Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Today's constitutional crisis

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 1:16pm - 294 Comments

Conservatives senators called a snap vote last night and defeated Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, that was passed by the House in May. This will no doubt outrage the Prime Minister, Mr. Harper and his government having periodically lamented the tyranny an unelected Senate can impose.

“We don’t believe an unelected body should in anyway be blocking an elected body,” he told a news conference in Calgary … “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.”

Tags: C-311, climate change, Climate Change Accountability Act, house of commons, Parliament, Senate, senators, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

hollinm

I could care less that the unelected Senate killed the Bill. We, as Conservatives, have watched Liberals kill Conservative bills ad nauseum. So now there is payback taking place and that is good for a a change.

Of course the idea that this may be a bad bill which would hurt the economy somehow doesn't register on most of the anti Conservative crowd on this blog.

Pat

Just so I am clear. When an unelected unaccountable liberal dominated senate kills a bill passed by the democratically elected House of Commons, that is bad. When an unelected unaccountable conservative dominated senate kills a bill passed by the democratically elected House of Commons that is OK?

I ask because you cannot have it both ways. Either Harper was wrong then or he is wrong now.

FVerhoeven

Harper wanted (wants) to change the make-up of the Senate. However, others don't seem to agree with his intent. Therefore the status quo is in effect and that includes the going-ons we witnessed by this particular vote. Indeed, you can't have it both ways.

When not enough people supported Harper in changing the Senate, then don't cry now if the status quo is all we've got.

Pat

That is an interesting way to totally avoid the question.

If Harper agrees it is appropriate to continue with the status quo, why all the complaining about the senate killing or delaying crime bills?

Of course since the senate did neither of those things, it is quite clear Harper was simply lying about what the liberal dominated senate did, so I guess I can understand why he would be hypocritical about it now. Consistency and intellectual honesty are not his strong points.

(it really never ceases to amaze me how much Harper supporters can contort themselves)

Holly Stick

"…We, as Conservatives, have watched Liberals kill Conservative bills ad nauseum…"

What Bills exactly? When?

When stupid Harper prorogued Parliament and killed his own bills?

frobisher

There hasn't been a bill 'killed' by the senate – which is to say the will of the elected legislature has not been so subverted – since 1925. You must be very proud.

As for this bill being 'bad for the economy', that's certainly a fact-free assertion. Oh, wait….
Andrew (not PorC)

Please give an example of a single bill that was killed by Liberals in the Senate during Harper's tenure.

I'm waiting.

LdKitchenersOwn

I'll be impressed if he can find a bill that was killed by Liberals in the Senate since the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982!

wellwell

Only a partisan creep would characterize what happened as justifiable 'payback'.

sourstud

Blah blah blah. Any Liberals out there proposing Senate reform? No? Complaining about the status quo while supporting it en mass isn't a wee bit hypocritical?

Has it occurred to anybody that if Liberal senators would you know, actually show up for work, this would be a non-issue? But no, lazy Liberal Senators get a free pass, while "the media" chastise Conservative Senators for voting their conscience.

Until the Liberals are willing to support Senate reform, this is nothing more than hallow partisan sniping. Just another wonderful example of how the Liberal party has no principals.

gottabesaid

I don't necessarily disagree with most of your post… except for your last sentence. Your party just took a gigantic dump on one of its most fundamental principles today. If the Liberal Party is synonymous with being unprincipled, then your party has never looked more Liberal than it does today.

sourstud

Oh, I agree that the Conservative party has been far from consistent on this file. But again, what alternatives are you proposing? The way I see it, the only other way this could have gone is that Conservatives vote against their conscience to pass the legislation, contrary to everything they believe in, and thus turning the Senate into an official rubber stamp. And I wouldn't be completely opposed to this, IF the Liberals were to agree that the Senate has become antiquated and should be abolished. But not a single Liberal would agree with this, so the point becomes moot.

Their essential argument is that the Liberals support the Senate in it's current form, therefore they should be the only party who can use the Senate to their advantage, which is of course absurd.

