Trump impeachment: What to expect from Senate trial, What Are The Odds Of Congress Getting Things Done in Canada?

This site was created specifically for people from Canada, for quick acquaintance with the gambling industry online. In today's article, you can know all about What Are The Odds Of Congress Getting Things Done in Canada?. Our Canadian visitors have asked us so many times to write the review of "Trump impeachment: What to expect from Senate trial, What Are The Odds Of Congress Getting Things Done in Canada?" because of high interest in this topic. Well, the thorough investigation by our gambling expert had been already finished and we have collected here all useful information about What Are The Odds Of Congress Getting Things Done in Canada? in one review. You may read it now!

Best casinos in this month

What Are The Odds Of Congress Getting Things Done in Canada?

"That's a high crime and misdemeanour," Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland - who is leading the case - said of the footage. "If that's not an impeachable offence, then there's no such thing." Within hours, however, the former president's lawyers had rejected the request as a publicity stunt.

Trump impeachment: What to expect from Senate trial

Former US President Donald Trump is being put on trial by lawmakers for allegedly inciting a riot at the US Capitol.

Last month Mr Trump became the first president in US history to be charged with misconduct - or impeached - twice by the lower chamber of Congress.

Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to pass an article of impeachment that accused Mr Trump of "incitement of insurrection".

The article alleged that Mr Trump had made false allegations of election fraud and encouraged his supporters to storm Congress on 6 January.

Now a trial is being held in the upper chamber of Congress, the Senate, which will decide whether to convict or clear Mr Trump of the charge.

This is an unprecedented moment for the US, which has never put an impeached president on trial after they have left office.

How does the trial work?

The trial in the Senate is political, rather than criminal. A vote will be held at the end of the trial to determine whether Mr Trump is guilty of the charge.

A two-thirds majority of the 100-member Senate must back a guilty verdict to convict Mr Trump.

If Mr Trump is convicted, senators could also vote to bar him from ever holding public office again.

What happens when?

The trial opened on Tuesday with a four-hour debate on whether the proceedings were unconstitutional because Mr Trump is no longer president. A 56-44 majority then voted in favour of continuing, with six Republicans backing the measure.

Each side will then be given 16 hours in total to make their arguments, and this will be limited to eight hours in any one day.

There will be an option to request a debate and a vote on whether witnesses should be called.

Both Democrats and Republicans are said to favour a speedy trial, amid an ongoing effort to get President Joe Biden's Covid-19 relief plan approved.

It is thought a vote on a conviction could come as early as Monday if no witnesses are called.

What is the prosecution's case?

Democrats prosecuting the case opened the proceedings by showing a dramatic video montage of Mr Trump's 6 January speech and the deadly rioting by some of his supporters.

"That's a high crime and misdemeanour," Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland - who is leading the case - said of the footage. "If that's not an impeachable offence, then there's no such thing."

They say Mr Trump is "personally responsible" for the riot and must be convicted.

According to a pre-trial legal brief, they will say his repeated refusal to concede the election led to an "incitement of insurrection against the republic he swore to protect".

Mr Trump's "statements turned his 'wild' rally on 6 January into a powder keg waiting to blow", they will argue.

Although he is no longer in office, Mr Trump "must answer comprehensively for his conduct in office from his first day in office through his last", Democrats argue.

They have called for Mr Trump to be disqualified from ever running for office again.

What is Trump's defence?

On the opening day, his defence lawyers argued unsuccessfully that it was unconstitutional to put a private citizen through the impeachment process.

Defence lawyer David Schoen said the Democrats were using "the guise of impeachment as a tool to disenfranchise" those who support Donald Trump.

His lawyers are now likely to change tack and argue that Mr Trump's supporters stormed Congress of their own accord.

According to their own pre-trial brief, they will argue that Mr Trump's pre-riot remarks did not amount to incitement.

The former president's call to "fight" was not meant to be taken literally, they say.

"To characterise this statement alone as 'incitement to insurrection' is to ignore, wholesale, the remainder of Mr Trump's speech that day, including his call for his supporters to 'peacefully' making their 'voices heard,'" they add.

Moreover, FBI documents had shown that the riot was planned days in advance, the lawyers said.

Can he be tried now he has left?

It is never happened before, so it is untested and the US Constitution does not say.

Impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon were ended when he quit in 1974.

So Mr Trump could take his case to the Supreme Court, claiming his trial was unconstitutional.

Some lower ranked officials have been impeached after leaving office.

Will Trump give evidence?

That is certainly what prosecutors wanted. Last week, they sent a letter inviting him to testify under oath "at a mutually convenient time and place".

The prosecution team suggested that they would cite Mr Trump's silence as further proof that their allegations were true.

Within hours, however, the former president's lawyers had rejected the request as a publicity stunt.

They made clear he would not testify voluntarily. The prosecutors do have the power to issue a subpoena - or an order to compel him to appear in court to testify - but that is considered unlikely.

Who is involved in the trial?

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts presided over the first impeachment trial of Mr Trump, but will not do so again.

Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy - third in the line of presidential succession - is presiding over the trial instead.

Prosecuting the case are nine House Democrats, known as the impeachment managers.

Mr Trump is being represented by two attorneys - Bruce Castor and David Schoen.

All 100 US senators have been sworn in as jurors in the trial.

Could Trump be convicted in the Senate?

Democrats only hold half the 100 seats so they would require 17 Republicans to vote against someone from their own party.

That is a high bar for a party that has largely remained publicly loyal to Mr Trump.

Ten Republicans in the House supported impeachment and a handful of senators have indicated they are open to it.

But Tuesday's vote implied loyalty toward the former president in his party remained high enough to avoid a conviction.

Could Trump run for president again if convicted?

If he is convicted by the Senate, lawmakers must hold another vote to block him from running for elected office again - which he had indicated he planned to do in 2024.

This could be the biggest consequence of this impeachment.

If he is convicted, a simple majority of senators would be needed to block Mr Trump from holding "any office of honour, trust or profit under the United States".

So 50 senators plus a casting vote from Vice-President Kamala Harris would be enough to damn Mr Trump's hopes of political power.

This could be appealing to Republicans hoping to run for president in the future and those who want Mr Trump out of the party.

What about other benefits?

There has been talk of Mr Trump losing benefits granted to his predecessors under the 1958 Former Presidents Act, which include a pension and health insurance, and potentially a lifetime security detail at taxpayers' expense.

However, Mr Trump is likely to keep these benefits if he is convicted after leaving office.

What was his first impeachment for again?

That was over his dealings with Ukraine, although he denied any wrongdoing.

He was accused of pressing the country's leader to open an investigation into Mr Biden, then his emerging rival for the White House, and his son Hunter.

Mr Trump appeared to use military aid as leverage. He was impeached by the House and cleared by the then Republican-controlled Senate.

Joe Biden May Have Only 2 Years to Get Things Done

Democrats must kill the filibuster and make the Senate great again.

Mr. Jentleson is the author of “Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy.”

Bumping Senator Mitch McConnell to the minority increases Joe Biden’s odds of passing his agenda, but there is a catch.

In the Senate in recent decades, the filibuster has morphed from the long-winded speeches portrayed by Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” into a silent but lethal tool that lets any one senator raise the threshold for passing bills from a simple majority (where the framers set it) to a supermajority of 60 votes.

The harsh reality is that when the dust settles on the chaos and violence that marked the end of the Trump presidency, Republican senators will have the same powerful incentives to deny Mr. Biden the 10 or so votes he will need, in addition to all 50 Democrats, to pass most bills in the Senate.

With Republicans needing just a handful of seats to take back majorities in the House and Senate, they will seek to make Democrats look feckless and ride voter discontent to gains in the 2022 midterms. In all but three times since 1914, the party that won the White House — in this case, the Democrats — loses House seats in the midterms. The next two years may be Mr. Biden’s best and perhaps only window to pass his agenda.

He can choose to avoid this fate, all while restoring the institution he spent 36 years in and empowering moderates. He and his fellow Senate Democrats can choose to reform the filibuster.

Mr. McConnell will run the same playbook on Mr. Biden that he ran on President Barack Obama: Just as Mr. McConnell realized that Mr. Obama’s political brand hinged on his promise to fix “the broken politics in Washington,” he knows that Mr. Biden’s relies on his ability to deliver bipartisan cooperation.

