How do you feel about the Senate abolishing a climate change bill adopted by the House of Commons? - Macleans.ca
 

How do you feel about the Senate abolishing a climate change bill adopted by the House of Commons?


 

 
Filed under:

How do you feel about the Senate abolishing a climate change bill adopted by the House of Commons?

  1. My concern is that this is the tip of the iceberg – that the Senate has become (or will become) a Conservative-controlled partisan body.

    If the Liberals ever get into power again, what's to stop the Senate from killing every bill that is sent to them, purely out of partisan spite?

    • Then the Liberals will know what it feels like to have their legislation delayed etc. They have had their way in the Senate for far too long. Now the shoe is on the other foot. However, don't worry be happy. It will be a long time before the Liberal party is back in government.

      • The Liberal-dominated Senate did not kill any bills sent to it by the Harper government.

        And most of the delays in implementing legislation are due to the Conservatives repeatedly proroguing Parliament.

        • I guess watering it down where the Bill now becomes useless doesn't count—-right.

    • Why was It was ok when the senate was a Liberal controlled partisan body????? The liberals have been out of power for five years and routinely voted against legislation. This is the first time in 20 years that the liberals have lost their majority in the Senate and I say its about freakin time. bunch of crybabies.

      • When did the unelected Senate ever veto a bill that was passed by the elected House of Commons? Decades ago.

        Quit weeping about the Liberals, all least they appointed some non-partisan Senators. All we get from Stupid Stephen are repulsive shills like Duffy.

        • Yeah like Romeo Dallaire. The man was a disgrace to his uniform and the men that trusted him like 10 Belgium Paratroopers.

        • Holly Stick you must be kidding!
          Was Iggy ever elected to his position as leader of Libs, if I remeber right he was parachuted in by the Liberal Old Boys Club.

          • Wow, whose stupid sockpuppet are you?

    • Like the LIbs did when they controlled the Senate for so many years.

      • Can't you read?

  2. Most people seem to think it's too big of a deal to amend the constitution to get an elected senate (I've never quite understood this argument, but I'll take it at face value), so we're left with an unelected body. They can either a) simply pass all legislation put before them, or b) vote how they would vote if they were actual politicians. If they do the former, they may as well not show up to work, because they are basically a big expensive rubber stamp. If they choose the latter, they are subject controversies like this.

    I would think that unless there's a pattern (2 or 3 bills would be a pattern) of the senate blocking legislation that's supported by everyone in the House of Commons except the Conservatives, I'm prepared to let this blow over.

    • I'm not that well versed in constitutional issues, but the way I understand it is that the process of bringing everyone around the table to deal with anything constitutional is the problem. Quebec is still pissed about the last round, when they were over-ridden on Meech Lake.
      Abolishing the Senate outright would be problematic. Turning into an elected body is also not easy: what type of voting system? First-past-the-post or proportional? Same regional disparities as in the HoC? Or in the Senate now, where PEI has 4 Senators (1 / 35,000 pop) and BC has 6 (1 / 750,000 pop)!

    • The Senate as it is now serves a purposeful technical role. It is in Senate committees that legislation that has been passed by the House is often shaped into how it will be practically applied. I think the reason that is given for that usually is that Senators are far less busy than MPs and can spend more time working on the technicalities of the legislation–MPs are always moving on to the next issue. It's basically been relegated to that role for decades and so it was quite shocking when they actually voted a bill down–it has not happened for a very long time. So they are still useful even if they are like you say essentially a rubber stamp.

      Are they useful enough to justify the huge salaries, and the cost of all the pomp and circumstance? I don't know. As long as the Senate is there, is unelected, and can potentially be used as a tool to contradict the will of the House it is going to make people uncomfortable. I for one find it inappropriate that appointees, who are often given their positions as a gift in return for partisan donations or support, can have such influence. And the only way anybody has ever proven it useful, to me, is in the technical way I mentioned above, and it seems like they don't need a whole other house of Parliament to do that. Wouldn't hired bureaucrats serve the same purpose? At this point I haven't heard a great argument for keeping the Senate around. I'm open to one though.

  3. Why bother electing M.P.s? If He Who Must Be Obeyed does not like a bill, his appointees can kill it. Democracy has taken a serious blow. Abolish the Senate and bring in proportional representation. Government policies will then more accurately reflect the actual will of the people, rather than the 22% of eligible voters that actually voted Conservative. More people will vote as all votes will count.

    • prolem is proportional representation is not democratic and has been defeated everytime it has been put to a vote in canada

  4. Yes, I agree with Mike Bray in that proportional representation is the only answer to solve the deepening crisis of vanishing democracy in Canada.

  5. What needs to be abolished is Harper.

    • word

    • Poor Tobi-Dawne needs an education and maybe a little of lifes experiences!

    • To be replaced with Iggy. God or Allah help us if that ever happens

  6. Shame on you for splitting the vote in this poll by providing two choices against the cancellation and one choice for it. This is why MacLean's has lost all credibility.