And for a party that seems to think the Senate is so bloody important to our democracy (while at the same time being so irrelevant that Senators shouldn't vote their conscience) they might demand that their Senators show up, or face punishment.

Ariadne

Unless of course, they purposely not showed up to defeat this bill without having to suffer the taint of being anti environment? They retain those portion of party voters without actually having to antagonize another? Brilliant, I would say.

It is either time to abolish this house of senate, or let these seats be up for election.

sourstud

Hehehe. I gotta giggle at the idea of the Liberals demonstrating brilliance through incompetence. Though it's tough when the party is split dead down the middle on so many important issues.

Personally, I think I'm in favour an elected Senate, though I do know that our current Senate system is broken. I favour an elected Senate, because I think that the Senate as a house of sober second thought is a good idea, and abolishing it entirely would lead to more partisanship and extremism, and less reasoned debate in the long run.
Holly Stick

What part of the phrase "snap vote" do you poor rightwing dimwits not understand?
sourstud

What part of the word "incompetence" do you leftwing loons not understand? If the Liberals can't be bothered to show up to the Senate, or didn't know that this vote was a possibility, that's incompetence. Or, I suppose it could just be negligence. Trying to blame this on the Conservatives is just silly.
danby

They call it an "ambush" vote, but it looks more like the work of pros, don't you think?

gottabesaid

Well, the fundamental problems with the senate have been laid bare today… I think you might see a few Liberal converts to the senate reform gospel. Hopefully this will get people talking. If the Senate goes against the H of C, it's undemocratic… if if goes with the H of C as a rubber stamp, then why do we have it? I agree… it should be abolished.

I'll be interested to see how this all shook down… if it was a case of the Liberals procedurally pooching it, then the Liberals should wear it. If it was a case of Harper using the Senate to kill a bill he didn't like, though… that's about as ugly as it gets.

sourstud

Agreed, if this doesn't get a few Liberals on the Senate reform bandwagon, nothing will. The longer the Conservative's are appointing Senators, the more Liberals should be rethinking their position as well.

Thwim

You really don't get the whole concept of sober second thought do you?

Which one gives you trouble? Sober? Or thought?

sourstud

So you've got nothing to add to my point? Thanks for agreeing.

Gayle

"Complaining about the status quo while supporting it en mass isn't a wee bit hypocritical?"

I wonder if you are aware that you have just described Harper's actions today.

You do know that senate reform has absolutely nothing to do with the fact Harper just did something he swore he would not do, and something for which he has unjustifiably criticized the liberals for, right?

PS – The previous two liberal leaders both went on record supporting the notion of senate reform. It is just that they want to do it legally and stuff, which requires a constitutional amendment. But then again Harper has no intention of reforming the senate at all, so I am not sure why you think his is the principled position here.

sourstud

I wonder if you are aware that you have just described Harper's actions today.
Except that the Conservative's have been in favour of Senate reform, while the Liberals have not. Though the Conservative's are definitely using the current system to their advantage.

You do know that senate reform has absolutely nothing to do with the fact Harper just did something he swore he would not do, and something for which he has unjustifiably criticized the liberals for, right?
So if Harper's criticisms were unjustifiable, how are the Liberal gripes more justifiable? If anything both parties have unjustifiably used the Senate for partisan advantage, but I would say that all criticism in that regard is quite justifiable.

PS – The Conservative's have actually tabled legislation regarding Senate reform, which is more of an effort than paying the concept lip service.

Mike T.

the attempt to justify doublethink – IT BURNS!!!

sourstud

One question:
1) What do you believe would have been the principled thing for the Conservative's to do, and would you hold the Liberals to the same standard?
LdKitchenersOwn

I think, if a party's stated preference is that the unelected Senate not be allowed to overturn the will of the elected House, then they should get their Senators not to overturn the will of the House.