Mr. McConnell will come up with excuses not to work with the president that will sound lofty and politically valid. By the 2022 midterms, Mr. Biden’s pledges of bipartisan cooperation will lie in shambles.

Some commentators have argued for the use of end-runs around the filibuster like reconciliation. But they are harder than they look, and forcing bills to comply with reconciliation’s restrictive rules will probably lead to key provisions getting struck or force Democrats to try to change Senate rules anyway. More important, reconciliation cannot be used to advance critical policies necessary to repairing our democracy, like automatic voter registration and statehood for the District of Columbia. Nor can it be employed to pass many climate change policies.

The Senate’s paralysis has become accepted as normal. But the chamber was not meant to be a perpetual obstacle to new legislation — it’s important to look at history to see why it should be restored to its proper role.

The supermajority threshold of today flies in the face of the framers’ intent. They wanted the Senate to be a place where debate was thorough and thoughtful, but limited, and where bills passed or failed on majority votes when it became clear to reasonable minds that debate was exhausted. Originally, Senate rules included a provision allowing a majority to end debate, and an early manual written by Thomas Jefferson established procedures for silencing senators who debated “superfluous, or tediously.” Obstruction was considered beneath them.

The reason the framers set the threshold at a majority is that they wrote the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, which they saw as a disaster because it required a supermajority of Congress to pass most major legislation. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22, the idea that a supermajority encouraged cooperation had proven deceptive: “What at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison.” Rather than encourage cooperation, he prophesied, the effect of requiring “more than a majority” would be “to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices” of a minority to the “regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

For all of James Madison’s embrace of minority rights, he saw the complex system of government itself — not a Senate supermajority threshold — as the minority’s protection. Even without the filibuster, the United States government ranks high on the number of “veto players,” or checks on untrammeled majority rule, among modern democracies. Within this system of checks and balances, Madison believed, decision points on governing should be majority-rule.

The filibuster did not emerge until after the framers died. Its leading innovator was the South Carolinian John C. Calhoun. Seeking to protect slave owners against abolitionism, Calhoun envisioned a Senate where this powerful pro-slavery minority would have not just the voice Madison intended but a veto — or as he put it, “a negative on the others.”

To advance his vision, Calhoun forged the “talking filibuster” of popular imagination, marrying lofty defenses of minority rights with long-winded speeches. Radical as it was, the talking filibuster could only delay bills, since its practitioners eventually had to yield. Votes remained majority-rule into the 20th century. Many historic compromises on far-reaching legislation passed on majority-rule votes: the Missouri Compromise passed by just four votes; the Constitution itself hinged on majority-rule votes; the Great Compromise that created the Senate and saved the Constitutional Convention passed by a single vote.

The supermajority threshold now associated with the filibuster emerged in the Jim Crow era, when Southern senators used it to stop civil rights (and only civil rights) legislation. In 1917, the Senate created Rule 22 to “terminate successful filibustering,” giving a supermajority (today 60 senators) the ability to bring closure (or “cloture”) to a filibuster. Majority-rule votes remained the norm for all other legislation, but filibustering Southerners made this step of cloture — and its supermajority threshold — the standard for the dozen or so civil rights bills that passed the House and came before the Senate. So although Rule 22 was enacted to bring some constraint to filibusters, it ended up being wielded by Southerners as an effective veto of civil rights legislation.

Southerners inflated the minority’s right to unlimited debate with soaring oratory backed by intimidation from their monopoly of the Senate’s all-powerful committees, which controlled the prospects for legislation as well as senators’ careers. (At the time, most Southern members of Congress were Democrats, and they were sometimes in the majority of the chamber but in the minority on civil rights legislation, which had broad support.) Unlimited debate was a sacred principle only on civil rights; on the vanishingly rare occasion other issues faced filibusters, Southerners voted to end them. From the end of Reconstruction until 1964, the filibuster killed only civil rights bills.

After cloture was finally used to break a Southern filibuster in 1964, something unexpected happened: The filibuster and its supermajority threshold became normalized and streamlined to make the Senate’s expanding workload more manageable. Soon, any senator could invoke the supermajority threshold simply by registering an objection, which today can be done via email. In the hands of Senator McConnell, this user-friendly filibuster became a weapon of mass obstruction. Today, nearly every bill in the Senate faces it, and therefore must clear 60 votes.

The Senate never made a conscious choice to operate this way, and its leading lights denounced the decline of the upper chamber, many of them moderates. Horrified by Calhoun’s innovation, Henry Clay of Kentucky, the Great Compromiser, was the first to try to limit the filibuster. In 1957, the Eisenhower administration backed filibuster reform in an effort to pass civil rights, but was outmaneuvered by Southerners. In the mid-2000s, the constitutional case for restoring majority rule was laid out compellingly by Martin Gold, who had been chief counsel to the Republican Senate leader Howard Baker, and Dimple Gupta, who worked in the Justice Department under George W. Bush.

As these moderates of both parties saw, reform is necessary because Senate obstruction has evolved exactly as the framers feared when they warned against enabling a “pertinacious minority” to “control the opinion of a majority.” Calhoun’s vision of a minority veto has come to pass.

The key to reform is eliminating the minority’s ability to impose a supermajority threshold on legislation while still giving the minority a platform and making it easier for senators to bring bills and amendments up for votes.

For example, the Senate could require a Jimmy Stewart-style talking filibuster, not just an emailed objection, reviving debate and making the chamber a place where incentives align to produce thoughtful solutions. In such a Senate, the floor will be lively and moderates like Senator Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, and Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, would be kingmakers.

The most frequent objection is that such reform would make the Senate like the House. To the contrary, restoring floor debate and a basic ability to get things done would make the Senate the Senate again. The chamber’s fundamental purpose is to produce thoughtful solutions to the challenges we face, and its rules should exist not to entrench paralysis but to serve that goal.

In his memoir “A Promised Land,” Mr. Obama chronicles his regret that he “hadn’t had the foresight” to rally Senate Democrats to “to revise the chamber rules and get rid of the filibuster once and for all.” Because of his long Senate service, Mr. Biden has unique credibility to lead a successful push for reform. We can’t afford for the Senate to remain the place where good ideas go to die. We need to make the Senate great again.

Adam Jentleson, a progressive strategist and former deputy chief of staff to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, is the author of “Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy.”

Senate of Canada

The Senate is the Upper House of Canada’s Parliament. Its 105 members are appointed and hold their seats until age 75. The Senate’s purpose is to consider and revise legislation; investigate national issues; and most crucially according to the Constitution, give the regions of Canada an equal voice in Parliament. The Senate is a controversial institution. It has long been regarded by many Canadians as a place of unfair patronage and privilege. An unresolved debate continues about whether it should be reformed into an elected body accountable to the voters, or abolished.

Senators

Senators are appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister. To qualify for appointment, they must be Canadian citizens; at least 30 years old; have real property worth $4,000 free of mortgage and a net worth of at least $4,000 (amounts unchanged since they were enacted during Confederation in 1867); and reside in the province or territory for which they are appointed. In Quebec (which is divided into 24 senatorial divisions), Senators must reside or have their real property in the division for which they are appointed.

Senators lose their seats if they become non-citizens; become bankrupt, insolvent or public defaulters; are convicted of felony or any “infamous crime”; lose their residence or property qualification; or are absent for two consecutive sessions of Parliament. They receive a salary of $150,600 (as of 2018) plus additional pay if they hold special offices in the Senate (such as government or opposition whip or leader). They also receive other expense and travel allowances.

Red Chamber

The Senate chamber is located on the eastern end of Parliament’s Centre Block. It is adorned in royal red, versus the green of the House of Commons. It is where senators meet and debate, and where the Canadian sovereign or their representative the governor general addresses Parliament and delivers the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of every new session of Parliament. This is also where the ceremony is held to install a new governor general. Proceedings in the Senate chamber, and the proceedings of most senate committees, are open to public viewing.

The chamber is an impressive hall from an architectural and interior design standpoint. It has intricately carved oak panelling and two massive bronze chandeliers. A marble bust of Queen Victoria, Canada’s monarch at the time of Confederation, surveys the chamber from above the speaker’s chair. Eight huge oil paintings on the main walls of the chamber depict scenes of Canadian sacrifices during the First World War.