    • It's interesting to note the 30% support for the senate vote. We keep seeing this figure relating to support for Harper's government. I'll bet this is related to the 30% ceiling of total supporters that Harper can get for his Conservatives.

      It's a weak number, one I would not be proud of. Think of it as a message from the 70% rest of Canadians who reject Harper and his initiatives.

    • There should have been only one choice for it, period. A choice against it should not have been allowed.

  7. 'Climate change' is based on fraud, so Canadians got lucky that the Senate killed the Bill, increasing unemployment and taxation based on lies is bad policy – that never stopped the corrupt Liberals or the NDP before, but at least Canadians dodged a bullet this time.

    Reform the Senate into an elected body.

    • My friends. It's people like you who buy into the "B.S." of global warming. I am afraid that it is entirely true and happening before our eyes. There are movements afoot that hopefully will make the both of you (and all that share this ignorant point of view) change your opinion. I understand where you're coming from. I know there is a lot of misinformation out there and it's easy to believe what you read.

      • In your case, it's the misinformation that is being backed by corporations that stand to lose big if legislation is put in place to fight this huge problem we have on our hands. I am a science student and very interested in global warming. I have read hundreds of articles, visited many websites and listened to many scientist discussing this topic.

        • I would wager to guess that neither of you come from a science back ground. I'm hesitant to say that you are probably in the business world or depend on businesses to live. That seems to be the majority of the deniers out there anyway. Global Warming is a hard thing to understand because it is so complex. There are many systems at play and without a solid interest in reading about the actual facts of this crisis, it's easy to sit back and deny it.

          • It's true that a single volcano eruption does more harm to the planet than what we do in a year. However, you're missing the point. A large eruption like the ones that you are referring to happen very infrequently. We have been polluting since the beginning of the industrial age. This is constant and there is no end in sight. These things are additive, they don't just go in the atmosphere and simply disappear, it takes a long time for the carbon to get eaten up by plants and turned into nature carbon sequesterers.

          • Jack Layton and Elizabeth May are actually working for the people because they see the problem at hand. Unlike Harper and those other goofs who think that the economy is a more important issue than the security of the majority of life on this planet. It's time for people to realize the truth and work together towards a common goal instead of denying what has proven to be fact. The killing of Bill C-311 was a terrible day for Canada. So please think for yourself and don't buy into the misinformation so easily.

  8. I find it incredible that 29% of respondents thought the Senate was right. Clearly these people have not read the 2007 IPCC 4th Assessment report,which declared global waring "UNEQUIVICAL" the 2009 NOAA Assessment of the science published since the IPCC cut-off date , which declared the warming "UNDENIABLE". at the NOAA announcement, study author Peter Stott, head of monitoring and attribution at the UK Met , said " The fingerprints are clear. The glaringly obvious explanation for this is warming from greenhouse gases".
    That 29% of MacLeans readers don't know that is truly shocking

    • F-R-A-U-D

    • The population is slowly coming to the realization that the climate has always been changing and nothing is new. WE are warming up and we will cool down –whats new??

      • You have the scientific evidence to back that up, right?

    • Oh, but you're quite mistaken, Geoffrey. It's the people who HAVE read the IPCC's climate bible who realize that CO2 as primary "culprit" of whatever AG warming may – or may not – be occurring is far from proven. And (contra Andrew Weaver) climate change is far from being a "barrage of intergalactice ballistic missiles".

      Furthermore, as the UNEP's chief scientist noted in his address to the October 2009 Bali meeting of the IPCC:

      “[A]s policymakers and the public begin to grasp the multi-billion dollar price tag for mitigating and adapting to climate change, we should expect a sharper questioning of the science behind climate policy.”
      http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/andrew-wea

    • What is incredible is your naivety to believe people who throw numbers around that justify their careers that have wasted alot of time and effort towards this fraud that we will look back on in a few years as one of the craziest things we have fallen for over history.

  9. It's incredible that 30% of voters here SUPPORT the senate's veto of this bill. Clearly, these supporters are unable to grasp the concept of the senate's role in a democracy. They think that this hypocritical abuse of the senate will be good for Canada.

    Is this the same 30% of Canadians who support Harper, unconditionally? The same 30% who are OK with a PM who has to resort to dirty "tactical" tricks to win a debate because his policies are too repugnant to the other 70% of Canadians who will never support him?

    Harper has gone too far with this latest insult to parliament, as well as the majority of Canadians who he does not represent.

    • This is the Travers and Simpson whine…that 30% of Canadians support the Conservatives 'unconditionally'. Which is different from the 20-25% of Canadians who appear to support the Liberal party unconditionally, how? Or the T.O. 416 residents who appear to support the Liberal party almost exclusively and unconditionally? Or the rural Quebec voters who vote the Bloc no matter what…etc. etc. etc…..

    • No PM has represeted a majority of Canadians since Mulroney.