Has it escaped your notice that while the Tory Senate just killed a bill passed by the House of Commons under Stephen Harper, the previous Liberal Senate NEVER DID THAT?
sourstud

Okay, but the Conservative party is also on record saying they'd vote against this legislation. So if they'd let it pass, they'd be being attacked for lying about that. So he was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

Another thing that I think that should be noted, is that this legislation is a complete farce anyway. The targets in it were completely unreasonable and unachievable.
gottabesaid

'this legislation is a complete farce anyway. The targets in it were completely unreasonable and unachievable'

I don't think you can say the senate's move today was justified because you don't think the legislation is good legislation. Let me explain. I think the much of the Conservatives' law and order agenda is ludicrous. But if the Liberals in the Senate got together to kill that legislation after it had been OK'd by the House of Commons, I'd be the first guy howling from the rooftops. MPs are elected. Senators aren't. If my side loses in the H of C, that's democracy. I can live with that. Senators shouldn't be pulling an end-around, even if it happens to result in the death of what I consider to be bad legislation.
sourstud

But where do you draw the line between killing legislation, and obstructing, amending, delaying and gutting legislation? Because the Liberals have used those tactics, and there was certainly no uproar about it from anyone within the Liberal party.

As a general rule though, I would agree that the piece of legislation in question is pretty much irrelevant. When I originally read the G&M article this morning, I thought it was a pretty crass move by the CPC. But once I saw the content of the bill, I could only laugh.
gottabesaid

Yeah, but what might be 'obstructing, amending, delaying and gutting' to me might be 'sober second thought' to you. Kinda depends whose team you're cheering for. Very subjective. Also, if it was wrong for the Liberal senators to obstruct, amend, delay and gut legislation, it's just as wrong for the Conservative senators to obstruct, amend, delay, gut or (in this case) kill legislation. Not unless two wrongs do make a right.

If the Conservatives orchestrated this, it was totally crass. That said, the more I'm reading and thinking about this, the more the questions I have of the Liberals' handling of this affair. I'll be interested to hear from someone not affiliated with a party weigh in on what happened and cut through some of the partisan BS that's flying about.
Mike T.

Good lord, do you even listen to yourself?
Blue

……sourstud has made more sense on this one subject then you and Emily have made all year.
Gayle

The principled thing to do is to act the way you say you are going to act, and to keep the promises you made.

The unprincipled thing to do is to whine, complain, and LIE about the unaccountable unelected liberal dominated senate blocking bills as being an affront to democracy, and then go ahead and get the unelected unaccountable conservative dominated senate to do that instead.

Do people really have to spell that out for you? Or are you just playing at being too thick to understand.
sourstud

The Conservative's have a responsibility to vote the way they've said they would on bills. If they'd let this pass, they would have been accused of being liars by those who believed they would vote against this bill. They had to make a decision with only two crappy options to them. They chose one. You don't have to agree with it, but you also don't have to talk as if the Conservative party is linked to only one single promise, and not a bunch of others that at times conflict with one another.
Mike T.

no.
sourstud

Um, okay? Or are you just trying to be defiant in the face of reason?
Gayle

So being too thick to understand is not an act.

Good to know.
sourstud

That doesn't make sense.
Gayle

Of course it doesn't make sense to you. That's the point – subtleties are beyond you.
Thwim

Oh.. I don't know.. maybe debate the bill? Pass it back to the house with adjustments they thought were reasonable for Canada's situation? You know, what the Liberal dominated senate did the few times Harper managed to send them stuff without first proroguing it out of existance.
Blue

……or just let the H of C know that it was an unrealistic garbage bill—–and the sober second thought will be that maybe next time the NDP and Liberals will construct a Bill that has some basis in reality.
sourstud

The bill was an absolute joke. The Conservative's did the responsible thing by killing a bill that's only purpose was to embarrass the CPC. And as usual, it's backfired in Iggy's face. What else is new?
Holly Stick

You poor stupid rightwingers are still chanting that there's no such thing as AGW/climate change, aren't you, you frightened delusional dummies. You do not have the guts to face the reality that our world is changing fast and we need to adapt our ways in order to survive.
Blue

