g_bambino
-
Posts
8,249 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by g_bambino
-
-
I'm not saying the province should do anything, just that there's more to it than a crack pipe.
I find it rather amusing that Ford Nashun now wants to accept the Mayor's crack use specifically to foist it out there as a distraction from all the other bullshit Ford's guilty of; his supporters have (and I've seen this both here, on Facebook, and in other forums) now made it their defence strategy to attack "leftards" (i.e. anyone who says something critical about the Mayor) as a braying mob unjustly denying Ford due process before calling for his character execution. It's that and "oh, why don't you call for pothead Trudeau's resignation, hypocrite?" Denial is a strong force in Ford Nashun.
-
Steping in, because the Mayor of Toronto smokes crack while we continue to flush billions of dollars down the drain?
The issue with Ford isn't simply that he smoked crack. And the two are comparable how?
-
But I think you'd agree that it would be improper for the federal GG to take advice from the provincial PM.
I'm pretty certain it would be unconstitutional, unless, as I said, the premier had been made a member of the Privy Council. But, even then, constitutional convention limits the governor general to taking advice only from the ministers of the Crown in Cabinet. If that were to change--i.e. a new committee of provincial prime ministers within the Privy Council was to be tasked specifically on advising the governor general on Senate appointments--a constitutional amendment would have to be passed and that might need the approval of all eleven governments and legislatures; at least the 66/50 requirement.
-
He should resign, but then again, he never should have won in the first place.
Those two statements are incongruous.
-
Other first world cities hosted this thing for like $100 million...
[A] lot of good infrastructure will come from it that likely would never have come to be if not the motivation of some kind of international event.
Indeed, a whole new neighbourhood is emerging from mud in the Donlands. $100 million would barely cover just the roads being built.
(Why is this in the federal politics section?)
-
???? What makes you say that?
My question, exactly.
-
Dictatorships may be anti-democratic but they can also be a very efficient way to run a country...
Okay, but then he thows in the Harper-dictatorship bit. It's this sentence that makes the least sense: "I mean there is a flexibility [in the Chinese dictatorship] that I know Stephen Harper must dream about of having a dictatorship that he can do everything he wanted that I find quite interesting."
-
It actually reads like gibberish. What is his point?
-
But I'm not sure that the federal Crown could take advice from the government of a provincial Crown. It would almost be like the GG making appointments based on the advice of the Prime Minister of the UK.
Sort of, yes, and sort of no. The provincial and federal crowns are sovereign of one another, as are the Canadian and British crowns. But, the Canadian Crown is a compound one comprised of the one federal and ten provincial crowns in federation; it is simultaneously divided and unitary. The Queen's representatives in the provinces are, after all, appointed by the governor general on the advice of the federal prime minister.
-
Custom and precedent, sure. I guess I'm asking, in theory, is the GG allowed to appoint whomever he/she wants?
Well, it depends, I guess. If all is well, then, no, the governor general can't either appoint someone to the Senate without the prime minister's direction or appoint someone other than who the prime minister put forward. If he or she did so, the prime minister would have to take that as indication that the governor general no longer either required or trusted the prime minister's advice, requiring his resignation, thus leaving the country without a government. If the prime minister hadn't named any people to be appointed and Senate vacancies were multiplying, then... Maybe. The Constitution Act 1867 requires that the governor general appoint senators "from time to time". Obviously, "from time to time" is pretty vague; but, there also can't be a 3/4 empty Senate. So, it's hard to say when the governor general would be compelled to make appointments without ministerial advice, if the prime minister wan't offering such advice.
If the Prime Minister agrees with the Premiers or Lt. Govs (hereafter "the provinces") nominating Senators, then the PM would just advise the GG to appoint the nominees of the provinces. In this case it's pretty straightforward.
Where it gets complicated, I would think is if the Prime Minister disagrees with the provinces' nominees. Should the GG go against the Prime Minister, then it calls into question the Constitutional part of Constitutional monarchy. However, the provinces are just as democratic, except that they have no federal authority.
Certainly; provincial governments or legislatures could pick people the prime minister could then put forward to the governor general for appointment to the Senate. However, I don't think that could be legislated without, since it affects both the Royal Prerogative and the way in which senators are chosen, a constitutional amendment; it would only ever be an agreement, rather like the prime minister recommending people who'd been elected. But, given that it (or either) is just an agreement, the prime minister wouldn't be bound to follow it and could very well, as you say, reject a province's choice. I'd think that, in such a situation, the governor general would be bound to follow the federal prime minister's advice, since the Constitution Act 1867 does say specifically that it is the Queen's Privy Council for Canada--an entirely federal body that does not include provincial premiers or legislators, but of which the federal Cabinet is a committee--that is to "aid and advise" the governor general.