Creation

The Senate was created under the Constitution Act, 1867. Its purpose was primarily to protect regional interests; but also to provide what George-Étienne Cartier called a “power of resistance to oppose the democratic element.”

The House of Commons was to be elected on the basis of representation by population. In 1867, Ontario was the most populous, fastest-growing province; but Quebec and the Maritimes were more important to the national economy than their population suggested. They dared not leave matters such as tariffs, taxation and railways to the mercy of an Ontario-dominated Commons. They insisted on equal regional representation in the Upper House. Without that guarantee, there would have been no Confederation.

Regional Representation

The Senate is therefore designed to balance out the power of the Commons, by giving voice to and protecting the rights of Canada’s regions; particularly regions with small populations that do not have strength-by-numbers in the Commons.

Of the 443 seats in Parliament (as of 2019), 338 or three quarters are in the Commons; 105 or one quarter are in the Senate. Senate seats are divided equally among four divisions:

• Maritimes Division: 24 seats (10 each for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, four for Prince Edward Island)


• Quebec Division: 24 seats


• Ontario Division: 24 seats


• Western Division: 24 seats (six each for British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba)

There are also nine additional seats representing regions that were not part of the Divisions originally created at Confederation: Newfoundland and Labrador (6), Northwest Territories (1), Yukon (1) and Nunavut (1)

Senators are technically appointed to represent a region; but they have also tended to sit as members of political parties; either government or opposition, depending on whether their party held power in the Commons. As a result, the Senate has operated for much of its history as a partisan political body — its members following instructions from their party leaders in the Commons — rather than as originally intended; as an independent voice for regional interests. This has also fuelled demands that the Senate be reformed or abolished.

Despite its regional focus, the Senate was not set up to represent provincial governments or legislatures; or to protect the provinces against federal invasion of their powers. The courts protect provincial powers. (See also Distribution of Powers.) The protection of provincial interests in matters under federal jurisdiction sometimes falls to the ministers from each province in the federal Cabinet. Canada’s first Cabinet had five senators out of a total of 13 ministers. From 1911 to 1979, there were seldom more than two, and often only one senator in the Cabinet. In 1979, the Conservatives under Joe Clark were so short of Quebec and French-Canadian members of Parliament that they had to include three French-Canadian senators in Cabinet. From 1980 to 1984, the Liberals were equally short of Western MPs and did the same.

Sober Second Thought

The Senate was also intended to provide “sober second thought” on legislation introduced in the Commons. One of its most effective functions is the quiet, in-depth study and review of national issues (including the hearing of expert witnesses) by Senate committees. Committees go over proposed bills clause by clause. They often hear voluminous evidence, sometimes over a period of months.

Committees are usually non-partisan. They can draw on a vast reservoir of members’ knowledge and experience: former federal and provincial ministers; former members of the Commons and provincial assemblies; veteran lawyers and business people; farmers; women and ethnic representatives; and even an occasional trade unionist. Senate committees have produced careful studies on unemployment; land use; science policy; poverty; aging; the mass media; and Indigenous affairs. Senate investigations have often led to important changes in government policy or legislation.

Senate Powers

The Senate has almost the same powers as the House of Commons. Bills are read three times in the Commons as well as in the Senate. The Senate can only delay constitutional amendments for 180 days. But no bill can become law without its consent, and it can veto any bill as often as it likes. The Senate cannot initiate money bills (taxes or expenditures). Neither House can increase amounts in money bills. The Senate has not vetoed a bill from the Commons since 1939. The Senate now very rarely makes amendments of principle. The amendments it does make to bills now are almost always related to drafting; to clarify, simplify and tidy proposed legislation.

In 1987, the Senate temporarily blocked Bill C22 (pharmaceutical patents). But it eventually agreed to amendments. In 1990, the Liberal dominated Senate effectively blocked plans of the Conservative government to pass the legislation for the unpopular Goods and Services Tax (GST). This led Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to use his power to fill eight vacant senate seats; this ensured passage of the legislation in 1990.

The Senate’s legally absolute veto was expected to be really no more than a delaying veto. Until the late 1860s, governments were usually short-lived; none, it seemed, would be able to build up a large enough majority in the Senate to block a successor government of the opposition party. But many Canadian governments since then have served multiple terms. (See Timeline: Elections and Prime Ministers.) Appointments are almost invariably partisan. The Senate has often had a large opposition majority; as well as a heavy preponderance of Liberals through much of the late 20th century. After the election of Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2006, however, party power in the Senate shifted. As of 2016, there were 42 Conservative senators, 25 Liberals, 21 independents and 17 vacancies.

Senate Reform

A longstanding objection to the Senate is that, too often, its members are given seats in the Chamber as a reward for service or loyalty to the party in power. Many feel that such patronage appointees have no right to a position of authority in a modern democracy.

Proposals to make the Senate more representative of regional interests were introduced by the Liberal government in 1978; but they received little support. A push for Senate reform was resurrected in the constitutional debates of the late 1980s, and widely debated during the struggles over the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.

Some provinces proposed that Senate appointments be turned over to the provincial governments. Senators could act as provincial representatives, defending regional interests. Critics charged that such a system would run counter to the principles of federalism and representative democracy. In the long negotiations over the Charlottetown Accord, the proposal for a so-called “Triple-E Senate” — elected, effective and equal — championed particularly by Alberta premier Don Getty, became a primary focus of debate. Following the collapse of the Meech Lake Accord, Alberta held a provincial election to fill a vacant Senate seat. Although not constitutionally bound to do so, Brian Mulroney appointed the nominee, Stan Waters, to the Senate in 1990. Since then, Alberta and British Columbia have held further non-binding Senate elections; from them, a list of names is given to Ottawa for consideration, whenever Senate seats from those provinces become vacant.

Under the present Constitution, turning the Senate into an elected House would require a constitutional amendment. It would need the consent of seven provincial legislatures, representing at least half the population of the 10 provinces. So, too, would any change in the Senate's powers; or in the number of senators from any province.

Reform Under Harper

The government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper tried twice after 2006 to reform the Senate; each time by submitting legislation through Parliament that sought to avoid a constitutional amendment. Harper’s first Senate reform bill was delayed in the then-Liberal dominated upper house. It never became law. His second attempt — Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act — was introduced in Parliament in 2011. The bill would have limited Senate terms to nine years and allowed provinces to elect their senators if they chose to do so.

By the end of 2013, the bill had not been debated in Parliament for many months; instead, it came under renewed scrutiny because of a high-profile scandal involving the Prime Minister's Office and three Harper-appointed senators accused of filing improper expense claims (See Canadian Senate Expenses Scandal; Mike Duffy Case.)

As the scandal was underway, the Quebec Court of Appeal, acting on a request by the Quebec government, issued a ruling in October 2013. It found Bill C-7 unconstitutional. The Court said the bill’s proposals require a formal constitutional amendment, not mere parliamentary legislation, if they are to be enacted. The following month the Supreme Court of Canada acted on a request from the federal government; the Court opened its own hearings into Bill C-7 to determine whether the Senate can be reformed without a constitutional change process. This would force Ottawa into negotiations with the provinces.

The federal government also asked the Court for direction on how the Senate could be abolished. The Harper government argued that under the Constitution, abolition only requires the approval of Parliament plus seven provinces representing 50 per cent of Canada's population. Most provinces, however, say abolition requires the formal consent of all 10 provinces.

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on the matter on 25 April 2014. The Court said creating an elected Senate with nine-year term limits required the consent of seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population. And it said abolishing the Senate required the consent of all 10 provinces. In each case, a constitutional amendment would be necessary. “The Senate is a core component of the Canadian federal structure of government,” the Court said. “As such, changes that affect its fundamental nature and role engage the interests of the stakeholders in our constitutional design — i.e., the federal government and the provinces — and cannot be achieved by Parliament acting alone.”

Harper called the ruling “a decision for the status quo.” He said there was little likelihood of Senate reform under his government because the country had no interest in constitutional negotiations that would be required to achieve it.