…….and you poor stupid leftwingers still think that you can sit in your comfortable chairs and change the world by passing laws that have zero possibility of being acheived. It may make you feel good but you are really a big part of the problem—-please adapt your ways.
Bill Branch

I think you're helping prove his point with you're uninformed vitriolic nonsense. You know that name-calling doesn't help make your point.

gottabesaid

The senate is thwarting the will of the House of Commons by killing this legislation. It's the first time the senate has done this in 70 years. 70 years! Regardless of either party's past or present views of the senate and senate reform… is this a good thing? Again, if the Liberals just muffed it procedurally, that's one thing. It just speaks to that party's incompetence when it comes to having its ducks in a row for votes. If the government went out of its way to get this result — if Harper directed his senators to kill this thing — it stinks to high heaven. It's inherently undemocratic, and it's indefensible. The PM shouldn't be actively trying to pull end-runs around the House of Commons.
Gayle

Senate reform has nothing to do with it. You are trying to justify Harper's complete about face with some irrelevant factor. It is kind of sad.

But while we are on a completely different topic (that does not justify Harper's hypocrisy), the CPC did NOT table any workable or legal provisions regarding Senate reform. They tabled something that, even if it did pass (and Harper clearly does not want it to), would actually make the senate much worse, and would put some provinces in a weaker position than others, which, you know, makes no sense.

The LPC did come up with workable reforms that do not require legislation. Actual, substantive reform would require a constitutional amendment. The liberals are funny about stuff like that – they like it to be legitimate. Harper could not care less.

sourstud

"Senate reform has nothing to do with it."
Since this whole issue is based on Harper's previous comments in regards to Senate reform, I'd say Senate reform has absolutely everything to do with it.

the CPC did NOT table any workable or legal provisions regarding Senate reform. They tabled something that, even if it did pass (and Harper clearly does not want it to), would actually make the senate much worse, and would put some provinces in a weaker position than others, which, you know, makes no sense.
You realize that you just claimed that the CPC did not introduce any Senate reform legislation, and then immediately indicated everything about that non-existent legislation that you disapprove of. Kinda conflicting statements.

The LPC did come up with workable reforms that do not require legislation. Actual, substantive reform would require a constitutional amendment.
So after having a majority in parliament for well over a decade, the LPC was completely powerless to even introduce changes to the Senate? Uh huh, sure.
Gayle

Sigh.

This whole issue is about Harper saying one thing and doing another. It is called hypocrisy. Look it up.

What I claimed is the CPC did not table WORKABLE or LEGAL senate reform, and they didn't. What they tabled were junk bills that were never intended to pass and would never be upheld by the courts if they did.

Finally, maybe you forget this, or are too young to know it ever happened, but before the LPC won a majority in 1993, the previous government tried twice to bring in constitutional reform, and failed miserably both times, sparking another national crisis leading to a referendum in Quebec in 1995. Now maybe in your world senate reform is worth going through that mess again, but luckily wiser heads prevailed and determined the country was in no mood for a third kick at the can.

LdKitchenersOwn

If Harper's criticisms were unjustifiable, how are the Liberal gripes more justifiable?

Because the Tory Senate actually DID the thing that the Liberals are griping about, whereas the Liberal Senate never once defeated a piece of legislation that was passed by the House of Commons under Stephen Harper.

Blue

…….so maybe this unprecedented move by the Senate is just the way that the Master Chess Player has to force the Liberals to cooperate in a way to reform the Senate.

Everything is part of the Master Plan. ( i`m mostly just stirring the pot )

LdKitchenersOwn

Except that it's even worse than that in that here, the famous "the Liberals did it too" argument is being used in a case in which the Liberals DIDN'T do it too. I'm pretty sure no Liberal Senate has killed a piece of legislation passed by the House in my entire lifetime, never mind during the reign of Stephen Harper.
Poker Face

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/..%5C40%5C3%5Cparlbu…

If anyone, including you, Aaron, bothered to read Hansard, you would notice that it was not the Conservatives that called the question. Senators Banks and Mitchell, both very veteran senators, motioned to have second reading with 16 members of their caucus missing. This was an egregiously stupid move on their part, calling the question with so many missing. Indeed, they could have called this when the Conservatives were missing.

