Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Something Stinks in the Senate

Why has the unelected Liberal Senate been stalling the Accountability Act?

Defend Canada
found a juicy tidbit in the Globe ("Candidates Could get Loan Relief") which may have the answer. Kitchener Conservative has also linked to it. The NDP's Ethics critic, Pat Martin is all over this one.

Now what would motivate the Liberal Senate to pass a bill which hurts their own party? They would need a LOT of public pressure, and even then one wonders how long this could be held up. Where are the checks and balances here?

Senate reform is looking better all the time.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Joanne:

I am a little tired of hearing the catch phrase "unelected Senate". If Conservatives are so concerned about the Senate being unelected, I wonder why they appointed a senator to their Cabinet.

JDot said...

Devin Says:

"I am a little tired of hearing the catch phrase "unelected Senate"

well it's the truth, deal with it.

JJ: Good post. I just shake my head, but hey what are you going to do.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Well, if we have Senate reform, nobody will be allowed to. Let's change the rules.

Until that happens however, why shouldn't the Conservatives try to even things up a bit?

liberal supporter said...

Yep, let's change all the rules.

Whoever made them up is dead now anyway, so why bother learning from the past?

Sounds like teenagers who know everything.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

so why bother learning from the past? Except when it comes to matters that suit Liberals, such as same-sex marriage. Then we can throw out the past, right?

Zac said...

Except when it comes to matters that suit Liberals, such as same-sex marriage. Then we can throw out the past, right?

Your blood pressure must be through the roof over this motion Joanne. I see you all over the blogs today debating SSM. Take a deep breath....it's all good.

liberal supporter said...

Not sure what you mean, Joanne. What about same sex marriage is throwing out our system of government (i.e. the system that was set up in the past)?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

L.S. - Perhaps a bad analogy. Merely trying to point out that you like to cling to the past with the Senate the way it is, but like to forget the past when it comes to social issues.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Take a deep breath....it's all good.

Yeah, I know Zac. I can live with whatever the outcome is.

Anonymous said...

I notice that none of the Fiberal comments deal with the issue presented.

What a shock.

Liebrals are almost as financially bankrupt as they are morally. Their unlected Senate cronies are hoping to stall the Accountability Act long enough to fight (and in their minds hopefully win) another election; so they can dispense with the bill and go back to accepting huge donations from big business and big labour.

The issue presented was campaign financing and accountability. Fiberals respond with SSM tripe.

How sadly typical.

Anonymous said...

I notice that none of the Fiberal comments deal with the issue presented.

What a shock.

Liebrals are almost as financially bankrupt as they are morally. Their unlected Senate cronies are hoping to stall the Accountability Act long enough to fight (and in their minds hopefully win) another election; so they can dispense with the bill and go back to accepting huge donations from big business and big labour.

The issue presented was campaign financing and accountability. Fiberals respond with SSM tripe.

How sadly typical.

liberal supporter said...

"clinging to the past". Nice talking point!

I think the argument for having institutions that cannot be changed by a single electoral vote is still valid. The senators are all appointed by a government that was elected at one time.

When some group of radicals temporarily gains control of government, it is good that they cannot use that single election to change everything. Otherwise it is like the old "you get three wishes" and one wish is to have a million more wishes. Should we have an election for supreme leader? Who will then tell us that since we have voted for supreme leader, we don't need to have any more votes.

The statement I made was "learning from the past", not "clinging to" or "throwing out".

You may chafe at the fact that Steve cannot implement his entire no-longer-hidden agenda in an afternoon, but if he and his party can stay in power for a decade or more, he can certainly provide a senatorial legacy that will have Liberals having kittens for years after that.

So I think that the past tells us having a bit of sober second thought is a good idea. Unelected is fine, since they are appointed to review legislation from the elected House and since the appointers are elected.

The past also tells us that other people not like ourselves are not going to destroy our society if we give them the same rights we have.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

L.S. - I think the Senate reeks of patronage no matter who does the appointing.

liberal supporter said...

anon: you must be referring to my response, since I am the only one calling myself liberal. The "SSM tripe" was raised by Joanne, if you read the thread.

I responded to her comment about "senate reform".

I think they are "holding up" the "Accountability Act" because, had it been in place, we would never have heard about Adscam, and it actually makes government secrecy easier.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I think they are "holding up" the "Accountability Act" because, had it been in place, we would never have heard about Adscam, and it actually makes government secrecy easier.

O.K. Let me get this straight. The Liberal Senate is holding up the accountability act because they want to make sure that when the Liberals are in power again someday, that if they try something like Adscam again they will be caught. The Conservatives want to make sure that the Liberals could get away with it.

That is very interesting. I'm looking forward to your explanation.

liberal supporter said...

Well I'm flattered that you think the Liberals will be back in power before you know it and that both the Liberals and Conservatives are acting with that in mind.

But right now, it is the CPC in power, and they have put out a bill that would lessen scrutiny on government. They might benefit from that, but it is mostly the bureaucracy that benefits. The bureaucracy provided most of the input into this bill as well.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

but it is mostly the bureaucracy that benefits. The bureaucracy provided most of the input into this bill as well.

Well, now I am really intrigued. Could you please expand on that? Thanks.

Red Tory said...

What an idiotic conversation.

liberal supporter said...

Sorry, I can't find a reference for "the bureaucracy provided most of the input into this bill as well". I think I read it in the Toronto Sun.

I think it was there that I read about a senator commenting that this Act changes numerous other laws, and typically a law with so many changes to other laws would likely require a lot of time, possibly extending to next June.

The benefit to the bureaucracy is that "draft internal audits” are not subject to disclosure. That was one of the amendments.

I know that Conservative senators proposed some of the amendments, if that makes any difference. Of course those senators are not CPC senators, except one, who I think did not propose any amendments.

I did find a link to a discussion of the amendments. They trash three of them as helping only the Liberal Party, then get into the ones they like:
http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsOct3006.html

Joanne (True Blue) said...

L.S. Thanks for all that. Clearly this is a complicated bill, comprised of many elements. I guess one can't help being suspicious about the hold-up, but maybe there's a good reason.

Anonymous said...

Talking about unelected senators....you should see the e-mail response that I got from one of them before Paul Martin gave him the golden key....the funny part was he said maybe I should "run" for public office. Shortly after; PMPM appointed him to the senate. Oh, the other part that he said ....GET A LIFE.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Anon - How ironic!

Red - What an idiotic conversation. And yet you still join in.