scribblet

This too will pass, and why it is a bit strange, it makes political sense. Harper is right to use the current system, such as it is, to ensure he can get legislation through. Now that he has a majority in both houses, I expect to see true senate reform within two years. It won't be Triple-E but I would imagine "elected, with term limits" is likely. Although, once elected, I'm not sure that term limits should apply. Just my opinion mind. Get over it Harper's no the only one to elect defeated candidates

Here's two, that were appointed after losing an election (not re-appointed) Hervieux-Payette was defeated twice in 1988 and 1993. from her own website Mobina Jaffer sought election to the House of Commons at federal general elections for the constituencies of North Vancouver (in 1993) and Burnaby-Douglas (1997).

But the Liberals have always done it, they appointed a number of failed candidates, some who failed more than once. Two wrongs don't make a right, but was there the same feeding frenzy then? I can understand his reasons for doing it as he needed an absolute majority to get the chairs of committees as it's my understanding that once made, they can't be changed until the next election. There was a method to this and a political need (from a conservative point of view). Without the absolute majority the Liberals would still be able to chair committees and stall legislation - I believe. What's wrong with electing senators (if we don't abolish the senate that is). If they are elected every 4 years then I'm not sure they need to have term limits, if they cannot be elected then at least limit their terms.

Geez, it's amazing how freedom of speech has eroded, twits should be careful about their tweets from now on - Orwell would be proud.

I know the Senate needs reform and that all the conservative appointees have promised to adhere to the term limits and reforms... however, where you all as upset when the Liberals appointed failed candidates ? I also agree the optics aren't good, but my understanding is that he had to do this in order to get an absolute majority before June 2nd. This in order get control of chairs and committees... a good political move on his part IMO.

So, if the court rules that the gov't does have to pay back this money, it would increase the deficit, which means the gov't would have to make some cut backs elsewhere to do that. Not a good situation for any gov't.

It was David Orchard I believe, who was no conservative, he just wanted to get rid of free trade among other issues. I'm not sure but I think he crossed the floor from the Liberals to the Conservatives.

I didn't realize the selected candidate was a guy - so guess that wasn't it. 'Tis a puzzlement, I would write to the top brass to ask for an explanation, but I doubt it will get you anywhere.

Maybe because you are a guy, they have been told to recruit more women haven't they ?

I voted against it in Ontario, would do so again. I might go along with a mixture of both, were part are elected under the FPTP and part under the other system. Just to note that the U.K. just voted a major NO to their referenda on an AV system.

They were wrong in taking that money, it was illegal to do at the time (they legalized it later so yes, they should return the money. However, how big of an issue is it as long as the workers get the pensions they are entitled to?

I agree with Lilley on this one, they need to amend that part of the bill. I don't watch SunTV all day naturally, but bits I've seen of it are not all pro-conservative, in fact, they seem to be going out of their way to be unbiased.

Now that's telling it like it is :D couldn't have said it better.

81.09% DID NOT vote for the Liberals 69.34% DID NOT vote for the NDP 94.96% DID NOT vote for the Bloc 97.09% DID NOT vote for the Greens. Looks like the Conservatives DO win! Of our 41 federal elections, only 6 (SIX) have provided a government with an outright majority. And in the past 50 years, only ONE - Brian Mulroney's Tories in 1984 with 50.03%.

He didn't keep them he made photocopies of that particular incident.

And this is a 'kinder gentler' Canadian - wow is right, if this represents a liberal no wonder they are in the trash can.

and Bob Rae in Ontario when his party got less than 40% of the popular vote.

Maybe about the same time as the all the nut jobs in the NDP start to speak out LOL

31

That is my concern, what or how much they would actually try to nationalize etc. Granted they would need a good majority to do so, but one would think that if they no longer subscribe to the previous manifestos, that they would want it to be out there, they wouldn't even answer the CBC reporter's questions. It's in their best interests to do so IMO A quick google search brings up the LPC and CPC constitutions right away.

That's your opinion, to me it's the other way around LOL

Okay - so no link or constitution - is it a secret or what ?

Where did I say 'never trust a socialist' I called the source from a link saying they are the NDP socialist caucus. Their website and information is out there, if the NDP itself does not agree, then should repudiate them, so far I've seen nothing, and neither would the NDP answer the CBC reporter. Nothing I've said is a lie, stop with your personal attacks and stick the subject without calling names. Post the constitution or provide a link please, transparent or opaque !

Canada's prisons have been underfunded with serious problems for years, much of this money will go towards correcting that. Here, federal prisons ombudsman Howard Sapers responds to news of a proposed funding boost for Canada’s prisons. Macleans.ca: Is an increase in funding expected, or did this come as a surprise? Sapers: I certainly wasn’t surprised. Even if there was no public policy change, there are very real, very immediate infrastructure pressures [on Canada’s prison system]. The Correctional Service already double-bunks about 10 per cent of its population: we’re talking about cells built for one person that are currently housing two, even though the Service’s current policy is single cell accommodation, which is in keeping with international standards. The service doesn’t have the capacity it needs at certain security classifications to meet the current population, let alone any population increase. And it’s no surprise that if you make policy changes that will result in more people spending more time in prison, you’re going to need to deal with capacity issues. That means new money.

Yea, like the lies about the aforementioned "bible-thumping, neo-con, anti-abortionist, anti-human rights, right-wing conservatives" get a grip...