That said, it might be possible to make within the Privy Council another committee comprised of the provincial premiers and tasked specifically with advising the governor general on Senate appointments--this is essentially how the German Bundesrat is populated (though, the Bundesrat doesn't have exactly the same role as the Senate). Premiers would be responsible to their respective legislatures for the choices made. But, that too would require a constitutional amendment. And I shudder to think of what kind of people a PQ premier would put forward.
There is something tidy, at least, about filling an upper chamber of parliament by heredity....
-
I think the current protocol requires that the PM direct the GG as to his choice of an appointment to the senate. But that choice could certainly come to the PM by way of an election process. At this point I bet Harper wished he would have stuck to his guns and followed that election process so that the current scandal wouldn't be populated by his hand picked people.
Yes, an election can be held to choose an individual whom the prime minister can present to the governor general for appointment to the Senate. However, setting aside the fact that Harper's bill put before parlaiment left it to each provincial government to decide whether or not to hold and pay for senatorial candidate elections, Senate seats could not have been left vacant while the bill made its way through parliament and then provincial legislatures went through their own processes of establishing and running elections.
-
I just think there's a standard of proof one should attian when the story has the potential outcome to ruin someone's career and destroy their personal life...
Well, the standard for a century or more has been "a source at City Hall has said..." or "a source close to the Prime Minister has claimed". The way the video was reported was no different. Until this week, the Star never said "Rob Ford smokes crack", all that was said was that a video had been seen in which it appears that Rob Ford is smoking crack and making politically incorrect statements.
-
As for buying the videos: don't papers often pay for video or audio of news stories?
Not in Canada. Not until recently, anyway.
-
Is there a law that states it must be the Prime Minister that advises the GG on who to appoint to the Senate?
Not a written law.
-
Well, technically this video isn't the one that was talked about months ago.
Blair clearly said the police were in possession of a video that fits the description of that which was reported earlier in the media.
-
Double standard??
Yes: it's okay for other journalists to report on what they've heard from a source without identifying the source or verifying the source's words with some kind of proof, but it's not okay for journalists to report on having viewed a video wihout presenting the video itself.
-
Not exactly, at least I don't think so.
I'm not so sure about that. It is convention that the governor general follows the prime minister's advice. However, I suspect that to change a convention like that, an Act of Parliament is required. I'm thinking of the process by which the line of succession to the throne is being changed: it's merely convention that the eldest son of the late monarch inherits the throne, but legislation is needed (and has been drafted and passed in various parliaments) to alter that so that its the eldest child who's the inheritor.
-
You are apologizing for leaders who keep changing their damn song and dance.
You must have me mistaken for somebody else.
-
However, I still contend that it was poor journalism to come out with such a damaging story against him without any evidence.
Why the double standard?
-
So changing his words only after being called out on it is a quality of a leader you admire?
That's entirely irrelevant to the subject of the conversation.
-
i like the idea of the Premiers or Lt Govs giving names to the GGs for appointment to the Senate, instead of the PM. I believe this would keep the intent of the Senate intact and ensure that no one party has total control of it, unless they control all of the provinces too.
Yes, that's come up before. But, I'm still not convinced there wouldn't be cross-jurisdictional issues. The governor general takes advice from the prime minister because the latter is responsible to the elected House of Commons. If a premier is advising the governor general on Senate appointments, to what body is he or she responsible for such direction on a federal matter?
Another idea I read recently proposed a body similar to the Advisory Committee on Viceregal Appointments.
[ed.: c/e]
-
The Blame-the-media game seems a little off-kilter at this point. Rob Ford is responsible for this mess.
Mm. I was about to say as much. It has always been a sad, but now also tired, defence tactic used by Ford Nashun.
I'm still baffled by what one has to tell one's self to still be convinced that this video doesn't exist.
-
Harper is no leader on this incident.
He is the leader of the Cabinet; i.e. head of government.
He has already changed his statements a couple times.
I am aware of that and have already pointed it out (in which thread, though, I can't now remember). However, he's done so in the process of being held to account; in this case, the Opposition is doing its proper job. Of course, voters will have the ultimate say.
-
But this is another case of semantics.
It is a matter of defining roles so that responsibilities and accountability can be accurately discussed.
Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES
in Local Politics in Canada
Posted
I said it was about more than Ford smoking crack. So, yes, another problem is he lied about smoking it. It's still about more than Ford smoking crack and lying about it. I believe others have already listed numerous times the litany of offenses (to the Office of Mayor, at least) Ford is demonstrably guilty of. Whatever the provincial goverment has done wrong, it has nothing to do with Ford and the legislature's power to make laws governing municipalities does not depend on moral fortitude.