All that notwithstanding, what's more outraging about this, is that 16 Liberals, 11 Conservative/PCs and 3 Independents decided that 132k/yr plus benefits wasn't enough to get them to drag their sorry asses to work for one day. I get fired for skipping work, I don't know about you guys…

gottabesaid

Actually, it seems there is some confusion on who said what and whether hansard is correct. Just passing it along.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/otta…
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/11…

Holly Stick

These Conservatives always lie.

Guest

Ha; that's great! – looks to me from reading Handard that the Lib Senators accidentally killed their own legislation HAHAHAHA

Out There

Unfortunately, this is probably only just the beginning.

If the Conservatives gain control of the Senate, and the Liberals gain control of the House, what's to stop the Senate from killing every bill sent to them out of pure partisan spite?

Holly Stick

They are certainly immature enough to do that.

Holly Stick

The one elected Senator doesn't care what the voters think:
http://www.albertadiary.ca/2010/11/senate-democra…

Blue

…..maybe next time you can link to a Suzuki blog—-you know, for some balance.

Holly Stick

Funy to hear a lying Conservative complaining about people not having intellectual honesty. God knows Harper has absolutely none.
Holly Stick

How incoherent of you.
hosertohoosier

Conservatives are happy Harper violated one of his longstanding promises (which most support), while Liberals are angry that Harper violated one of his longstanding promises (which they do not support).

Maybe you guys should just switch parties.
Pat

You are getting lost in your own argument. I understand why. Contorting yourself in the way you have starts to get confusing after a while.

Harper said he would never do something, and then he did it. No matter how much you try to justify that with irrelevant information, it boils down to that. In any event, Harper has not made any sincere attempts to change the senate. Do you really think Harper thinks it is a good idea to give senators more power and democratic credibility while so many provinces are under-represented in the Upper Chamber? Is it your belief that Harper, a good ole Alberta boy, believes that it is perfectly acceptable that Alberta have less power in the Senate than PEI?

Intellectual honesty is lacking in the Prime Minister, not the liberals.

FVerhoeven

No, this country is getting lost in its own argument. It doesn't want the Senate to act as it does, yet it does not want to seriously reform the Senate. What gives?

Look, Harper has been in favour of Senate reform for a very long time. He would like to reform much more than what he has proposed so far. But he cannot get anywhere regarding Senate reform if he is opposed from all corners. Yes, Canadians interested in democratic reform need to get on board, yes, the provinces need to get on board, yes, the EEE senate is still a very good idea.

All I'm saying is that Canada is not ready to have a serious look at itself. That's the sad part of it all. Don't blame Harper for this. God knows he's tried.

Gayle

He has not tried at all. He has zero interest in senate reform beyond its use as a fundraising tool. You know how you can tell that? By the way he steadfastly refuses to put anything substantive on the table, by the way he steadfastly refuses to even acknowledge true senate reform requires a constitutional amendment, and by the way he insists on tabling legislation, that if constitutional and passed by Parliament, would put certain provinces at a terrible disadvantage. Finally, Prime Minister Harper has never set out for Canadians what his vision of a reformed senate even is.

How can you get Canadians interested in democratic reform and provinces on board when he does not even set out a vision? He has absolutely no interest in doing any of this. Stop being so naive.

FVerhoeven

Gayle, Holly Stick and Emily are all one and the same person. That's giving it my best guess.

When you're ready to discuss Senate reform, give me a shout. Untill then.

Pat

I will help you out. She is saying you really are too thick to understand. It is not an act on your part.

It would help if you read the entire thread.

sourstud

So it took two of you to form a sentence. Congratulations!

Pat

Thank you. Next time I run across Gayle I will remind her that you would understand better if she held your hand and walked you through it. I mean, she already figured out you are too thick to understand. She should have dumbed it down for you.