scribblet

The media seems to have collective amnesia on that one.

LOL of course.. and he really does eat kittens doncha know.

We don't know that they are fraudulent yet. Duffy is required to own property in the province he represents and he sure can't be in two places at once. So far Pamela Wallin is in the clear. I'll wait for the audit before passing judgement.

Don't forget Lib. Senator Mac Harb who is also currently under investigation but there seems to be a collective bout of amnesia from the media as I don't see anyone calling for the RCMP to investigate his problems stemming from 2005. Don't forget Lib. Senator Mac Harb who is also currently under investigation but there seems to be a collective bout of amnesia from the media as I don't see anyone calling for the RCMP to investigate his problems stemming from 2005. This guy has another take on Duffy http://www.canada.co...9808/story.html Spare a thought for Mike Duffy. The P.E.I. senator got dragged down this week by an undertow of controversy engulfing a second, far more problematic colleague. First, let’s agree, the Senate is a barnacle on the government’s backside, a $92.2-million-a-year relic of Confederation that deserves to die. Let’s also agree that Senator Patrick Brazeau further discredited the red chamber Thursday, getting arrested at his home in Gatineau, then booted by Stephen Harper from the Conservative caucus. Then Friday, Brazeau was charged with assault and sexual assault. Now, let’s turn to the Charlottetown-born Duffy, a successful former broadcast journalist appointed to the Upper House five years ago by Harper. The rotund parliamentarian is being splattered, unfairly, by all the tomatoes now being tossed at the Senate. Duffy is being pilloried for claiming, since 2010, housing costs of $33,000 for his residence in Ottawa. Duffy also owns a home in Cavendish, in accordance with Senate rules stating he must own at least $4,000 worth of property in the province he represents.

Only in your opinion. It's relevant because it speaks to the PM's attempts to follow through on an election promise. He can't abolish the Senate with out the consent of all 10 provinces, according to some constitutional experts anyway. It also makes sense to wait for the SC decision on what can actually be done. http://www.canada.co...de-02b3edc5ce2d Australia's Senate is elected.

I'm pretty sure Australia and New Zealand abolished theirs.

Shared by many and as we know the medical profession will not perform them unless medically necessary. They are rarely performed so any change in law would only be following medical practice.

Abolishing the Senate is pretty drastic though and keeping the status quo isn't the way to go IMO. So what to do?

Until the baby is viable outside the womb, then it is murder.

btw the Tories have wanted an elected Senate for a long time. New Senate appts. have to sign agreeing to terms and elections when legal. The current bill is the 5th attempt.

I used to be totally pro choice, same as you, but lately I've come to believe it's not the 'end of story' at all. IMO once the baby can survive outside the mother's womb, it's no longer an abortion. That's about what 24 weeks.

No I don't but don't say there's no such thing as a live birth after an abortion because there is, and not all cases are therapeutic. I'm pro choice but with limits, however, how far do you take it and when does 'choice' end or should it. Hypothetically a woman could choose to become pregnant in order to abort and provide tissue for a loved one's treatment. Do we draw the line at that?

So Stats Canada is wrong when it tells us that, about 50 fetuses are “born alive” during late-term abortions. The figure is contained in federal cause-of-death statistics, which attributed the number to any aborted fetus that is “born alive and subsequently dies.” http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/01/jonathan-kay-homicide-or-not-abortion-is-a-subject-that-too-few-canadian-politicians-are-willing-to-tackle/ Putting aside loaded terms such as “homicide,” the letter writers are correct when they say that some late-term abortions truly do involve live births. A Sept. 2012 Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) document titled Canadian Coding Standards, for instance, provides several such examples: “A patient presented at 20 weeks gestation, requesting a therapeutic abortion. She was started on misoprostol, intravenously. The fetus was successfully expelled. A heart beat and respirations were detected at birth.” “Medical abortion at 23 weeks gestation for fetal anencephaly. Labour induced with intravenous Syntocinon. Fetus was born alive and survived for one hour.” “A patient presented at 19 weeks gestation for a therapeutic abortion. She was started on misoprostol intravenously. The fetus was expelled. A heartbeat was detected. The fetus expired 7 minutes later.”

They won't get anywhere with it and the PM has allready made it clear the law will not change, he has always maintained that position. Saw this on the live birth issue which does give pause for thought IMO. live-born fetuses can pose a massive legal headache for hospitals, as a fetus is indeed considered a legal human being “when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother,” according to the criminal code http://news.national...d-physicians/4/ excerpted: The MPs are right about the fact that between 2000 and 2009, 491 aborted fetuses indeed exhibited “evidence of life” following their removal from the womb — be it a momentary heartbeat, a sudden gasp or, in rare cases, crying. But, while the statistic may speak to one of the most uncomfortable grey areas of Canadian law, doctors say that it is too much to assume that this represents the killing of otherwise healthy babies that the MPs allege. ------------- First unearthed by Ottawa blogger Patricia Maloney last October, the 491 figure is contained in federal cause-of-death statistics, which attributed the number to any aborted fetus that is “born alive and subsequently dies.” ------------------ These live births can technically occur at any gestational age, although it is unlikely that a fetus will exhibit vital signs any sooner than 17 weeks into a pregnancy.

Chow will run, she has to or lose some pension benefits under the new plan.

There should be a spring election. I'm predicting a conservative minority, better if Hudak improves.

I'm not sure about abolishing it. If that happened would our current system stay the same. Actually Mr. Harper has put Senate reform legislation through, don't know where it is now other than sitting in the HOC. It will eventually pass then go on to the Senate where they will have to vote on reforming their own institution. The Senate leader has expressed confidence it will pass.

After this I'm hoping there will be a spring election. Wynn has been part of the McGuinty admin so I don't see her cleaning up much. Hudak's ads have more truth in them than the years of McGuinty gov't, but I don't see the voters warming up that much to Hudak. The Ontario PCs have some problems. A major part of the party establishment either holds left wing views or think that it's necessary to cater to the left to win the election. As a result they fail to differentiate the party from the Liberals or to inspire support among their base.

There is a Senate Reform bill but could be referred to the SC because some provinces believe it's unconstitutional. It hasn't and isn't easy to get the provinces to agree with an elected Senate. Saskatchewan has a bill before parliament now, if passed Pamela Wallin will step down. There was a private member's bill in BC last year but don't know what happened to it.

I think the NDP want it gone also. I've always thought we should have an elected Senate but only so many Senators per province, I've seen some pretty inflammatory comments elsewhere about these appts. What is the PM supposed to do if he can't get the provinces to agree to elections,.. leave them all open for the next gov't to make their appointments.

He's won his appeal, he's back on the job. I hear the Toronto star is in mourning

Well, I don't care for beards but I don't have a phobia about them.

I totally agree with limiting text size and colour etc. in a signature, it's pain. Which is why I use the option to turn them off, I never read signatures.

Interesting page and not surprising that people are fighting back.

To me this is murder and part of that 'slippery slope'. I do agree that terminally ill people should have the option but this IMO is totally unethical and surely breaks the Hippocratic oath.