Reform Under Trudeau

In January 2014, federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau expelled his party’s then-32 senators from the Liberal Party parliamentary caucus. It had included Liberal members of both the House of Commons and the Senate. Senators who had previously served as Liberals instead became independent members. The change effectively freed Liberal senators from having to vote along party lines. This theoretically reduced the Senate’s role as a partisan body. However, critics said Trudeau made the change not in the spirit of reform; but to distance himself and his party, in the months preceding a federal election, from the expenses scandal that was tarnishing the Senate’s image at the time.

Following this change, the Liberal senators divided themselves into two camps; one group sits as independent senators, while a larger group chooses to call itself the Senate Liberal Caucus (albeit removed from the Liberal caucus in the House of Commons). Many Liberal and independent (former Liberal) senators remained card-carrying members of the Liberal Party of Canada. There was no similar change applied to Conservative senators; they were still members of the Conservative Party parliamentary caucus.

After becoming prime minister, Trudeau in 2016 appointed 22 new independent senators. The first seven of the new group were chosen by a Trudeau-created Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments. The remaining 15 were picked by the Advisory Board under a new process that saw more than 2,700 Canadians apply for Senate jobs. This was the first time the government had issued a public call for applications for Senate membership.

One of the first seven appointments, Peter Harder, became the Trudeau government’s “representative” in the Senate. He was responsible for stewarding government legislation through the upper chamber. Previously, the senator in Harder’s post was known as the “government leader in the Senate” and was usually a member of the federal Cabinet. They could command party members in the Senate to support government legislation. Harder would have no such caucus to command; therefore, it remained unclear at the time of his appointment how the Liberal government intended to steer its legislation and its agenda through Parliament’s upper house.

Further Changes

In November 2019, there were several significant changes in the composition of the Senate. Early that month, the Canadian Senators Group was established by former members of the Independent Senators Group, the Conservative Senate Caucus and a non-affiliated senator. On 14 November 2019, the Senate Liberal Caucus disbanded and formed the Progressive Senate Group. This meant that for the first time since Confederation, there were no sitting Liberal senators in the upper house. Only days later, the Progressive Senate Group lost official group status after one of its members joined the Canadian Senators Group.

As of 22 February 2021, the Senate’s 105 seats were divided as follows: 43 members of the Independent Senators Group; 20 Conservatives; 12 members of the Canadian Senators Group; 11 members of the Progressive Senate Group; 5 non-affiliated senators and 14 vacant seats (three from Quebec; two each from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario; and one each from BC, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador).

How the 2 U.S. Senate races in Georgia will shape Biden's presidency

Social Sharing

Georgians vote in 2 run-off elections Tuesday. The outcome will affect bills, probes and Biden's reform plans

A decisive moment for Joe Biden's presidency is on the verge of unfolding, even before he takes the oath of office on Jan. 20.

Two elections in Georgia tomorrow will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate — and the results will shape myriad aspects of Biden's administration.

The stakes include whether laws get passed; whether Biden can easily appoint judges, cabinet members and ambassadors; and whether his administration will be dogged by congressional investigations.

That's why these races have drawn record-smashing fundraising as hundreds of millions in political donations flood the state, and U.S. President Donald Trump tonight is attending his second Georgia rally within weeks.

The rhetorical flourishes on the campaign stump have been equally lavish: candidates are casting these votes as critical for the American republic.

"Are you fired up and ready to save America?" one candidate, incumbent Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler, told a Trump rally here last month, where every speaker insisted a Democratic Senate would lead the country to socialism.

The Democrats, for their part, cast the race as pivotal to getting big things achieved under Biden. "It's on us to write the next chapter in our history," Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff told another rally last month.

But what difference, really, would Senate control make?

With a reality check on some of the rhetoric, here's a look at how these results will shape the coming years in U.S. politics.

Polls show two close races, both upended by personal controversies. Unless Democrats win both, they will remain stuck in the minority. In one race, Loeffler faces Raphael Warnock, a pastor in the former Atlanta church of Martin Luther King; in the other Ossoff faces Republican incumbent David Perdue.

Passing bills

No matter which party wins the Senate, enacting major laws will be difficult — but it will be significantly harder if Republicans remain in control.

Biden's party hopes to introduce a public option for health care; reforms to political ethics and financing rules; and modernized immigration laws.

Without Senate control, many bills supported by Biden will pass the House of Representatives and die in the other chamber.

The Senate's controlling party doesn't just hold a majority of votes — it holds the power to decide what votes are even allowed.

A majority leader will frequently block any votes on issues the party finds politically problematic.

Immigration reform is one classic example for Republicans. Even if the votes might exist in both chambers to make it happen, Republican leaders have avoided raising the issue given the anger it arouses from their supporters.

A more recent example is a new voting-rights act named after the late civil-rights leader and politician John Lewis — it never got a vote on the Senate floor last year.

One Georgia Democrat described Republican majority leader Mitch McConnell as the current gatekeeper of what even gets discussed in the U.S. Senate.

WATCH | Democrats hope presidential win in Georgia will help them flip U.S. Senate seat:

Democrats hope presidential win in Georgia will help them flip U.S. Senate seat

A political scientist at the University of Georgia, Alexa Bankert, said in an interview: "I don't think the importance of these [races] can be overstated."

It is, however, possible to overstate how big a difference these races will make when it comes to passing legislation.

That's because there are serious limits to what Democrats could achieve even with a hypothetical one-seat majority.

That's due to the decades-old Senate rule that requires 60 votes for most types of bills to overcome the legislation-stalling filibuster.

That's the reason Democrats couldn't even pass a relatively popular gun-control reform after the Sandy Hook school massacre — when they had a six-seat Senate majority.

There is one exception to the 60-vote filibuster rule.

Certain budget measures can pass with a one-vote majority through a complicated process known as reconciliation — it's been used since 1980 to pass dozens of bills, including key provisions of the so-called Obamacare health reform and Trump's tax cuts.

But there are serious limitations to that process. It can only be used once a year, and only on budget bills, and the measures usually expire after 10 years.

This has many Democrats eyeing bigger institutional reforms.

Many decry the country's governing systems as too paralyzed by partisanship to be productive — so they want the 60-vote filibuster gone.

Major institutional reform

And that sort of major institutional reform is unlikely to happen even in a Senate where Democrats hold a one-seat majority.

Don't count on the filibuster disappearing or liberal judges being added to the U.S. Supreme Court — something many Democrats were talking about before November's election.

"There's a bit of me that's a little cynical about some of the big-picture things Democrats have been pushing for," said Tony Madonna, a legislative expert at the University of Georgia.

The Democrats don't appear to have enough votes for such reforms — they'd probably fall short even within their own caucus.

One more conservative Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, for instance, has said he'd never vote for either change.

"That won't happen. I will not be the 50th Democrat to end the filibuster or to stack the court," Manchin told Fox News in November.

Let me be clear: I will not vote to pack the courts & I will not vote to end the filibuster. The U.S. Senate is the most deliberative body in the world. It was made so that we work together in a bipartisan way. If you get rid of the filibuster, there's no reason to have a Senate. pic.twitter.com/g0fasdzVmt

—@Sen_JoeManchin

It's unclear whether another major structural change envisioned by Democrats, which Manchin and others are skeptical about, would stand a better chance: statehood for Washington, D.C.

The move to create a 51st state has unprecedented momentum, having recently passed the House of Representatives.

Residents of the national capital would finally get votes in the U.S. Congress and more control over their own municipal affairs, which proponents call a matter of basic fairness.

Controlling the Senate doesn't simply mean passing bills. The Senate does a lot more than that. It's the chamber that must sign off on most major presidential appointments.

Nominations to cabinet, the courts, and foreign capitals

This is where those Georgia races could clearly have an enduring impact. Because a one-seat majority grants power over presidential nominations.

Judges, cabinet members, foreign ambassadors, senior departmental officials, regulatory agencies — a president's pick for all these positions must be approved by the Senate.

If you're wondering why Barack Obama appointed so few judges in his final two years in office, and why Trump appointed so many, the answer, in two words, is: Mitch McConnell.

The Senate majority leader didn't just block Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland — it went far beyond that.

Fewer than 29 per cent of Obama's court picks got confirmed in his final two years in office, compared to 89 per cent in the previous two-year period when Democrats were in control.