  10. Apparently lots of you missed the story about how it was voted down. The simple fact is that the Liberal Senator that sponsored the bill did a Joe Clark and demanded a vote before counting heads.

    • actually the simple fact is that you don't know the facts.

      • Actually I do. This was from CBC radio.

  11. Gees! Now we have to do our own reporting?

    The Libbies engineered this on their own, via multiple examples of parliamentary incompetence:

    – first, they could not count;
    – second, they initiated the call for the vote in question through (apparent) misuse of common parliamentary procedure.

    Now they want the Hansard record either expunged or changed to cover up their stupidity.

  12. Silly me.
    I thought this was a democracy.
    Apparently we still have a House of Lords.
    Sad.

  13. It's another black mark for Canada perpetuated by Harper and it's an affront to our parliamentary system.

    The Senate should have studied the bill, debated it and then voted in accordance with the wishes of the Canadian people and not the wishes of the Prime Minister.

  14. it was not the senate that trashed this bill after the HoC's passed it, it was the reform/conservative senators.

    please put the blame where it belongs and don't blame the entire senate.

  15. The problem isn't the Senate… it's the constitutional tradition that respect for democracy is assumed, not demanded. A prime minister has more than one way to over-ride our elected MPs votes. Prorogation and an obstructionist Senate are only the latest legal liberties taken against good governance.

    Electing MPs to vote on our behalf has been well degraded and antiquated over the last few decades. This is just another screw (y'all) in the coffin by our political elite.

  16. You know, I always considered myself to be middle-right. I support the Afghan Mission, Health Care Reform. I'm against gay adoption.

    But I will never vote for a party that is environmentally irresponsible like this.

  17. Look at the whole picture, Pollution is real, if it effects climate change then the whole WORLD must do it. China & India + Brazil must toe the line. China is very bad just go there !!! I have.
    We should have a Fully Elected Experienced Senate, all parties should get onside.

  18. I can see the proportional representation would be a good way to elect the senate, parties get to name their list of candidates and the lost of geographic representation might provide for a true nationally minded forum.
    As for the Commons, why is there not much support for preferential ballots. Imagine every MP being able to say he/she was selected by the majority of the constituents who are neighbours.

  19. Let's get rid of the Senate and save a huge amount of tax dollars to keep this somewhat redundant and insignificant institution in place. We need to cut expenses, so let's begin by cutting out the Senate.

  20. An elected senate is a good idea, but we don't have it yet. In the meantime our Senate is established as a house of sober second thought with member whose jobs, although provided by political parties no longer depend on the whims of the party or the electorate. Yes it is political as are all things in Government. It is their job however, to have a look at all legislation and if they are not satisfied that it is right for Canada then they must turn it back to the commons for a fresh look. If the house is certain that they are correct, the Senate can be overruled but it takes a much larger majority.
    That's the way the system works and it is working as designed to and as it has always worked.
    Some times it has saved us from major mistakes, other times it has missed the mark – on average it works a lot better that what a lot of countries have.

  21. Climate change is a hoax and Canadian are a**holes.

    • And I'm sloppy. I meant to say Canadians (plural).

    • I agree , a lot of Canadians are a holes , but those that deny climate change lead the pack .

    • You have your head in the sand and Harper has his in the **hole

    • I agree, this "Climate Change" nonsense is a hoax. Man has screwed up enough things now, leave climate change to nature who will do a remarkable job of taking care of it without the "help" of all these "experts" who have no idea what they are talking about. Just another rip off for no appreciable change. But then I guess these "experts" need to make a good living somehow. Engage in fear mongering and then claim that only they can save us, at a hefty price of course. It's all a bunch of crap.

  22. Just another example of why we should get rid of the Regressive Conservative bum boys in the Senate and their leader Stevie The Robot . An elected Senate or no Senate at all is the only answer .

  23. That is why we have a "sober second thought".

  24. I found myself unable to cast a vote, although I was inclined towards the first choice (The Senate was right to scrap it).

    I think that the Senate had every legal right to scrap it, but I have considerable doubt that that this decision was the result of "serious second thought", and I was dismayed by the tactics employed in passing the motion.

  25. A stupid Liberal Party bill about a problem that doesn't exist but would have cost Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions and wrecked the economy.

  26. To bad now the shoe is on the other FOOT I hope they drive the opposition crazy because Liberal did it when they had power

  27. Dear fellow canadian , WAKE UP! Before it is too late to be a BUSH LAND.

    • So is China BUSH LAND as well ?

      Global warming ponzi scheme is a hoax in as much that IF it is happening, not a damn thing we can do about it as we're not causing it.
      Besides we're cooling from what I can gather in our neck of the woods, IMO.
      Not to worry though, the wackos will nuke us all gone well before we have a chance to over pollute, over populate, be struck by an astroid or whatever the next 'the sky is falling' alarm cry will be.

  28. Those jerks that drafted the bill should have made it as non confidence vote. . Then the bill would have not passed or we had an election on the Global warming fraud.