Liberal senators break with Ignatieff on law-and-order bill

I think this line pretty much sums it up .......

"However, if we didn't do this, then it wouldn't help in the justification of the Senate being in existence."

Hmmmm changing bills just to justify your job does not sound proper!

It's clear the old school Liberals don't approve of Ignatieff approving this bill and plan to kill it any way they can, reguardless of how bad it looks. It's a perfect example of how the senate is either asleep or amock.

who says the senate is full of party loyalists under the thumb of their leader?

good job gutting that bill, hopefully C-15 is next!

Who are they accontable to?

If the Senate wants to thump its chest they should at least choose a bill the public are dubious about. On this bill all they do is get people made and raise more questions about the value of the Senate.

currently, the accused gets 2 days credit for every day spent in custody before trial. The Cons wanted to eliminate that altogether, however this removes the crowns incentive to guarantee every citizens right to a speedy trial. The senate recommendation DID reduce that to 1.5 days, but MORE IMPORTANTLY they wanted judges - who are the legal experts and who will hear the specifics of a given case- to have the authority and discretion to chose whether to enforce the practice or not. Thats where these decisions are best made, by impartial legal experts directly invovled in a specifc case, not by politicans trying to score points with dumbed-down policies easily digested by the masses

gee 2 smart decisions by the senate. Good for them.

You can spin it however you like but Ignatieff and a numbrer of other Librals voted for the bill as it stood. They believed it was the right thing to do, as did the voters.

No the voters had no say whatsoever. This wasn't a referendum. You can spin it all you like but the fact is the senate acted entirely with in its constitutional right and you wouldn't be saying thing one had it been a con majority senate rejecting the gun registry. You'd be defending them left, right, and centre.

Who was the elected representative here? The MPs or the senators?

Who must face re-election if the public dosen't approve of this bill or their actions, the MPs or the senators?

Didn't stop you from supporting Harpers appointees and you would not be saying thing one if it was a con senate doing this to lib bills.

You would be supporting them entirely.

Well, as far as repercussions, nobody but they dont really DO anything, except make recommendations for redrafting. IF the PM doesnt want to redraft he can always lobby the senate and/or appoint more senators to break the filibuster. Generally, the senate does not KILL legislation from the house, it can only stall it. The beauty in that is because they are not elected, they tend to dial down the senationalism that politicians in the House insert into bills as crowd-pleasers.

I suspect that the elected politicans actually like this, that way they can offer up absurd crowd-pleasing policies with the full knowledge that the blame can be laid on the Senate who will :

1) through hearings and testimony by experts brought before the senate, discredit frivolous but popular provisions of a bill.

2) be the focus of public attention when House bill is modified or rewritten, even though by rewriting it, the House has basically agreed not to press the issue.


The senate is supposed to be the house of "sober second thought". Let me give you an example of what that means:

In ontario, there were a few high-profile pit bull attacks that sent the public into hysteria. The Liberal govt, pandering to the hysteria, enacted a ban on pit bulls, even though the vast majority of dog attacks are not by pit bulls. It was a stupid law meant to appeal to public emotions. The "sober second thought" can not prevent that but it does temper it by airing the issue publicly in a way that increases public understanding through public hearings and giving the elected politicans an opportunity to reconsider the specifics of a bill at a later time after the hysteria has subsided. The Senatorial system is not perfect and does need some reform, but it does serve a purpose and have some benefits.

Derby, do you remember your comments when Harper acted entirely within his constitutional right, and appointed senators?

This shouldn't even have made it to the senate. Our spineless opposition should have killed it untill the took out the minimums for weed.

Good thing sober second thought is kicking in here.