Without a Senate majority, Biden will also face tougher fights to get other officials confirmed — including ambassadors.

Diplomacy with Canada has in the past felt the effects of Senate partisanship.

Canada went eight months without a U.S. ambassador under Obama, amid partisan stalling in the Senate of numerous appointments.

The Senate can also shape numerous areas of policy-making, like the agency that regulates the internet and telecommunications. The Federal Communications Commission, which handles net neutrality and regulates social-media companies, is currently deadlocked 2-2, with a vacant fifth seat.

Will the Senate legislate — or investigate?

Finally, there's the question of how congressional committees use their time. They can legislate, or they can investigate.

Will Senate committees torture the Biden White House with investigations and subpoenas to appear for questioning?

The latter is far likelier if the opposition Republicans retain control. Examples of investigations in the last two presidencies include the Benghazi affair, and the Ukraine impeachment probe.

The Republican who's recently led the Senate homeland security committee has been investigating Biden's son.

Republican Ron Johnson has been probing the president-elect's foreign business dealings, and has said he intends to continue these probes.

This leaves considerable power in the hands of Georgia voters.

In the words of one candidate also on the ballot tomorrow, Bubba McDonald, a Republican seeking re-election to the state's public utilities commission: "America — the world — has Georgia on its mind."

Points-Based and Family Immigration: Canada

In 2015, Canada introduced the Express Entry as a system that manages applications for three economic immigration programs the Federal Skilled Worker Program, Federal Skilled Trades Program, and Canadian Experience Class. The Express Entry application management system is governed under Ministerial Instructions. The system manages applications for permanent residence through a two-step process: First, the system assesses whether the applicant is eligible for any of the three programs and those that are placed in the Express Entry pool are assigned a Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) score based on the information in their profile by looking at factors such as education, language ability, and work experience. Invitations for permanent residence are sent to the candidates with the highest scores in the pool. The points an applicant gets from the CRS have two components—a core set of points up to 600 based on factors such as skills and experience and a set of additional points up to 600 based on factors such as a valid job offer—with a total score out of 1,200 points. The CRS score is dynamic depending upon updates to the profile.

I. Background

Immigration to Canada is predominantly regulated by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001 (IRPA),[1] and its subsidiary rules and regulations.[2] Immigration to Canada is administered by the Canada Border Services Agency, which is responsible for border enforcement, immigration enforcement and customs services, and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), which “facilitates the arrival of immigrants, provides protection to refugees, and offers programming to help newcomers settle in Canada.”[3] Section 12(1) of IRPA stipulates that “[a] foreign national may be selected as a member of the economic class on the basis of their ability to become economically established in Canada.”[4] Furthermore, Part 6 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations further regulate programs under the Economic Classes immigrant category.

In 1967, Canada introduced the first ever points based system for economic immigration,[5] and applicants were assigned points based on nine criteria that appear to have been more or less maintained until 2015. However, how points were allocated did undergo various adjustments, and the number of immigrants admitted under the system also fluctuated over the years.[6] In 2015, Canada introduced the Express Entry as a system that manages applications for three economic immigration programs, the Federal Skilled Worker Program, Federal Skilled Trades Program, and Canadian Experience Class. The Express Entry application management system is governed under Ministerial Instructions,[7] as authorized by section 10.3(1) of the IRPA. The system creates a pool of candidates who may be eligible to immigrate to Canada permanently.[8] The system was implemented “in an effort to solve the backlogs and skills mismatches that challenged the existing selection system. The Express Entry system sought to speed up the processing of applications, improve the ability of the selection system to address labor-market needs, reduce the inventory (backlog) of applications, and enable selection of the best applicants.”[9] A person must be eligible for one of the immigration programs to get into the pool. A person gets points based on the information in their profile, including skills and work experience. To be chosen from the pool and invited to apply, a person needs to have one of the highest-ranking scores. Those individuals are sent out invitations to apply for permanent residence.[10] The Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) is the points-based system the immigration authorities use to assess and score a person’s profile,[11] and to rank them in the Express Entry pool.[12]

Please note that the province of Quebec has a special arrangement on immigration with the Federal government of Canada, and the province “has its own rules for choosing immigrants who will adapt well to living there,” including its own program to select skilled workers.[13] It utilizes a two-step process and a selection criteria that uses a point system as well. Additionally, there are Provincial Nominee programs that can also work through Express Entry, which allow Canadian provinces and territories to nominate persons who wish to immigrate to Canada and who would like to live in a particular province.[14]

II. Points System Under the Express Entry Programs

The Express Entry system manages applications for permanent residence through a two-stepВ process:

First, individuals express their interest in immigrating to Canada by completing an online profile, which is then screened electronically to determine if the individual is eligible for the Federal Skilled Worker Program, the Federal Skilled Trades Program, or the Canadian Experience Class. Individuals who meet the eligibility criteria for at least one of these programs are placed in the Express Entry pool and are assigned a Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) score based on the information in their profile compared to a transparent scoring criteria, including factors such as education, language ability, and work experience. Candidates in the pool are ranked against one another based on their CRS score.[15]

The selection criteria to be eligible for the Federal Skilled Worker Program also involves the program’s own points and requirements, which are detailed below. The other two programs (Federal Skilled Trades Program and Canadian Experience Class) do not appear to involve points in their eligibility criteria, so we have not included the requirements for those programs in this report.

A. Federal Skilled Worker Program

According to IRCC, the Federal Skilled Worker Program is a program for skilled workers with foreign work experience and skills who want to immigrate to Canada permanently.[16] Canada’s process for selecting skilled workers is fairly complex.В

1. Minimum Requirements

To be eligible for the program, an applicant must meet certain minimum program requirements, which include requirements on skilled work experience, language ability, and education. The applicant must have one uninterrupted year of full-time work experience or 1,560 hours total (30 hours per week) or the equivalent in part-time work experience that must be of skill typeВ 0 (managerial jobs) or skill level A (professional jobs) or B (technical jobs and skilled trades) defined under the Canadian National Occupational Classification (NOC) job groups.[17] Applicants are also required to take approved language tests in English or French and get a minimum benchmark score for four abilities: writing, reading, listening, and speaking. If schooling was completed in Canada, the applicant must have a certificate, diploma or degree from a secondary institution (high school) or post-secondary institution or, if the education took place at foreign institutions, the applicant must have a completed credential and an Educational Credential Assessment from a designated organization demonstrating that the applicant’s education is equal to that received by completing the requirements of a Canadian secondary or post-secondary institution.[18]

An applicant must also show he or she has enough money for the applicant and the applicant’s family to settle in Canada, unless the applicant is currently able to work legally in Canada or has a valid job offer from an employer in Canada. Lastly, the applicant and all family members mustВ be “admissible” to Canada under Canadian immigration law. If an application meets minimum requirements, it will then be assessed according to the six selection factors discussed below.[19]

2. Selection Criteria

Applicants must obtain at least 67 points out of a total of 100 possible points on the selection factors. According to IRCC, if an applicant’s score is 67 points or higher, they may qualify for the Federal Skilled Worker Program. An applicant who meets the other minimum requirements as well can enter the Express Entry pool. Once in the Express Entry pool, Immigration uses the CRS to rank the applicant’s profile. A person who scores lower than 67 points cannot qualify for the program.[20]

The six selection criteria and the maximum number of points available for each are asВ follows:В В В

• Languages: A maximum of 28 points can be awarded to persons who are able to communicate in English, French or both official languages of Canada. An applicant can be awarded up to 24 points for basic, moderate, or high proficiency in English and French. Approved language tests are administered to ascertain a person’s ability to write, read, listen and speak. To measure English or French levels, authorities use Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) for English and Niveaux de compГ©tence linguistique canadiens (NCLC) for French. A person must get a minimum level of CLB 7 or NCLC 7 for one official language in all four language areas. To get points for the second official language, an applicant must meet the minimum level of CLB 5 or NCLC 5 in all four language areas.


• Education: A maximum of 25 points can be earned by a person who went to school in Canada. The applicant must have a certificate, diploma or degree from a Canadian secondary institutionВ or post-secondary institution. Applicants with a foreign education must get their education credentials assessed for immigration purposes from a designated organization showing that the education is equal to a Canadian secondary or post-secondary level of education.


