamber. The senator's conduct, as part of the Senate leadership, is entirely unacceptable.

The problem here is with the Conservative Party of Canada.

 

[Spade]

The problem here is with the Conservative Party of Canada.

FiveParadox is batting 1000 again, right Colpy?

 

[TenPenny]

Why is it that people like to trot out the 'UN ELECTED' bit whenever a judge, or a Senator, does something they disagree with?

How come you don't trot out the 'ELECTED' thing whenever an MP does something you don't like? Instead, people claim they were elected by a deluded minority or something.

Face it, the senate is appointed by people we elected. If we don't like how they behave, we can only blame the people we elected, who put them there. After all, it's not like appointing senators was a surprise move.

 

[FiveParadox]

That's a good point, TenPenny.

Our honourable senators can only be recommended for appointment by someone who enjoys the confidence of the majority of our elected representatives in the House of Commons. In this particular situation, the bill was rejected by Conservative senators, the majority of whom were appointed by the current prime minister. (Of course, it should be noted as a statistic, here, that Mr. Harper has appointed more people to the Senate than any other prime minister in the history of Canada. He had also appointed The Honourable Michael Fortier P.C. to the Senate and made him the Minister of Public Works and Government Services--the only time in living memory that a Crown minister dealing with public funds had sat in the Senate, and by far the most controversial Senate appointment to date.)

 

[Avro]

No surprise to me that the party of "can't" is narrow minded enough to kill this bill with an arm of government they don't believe in.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Pass it again. That will override the Senate. If the H of C really wants it to pass it has the numbers.

 

[FiveParadox]

What are you talking about, Bar Sinister?

No bill* can be passed without the consent of the Honourable the Senate of Canada. Even money bills, such as federal budgets, can be defeated by the Senate, and the House of Commons has no power to overrule the Senate on these matters (see s. 55 of the Constitution Act, 1867). Both the Senate, and the Lower House, must agree on legislation in identical form before it can be granted royal assent. Moreover, the House of Commons actually can't introduce the same bill twice; no bill can be introduced that matches, substantially, the content of another bill introduced in the same session. The Parliament of Canada would need to be prorogued to introduce the bill again, and the Senate would still have an absolute veto.

(*Only constitutional amendments that also require the consent of the provinces may be passed without the consent of the Senate, and only after 180 days have passed since the disagreement. In these cases, and these cases only, the Governor General of Canada may proclaim the amendment with the approval of the Commons, and the appropriate provinces, notwithstanding the Senate's objections.)

 

[danko323]

this site just killed my most gracious and insightful comments - the navigation killed alll my insites

disregard anything that you read!

 

[Omicron]

http://tunes.digitalock.com/weepingwidow.mp3 <-- click here for soundtrack to my speech

The history of Canada is that it was always known that if the legal structure of Parliament were to be taken literally, then it would be possible for a PM to become a dictator, however it was traditionally understood that respect for the Crown and respect of the Crown for the people's capacity for rebellion would maintain a civilized form of social balance against the chaos of total disorder which (south Surrey) Canadians expressed their capacity for in the riot of whatever-it-was after some hockey team lost to some other because those dumb immigrants had not been taught manners of education like what the founding fathers of Canada had based the whole system on.

Have any of you guys read the immigration requirements of Canada in 1910... before the first world war?

Seriously. How many of you have read an atlas from 1910? You have no idea the greatness of the idea of what your ancestors were thinking when they saw what would happen when mutton-heads inherited their daddy's loom-factory.

http://tunes.digitalock.com/womaninablackdress.mp3 <-- click here for the second part of the soundtrack to my speech

The thinking of the mutton-heads is if they can get it perfect, they get to sit on a fat white ass in the Bahamas with a pension paid for by the good investments of their progenitors.

If you are from Saskatchewan you can understand the equation of K^(kn) where K is the sum of K=the total of all the civilization's infrastructure, and where k=the total of all the individual member's talents, and when n = the number of members.

Ever noticed how in terms of results, it's very difficult telling the difference between stupid and evil?

 

[shadowshiv]

this site just killed my most gracious and insightful comments - the navigation killed alll my insites

disregard anything that you read!

I have to be honest here, but I have no idea what the heck you are talking about.