• Work Experience: Points can be awarded for experience in full-time paid work or an equal amount of part-time work at a certain skill type or skill levels from the NOC. It can be in Canada or abroad, while the person was studying or if they were self-employed. For one year of experience, the person can earn a maximum of nine points; for two to three years, 11 points; for four to five years, 13 points; and for six or more years, an applicant can get the maximum amount of 15 points.


• Age: A maximum of 12 points is awarded to persons who are between 18 and 46 years of age. Persons outside this range get no points.


• Arranged employment: A person may be awarded 10 points for having a permanent job offer for at least one year from a Canadian employer. The offer must be received prior to applying to come to Canada as a Federal Skilled Worker.


• Adaptability: A person may be awarded a maximum of 10 points for adaptability by combining a number of elements, including: a spouse or partner’s language level or past studies/work, the applicant’s past studies or work in Canada, arranged employment in Canada, and an adult relative (as defined under the program) who is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident in Canada.[21]

B.В Comprehensive Ranking System

If an applicant is eligible for the Federal Skilled Worker Program, the Federal Skilled Trades Program, or the Canadian Experience Class, that person is accepted into a pool of candidates. Then the person is ranked using the CRS. Invitations for permanent residence are sent to the candidates with the highest scores in the pool.[22] The points an applicant gets from the CRS have two components—a core set of points up to 600 “depending on the person’s human capital characteristics (i.e., age, education, official language proficiency, and work experience),”[23] and a set of additional points up to 600—with a total score out of 1,200 points:[24]

Core: Up to 600 points

1. Skills and experience factors

2. Spouse or common-law partner factors, such as their language skills and education

3. Skills transferability, including education and work experience

Additional: Up to 600 points

1. Canadian degrees, diplomas or certificates

2. a valid job offer

3. a nomination from a province or territory

4. a brother or sister living in Canada who is a citizen or permanent resident

5. strong French language skills

Core points + Additional points = your total score[25]

A further breakdown of these points is found in the Appendix. As noted earlier, the CRS score is dynamic depending upon updates on the profile:

Candidates in the Express Entry pool must update their profile to reflect any change in circumstances and this action can trigger a recalculation of the CRS score. Some updates are automatically triggered when milestones, such as a birthday or expiry of language test results, are reached. Accordingly, candidates can take steps to increase their CRS score, thereby increasing the probability they will be selected to receive an ITA. For example, a candidate could increase their proficiency in an official language, secure arranged employment, or provide an educational credential assessment for education acquired abroad.[26]

C. Round of Invitations

Approximately every two weeks, the Canadian government conducts an Express Entry draw or round of invitations. Each round specifies the number of invitations issued, the rank required to be invited to apply, and the CRS cut-off score (the score of the lowest-ranked candidate invited) for permanent residence. These invitations are called Invitation to Apply (ITA) and are “auto-generated correspondence issued to Express Entry candidates through their online account.”[27] According to a 2018 report:

[A] Ministerial Instruction is published specifying the number of invitations to apply (ITA) for permanent residence that will be sent to candidates in the Express Entry pool on a specific date. The Ministerial Instruction may also specify that the ITA round will target one or more of the Express Entry economic immigration categories. For a given round, invitations are issued to candidates, in descending CRS score rank order, until the maximum number of invitations specified in the associated Ministerial Instruction is met. The profiles of candidates who do not receive an ITA, or decline an ITA, remain in the pool for up to 12 months. Candidates who receive an ITA but do not react are withdrawn from the pool.[28]

Once candidates receive an ITA, they are given 60 days to complete and submit an official electronic Application for Permanent Residence.[29] Once an application is received, an immigration officer assesses the application to “verify the applicant’s CRS score and program eligibility, and to ensure the principal applicant and any accompanying family members are not inadmissible.” If the immigration officer is “satisfied that all conditions have been met and that the principal applicant and any accompanying family members are not inadmissible, they are approved for a permanent resident visa. Applicants and their accompanying family members become permanent residents when they are admitted to Canada.”[30]

III. Family Reunification

All applications for permanent residency under Canada’s economic immigration programs, including the Federal Skilled Worker Program, allow candidates to apply as a family.[31] Typically, this “requires one person to apply as the principal applicant.”[32] Family members who can be processed for permanent residence as dependents include a

• spouse or common-law partner,


• dependent child under the age of 22,


• spouse or common-law partner’s dependent child, and


• a dependent child of a dependent child.[33]

Once the application is approved, “all family members included on the application will become Canadian permanent residents.”[34] Many permanent residency programs, including the popular Federal Skilled Worker program, “require applicants to show that they have enough money to support their settlement in Canada. This amount increases with each additional family member.”[35] Family members who cannot come with the applicant under the economic immigration programs include parents, grandparents, siblings, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, and other relatives. However, under the family sponsorship program, an applicant may be able to sponsor them after the applicant immigrates to Canada.[36]

APPENDIX: Skilled Migrant Category Resident Visa Points Table

A. Core / Human Capital Factors

Points per factor - with a spouse or common-law partner

Points per factor - without a spouse or common-law partner

All Information (Except Text) for H.R.5717 - Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 116th Congress (2019-2020)

Sponsor:	Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [D-GA-4] (Introduced 01/30/2020)
Committees:	House - Judiciary; Energy and Commerce; Ways and Means
Latest Action:	House - 03/10/2020 Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. (All Actions)

Tracker:

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

More on This Bill

Subject — Policy Area:

There is 1 version of this bill. View text

Click the check-box to add or remove the section, click the text link to scroll to that section.
Titles Titles Actions Overview Actions Overview All Actions All Actions Cosponsors Cosponsors Committees Committees Related Bills Related Bills Subjects Subjects Latest Summary Latest Summary All Summaries All Summaries

Titles (2)

Short Titles

Short Titles - House of Representatives

Short Title(s) as Introduced

Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020

Official Titles

Official Titles - House of Representatives

Official Title as Introduced

To end the epidemic of gun violence and build safer communities by strengthening Federal firearms laws and supporting gun violence research, intervention, and prevention initiatives.

Actions Overview (1)

Date	Actions Overview
01/30/2020	Introduced in House

01/30/2020 Introduced in House

All Actions (6)

Date	All Actions
03/10/2020	Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Action By: Committee on the Judiciary
02/05/2020	Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H838) Action By: House of Representatives
01/30/2020	Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Action By: House of Representatives
01/30/2020	Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Action By: House of Representatives
01/30/2020	Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Action By: House of Representatives
01/30/2020	Introduced in House Action By: House of Representatives

03/10/2020 Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

02/05/2020 Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H838)

01/30/2020 Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

01/30/2020 Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

01/30/2020 Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

More than 20 Republican-led states sue Biden for canceling the Keystone XL pipeline

It’s the latest event in the more than 10-year struggle over Keystone XL’s expansion.

Share this story

Share All sharing options for: More than 20 Republican-led states sue Biden for canceling the Keystone XL pipeline

U.S. President Joe Biden speaks in the East Room of the White House on March 18, 2021 in Washington, DC. Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

In a last-ditch attempt to revive the Keystone XL pipeline, 21 states led by attorneys general from Texas and Montana have sued President Joe Biden, alleging he overstepped his presidential authority in canceling the pipeline.

The lawsuit, which also names several of Biden’s Cabinet officials, argues the power to revoke Keystone XL lies with the states. In their complaint, filed March 17, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen allege Biden “lacks the power to enact his ‘ambitious plan’ to reshape the economy in defiance of Congress’s unwillingness to do so.”

Arguing “on behalf of the States through which Keystone runs,” Paxton and Knudsen also released a joint statement on March 17, further criticizing Biden for what they say amounts to overstepping congressional authority. All states in the lawsuit are headed by Republicans and all went to Trump in the 2020 election with the exception of Georgia.

The lawsuit is just the latest skirmish in a long legal fight over the proposed pipeline expansion, which would deliver more than 800,000 barrels of carbon-intensive tar sands oil per day from Alberta Canada to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would meet with existing pipeline infrastructure to travel further south to oil refineries in the Gulf Coast.

In 2011, Congress forced then-President Barack Obama to make a decision on Keystone XL by including a provision in an unrelated tax bill that required him to decide the project’s fate within 60 days or determine it wasn’t in the national interest. After several years of turmoil, Obama finally rejected Keystone XL in 2015.

But when President Donald Trump took office, he invited parent company TC Energy to reapply for a new permit for Keystone XL. They did and were approved.

On the first day of Biden’s presidency, he issued an executive order canceling the Keystone XL pipeline — making good on his promise to the climate activists who helped get him elected, but inviting the lawsuit brought by 21 states on Wednesday who say they will be hurt economically by Biden’s decision.

They’re not the only ones unhappy with the pipeline’s cancellation.

During a January 22 call to celebrate Biden’s presidential victory, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau voiced Canada’s “disappointment” with Biden’s decision. And TC Energy (formerly TransCanada), which runs the $8 billion pipeline, announced plans to cut 1,000 jobs “immediately.”

So when Biden met with Trudeau for a virtual sit-down on February 23, there were hopes on the Canadian side that the meeting could save the long-disputed Keystone XL pipeline.

Biden and Trudeau discussed several shared concerns — among them Covid-19 relief, a joint response to China, and addressing climate change — but in their public remarks, they were notably silent about Keystone XL.

Right before the meeting, the Washington Post reported that on February 22, a Biden official had said it was the end of the road for Keystone XL. “The decision will not be reconsidered. It has already been made,” the official told reporters on the condition of anonymity.

Just after the meeting, Biden’s White House released its US-Canada Partnership Roadmap, which says the two countries will “launch a High Level Climate Ministerial” who will help align US-Canada policies on climate change and “increase ambition to tackle the climate crisis.” The climate ministerial will also help both countries work toward stronger targets under the Paris climate agreement, accelerating the transition to net zero emissions by 2050.

“There’s just no room for countries like Canada and the US to be investing in the expansion of additional fossil fuel reserves,” Anthony Swift, director of the Canada Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said.

Activists and experts say if Biden and Trudeau are really serious about bilateral collaboration on climate change, the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline should be a starting point. Moving forward with policies necessary to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoid the worst impacts of climate change will require Canada and the US to push each other to make an ambitious transition to a clean energy economy.

That transition will only be underway once existing Keystone XL infrastructure is removed and other cross-border fossil fuel expansion projects (like Line 3) are canceled. In addition, ensuring the rights of Native people are respected is critical if both countries want to be seen as leaders on climate justice.

Here’s how the Keystone XL pipeline project ultimately failed, and why Biden and Trudeau’s “accelerated climate ambition” should include respect for Indigenous land rights and the end of fossil fuel pipeline expansion projects.

Sign up for The Weeds newsletter

Vox’s German Lopez is here to guide you through the Biden administration’s unprecedented burst of policymaking. Sign up to receive our newsletter each Friday.

The Keystone XL pipeline, briefly explained

The Keystone XL pipeline became an almost perfect example of the various stakeholders — Native communities, climate activists, scientists, policymakers, farmers, landowners, and everyday citizens — engaging in the broader debate about climate change.

Canada-based TC Energy first proposed the 1,200 mile Keystone XL pipeline in 2008 as a way to quickly pump 830,000 barrels of tar sands (a.k.a. oil sands) per day from Canada’s Alberta province across the border to Steele City, Nebraska. Once there, the Keystone XL extension would converge with existing pipeline infrastructure, traveling south to Texas for processing in Gulf Coast oil refineries.

A map of the proposed Keystone XL extension. Laris Karklis/The Washington Post via Getty Images

When the idea for Keystone XL was conceived back in the 2000s, the project made a lot of sense — the US economy depended on oil, and supporters of the pipeline claimed it was in both countries’ interest to find a way to transport oil efficiently across the continent. With oil prices high and demand steady, Alberta’s oil sands easily racked up $200 billion in investment.

But there are considerable differences between oil from Alberta’s tar sands and conventional oil, which quickly began to wear on the region.

For starters, extracting oil from Alberta’s oil sands, which contain bitumen (tar), a dense type of petroleum, takes a lot of energy. Most of Canada’s tar sands oil is trapped beneath boreal forest — only 20 percent of the oil is located near the earth’s surface, where it can be easily mined, which means the forest must be cleared for the most intensive mining.

The majority of the oil is mined by injecting hot water into wells 75 meters below ground to liquefy the oil for pumping, which is why tar sands oil has a reputation for being among the dirtiest types of oil.

Many Indigenous rights groups and people from communities along the proposed route argued the pipeline extension would have disastrous impacts for Native communities in Alberta: A lot of the water used to help extract oil from Alberta’s oil sands comes from the Athabasca River. Studies have linked leaks from oil sands pipelines like Keystone XL to significant degradation of nearby land and water resources.

A major concern is tailings ponds, the product of toxic waste from mining in the tar sands that can sicken communities and wildlife that depend on the land to survive.

“The land is our solution, the water is our solution, the air is our solution to meet our needs,” Jesse Cardinal of the Kikino Metis Settlement, director of Keepers of the Water, a collective of First Nations who have come together to protect the nearby Mackenzie River Basin, told me. Cardinal helped lead the Tar Sands Healing Walk, a grassroots movement to bring people face to face with the destruction of the oil sands as a way of healing.

Environmental groups took note of Indigenous opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. After then-President Barack Obama’s climate legislation suffered a stinging defeat, the climate movement coalesced around getting the Keystone XL pipeline canceled in 2011.

Inspired by Indigenous-led opposition to the pipeline, several environmental groups organized two weeks of sit-ins in front of the White House in the fall of 2011, leading to the arrest of more than 1,200 people. The arrests brought increased media attention at a time when there was relatively little national coverage of climate-change-related issues.

James Hansen, who has been called the “father of global warming” for his role in testifying before Congress about the science of human-induced climate change way back in 1988, attended the protests at the White House. At the time, Hansen said unchecked exploitation of Canada’s oil sands would be “game over” for the climate.

Facing immense pressure from the anti-Keystone movement, Obama finally canceled the pipeline in 2015. He defended his decision in a press conference, saying the pipeline wouldn’t make gas any cheaper or improve American energy security. He added that approving the pipeline would ultimately undercut US global leadership on climate change, which he’d previously said was a red line for approving Keystone XL.

In January 2016, TC Energy filed a lawsuit against the US for canceling Keystone XL, using the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to request $15 billion in damages for what the company said was the arbitrary suspension of the project. The company then waited to try its luck with the next administration — which turned out to be Trump’s.

Keystone XL starts — and stops — under Trump

In January 2017, just days into his presidency, President Donald Trump issued an executive order inviting TC Energy to reapply for a presidential permit for Keystone XL to cross the Canadian border. He also promised a speedy process, just over a year after Obama had said the pipeline extension wasn’t in the national interest.

But Obama’s reasons for canceling Keystone XL — it wasn’t in America’s national interest, and it conflicted with US leadership on climate change — were still valid, and activists (and much of the public) were still paying attention.

“Before Obama’s decision, pipeline companies and the oil industry assumed every pipeline would get approved regardless of how poorly conceived the project was,” the NRDC’s Swift told me.

After Obama’s decision, it became more difficult to justify Keystone XL to the public.

“Public scrutiny around Keystone XL and the permitting process has shifted the expectation that pipelines would be rubber-stamped on its head. Now the public does want to see a robust analysis and a confirmation process that does make it difficult to move such pipelines forward,” Swift said.

Because oil spills from tar sands pipelines are commonplace, scientists and activists argued that a “robust analysis” to examine the risks to water resources and the communities that depend on them should be conducted before the Keystone XL project goes forward.

In 2016, the National Academy of Sciences released a study that said diluted bitumen (which composes the majority of tar sands oil) differed from the other types of oil traveling through US pipelines in a way that makes it more susceptible to hazardous leaks. In 2017, 210,000 gallons of oil leaked from the existing Keystone pipeline in South Dakota.

“Any fact-based environmental review reveals reasons policymakers should not grant permits to fossil fuel expansion projects like Keystone XL in a world that is trying to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change,” said Swift.

But the need for an environmental review didn’t stop the Trump administration from trying to rush through Keystone XL.

In January 2020, Trump’s White House made a last-ditch attempt at fast-tracking Keystone XL and similar projects across the country by limiting implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires the federal government to conduct assessments of the environmental, economic, and social impact of its actions before getting started on any project.

But in July 2020, the Supreme Court killed any hope of completing Keystone XL under the Trump administration, siding with environmental groups from Montana who argued that the Army Corps of Engineers’ permitting process for the Keystone XL pipeline should undergo a full environmental review because it would cross bodies of water.

Biden killed the pipeline for good — but demand for it had already weakened

Demand for oil, which had already been declining for some time, was hit hard in 2020 by falling investment, severe storms that hurt production, and the coronavirus pandemic. And in recent years, Alberta’s oil sands industry, once booming with money, has had trouble attracting investment.

“With falling oil prices, both because of the pandemic and generally down since 2014, the industry is under a real squeeze, and we’ve seen a lot of players exit the market,” Sven Biggs, Canadian oil and gas programs director at Stand.earth, an environmental grassroots organization, told me.

“ConocoPhillips, Shell, Statoil from Norway, [and] the Koch Brothers have sold their stakes in the tar sands and moved on, which means there’s less need for these pipelines than previously expected,” Biggs added.

TC Energy had a difficult time attracting private investors to Keystone XL — it was only capable of putting shovels to the ground in the project with the help of a subsidy from Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, who approved more than $1 billion in public funds in the spring of 2020 to help the project.

So when Biden pulled the plug for good on Keystone XL, climate concerns and falling investment in Alberta’s oil sand led experts to believe that Keystone XL was dead.

But for many Indigenous groups, climate activists, and people from communities impacted by fossil fuel infrastructure, this is bigger than Keystone XL.

“The Keystone XL pipeline was never about any single pipeline. It’s about establishing a litmus test rooted in climate science and climate justice for government projects and infrastructure,” Kendall Mackey, manager of 350.org’s Keep It in the Ground campaign, told me.

Moving forward, Biden and Trudeau have a chance to do just that.

How Biden and Trudeau can work together to improve efforts against climate change

If the legal battles fizzle out and Biden and Trudeau are serious about working together to raise US-Canada climate ambitions, activists say they can start by ensuring that existing pipeline infrastructure from Keystone XL is removed, providing greener investment options and returning land to Native communities, and ending fossil fuel expansion projects.

The first step in canceling Keystone XL for good is removing the existing Keystone pipeline infrastructure — which Biden and Trudeau could work together to make happen.

“Now [that Biden has canceled the pipeline], the work of those of us fighting Keystone is to get the equipment, permits, and easements removed, and have TC Energy pack up their stuff and leave the communities for whom the threat hasn’t left because there’s still equipment there,” Mackey of 350.org said.

Beyond environmental concerns, pipelines, which often see transient camps for workers adjacent to Native communities, have been linked to the epidemic of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

Biden and Trudeau (or the chosen ministerial) could also make sure that TC Energy, not taxpayers, foot the bill for removing the pipeline infrastructure.

“In a perfect world, companies would pay the cleanup costs, but far too often it’s communities and taxpayers who get stuck with the cleanup bill, straight from abandoned wells down to cleanup in refinery communities,” Stand.earth’s Biggs said.

Indigenous groups need better investment options than projects like Keystone XL, as well as a government that uses climate policy to make decisions.

“With the Canadian government reducing funding to Indigenous communities overall, they need money to run their communities and the option is investing in projects like the Keystone XL pipeline,” Keepers of the Water’s Cardinal said.

Several Native groups have invested in pipeline projects like Keystone XL, but according to Cardinal, the Canadian government could change that.

“We know there are better options. But it takes political leadership to support them. We have elected political leadership that is failing us right now. And Indigenous communities are being taken advantage of,” Cardinal said.

Many Indigenous groups on both sides of the US-Canadian border are also asking for the land back so they can return to traditional practices such as fishing, hunting and trapping, and making medicine.

“That’s part of the solution as well, [giving] land back to Indigenous people so they can steward the land the way it should be,” Cardinal added.

But all this won’t be enough if the US and Canada continue to allow fossil fuel expansion projects. There are several tar sands pipelines in the area, including the controversial Line 3, which would bring a million barrels per day from Alberta’s tar sands to Superior, Wisconsin. Activists want Line 3 to be subject to the same rules as Keystone XL, to bring Canada in line with its climate targets and to allow the US to retain leadership on climate change.

“There’s no question that Canada would and could be more ambitious with its climate goals if it could disjoint itself from its tar sands industry,” the NRDC’s Swift told me. “We still have Line 3, an area where Biden has a chance to make sure it is subject to the same environmental metrics as Keystone was.”

People hold signs calling for President Joe Biden to support a Green New Deal and end his support of pipelines and the fossil fuel industry on January 29, 2021, in St. Paul, Minnesota. Tim Evans/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Activists also argue that given the decline in investment in Alberta’s tar sands, the financial reasons for such pipeline projects will continue to weaken as time goes on. The coronavirus pandemic has only sped that up.

“We’re in that tough fight on Line 3, but I think the likely outcome [if they go ahead] is that there won’t be enough market and production in tar sands to fill those pipelines. It’s gonna become a stranded asset. If they’re built, then it’s only a matter of time,” Biggs said.

The future of Alberta is also at risk as long as its leaders tie it to a dying industry. The alternative is for the US and Canada to push each other to ensure a transition is possible.

“The employment opportunities associated with rebuilding our energy infrastructure and manufacturing [to meet] the demands of the clean energy economy hold much more promise than continuing our reliance on fossil fuels,” Swift said.

Millions turn to Vox to understand what’s happening in the news. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding. Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today from as little as $3.

So, let's define, what was the most valuable conclusion of this review: The former US president is on trial, accused of inciting a mob. Here's what you need to know. at What Are The Odds Of Congress Getting Things Done in Canada?

Contents of the article

• Trump impeachment: What to expect from...


• How does the trial work?


• What happens when?


• What is the prosecution's case?


• What is Trump's defence?


• Can he be tried now he has left?


• Will Trump give evidence?


• Who is involved in the trial?


• Could Trump be convicted in the Senate?


• Could Trump run for president again if...


• What about other benefits?


• What was his first impeachment for...


• Joe Biden May Have Only 2 Years to Get...


• Senate of Canada
  
  
  
  • Senators
  
  
  • Red Chamber
  
  
  • Creation
  
  
  • Regional Representation
  
  
  • Sober Second Thought
  
  
  • Senate Powers
  
  
  • Senate Reform
  
  
  • Reform Under Harper
  
  
  • Reform Under Trudeau
  
  
  • Further Changes
  
  
  
  


• How the 2 U.S. Senate races in Georgia...


• Social Sharing


• Georgians vote in 2 run-off elections...


• Passing bills
  
  
  
  • Democrats hope presidential win in...
  
  
  
  


• Major institutional reform


• Nominations to cabinet, the courts, and...


• Will the Senate legislate — or...


• Points-Based and Family Immigration:...


• I. Background


• II. Points System Under the Express...
  
  
  
  • A. Federal Skilled Worker Program
    
    
    
    • 1. Minimum Requirements
    
    
    • 2. Selection Criteria
    
    
    
    
  
  
  • B.В Comprehensive Ranking System
  
  
  • C. Round of Invitations
  
  
  
  


• III. Family Reunification


• APPENDIX: Skilled Migrant Category...
  
  
  
  • A. Core / Human Capital Factors
  
  
  
  


• All Information (Except Text) for...
  
  
  
  • Tracker:
  
  
  • More on This Bill
  
  
  • Subject — Policy Area:
  
  
  
  


• Titles (2)
  
  
  
  • Short Titles
    
    
    
    • Short Titles - House of Representatives
    
    
    • Short Title(s) as Introduced
    
    
    
    
  
  
  • Official Titles
    
    
    
    • Official Titles - House of...
    
    
    • Official Title as Introduced
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  


• Actions Overview (1)


• All Actions (6)


• More than 20 Republican-led states sue...


• Share this story
  
  
  
  • Share All sharing options for:...
  
  
  • Sign up for The Weeds...
  
  
  • The Keystone XL pipeline, briefly...
  
  
  • Keystone XL starts — and stops — under...
  
  
  • Biden killed the pipeline for good —...
  
  
  • How Biden and Trudeau can work together...