madmax Posted February 2, 2009 Report Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) If it wasn't for the Sexual Harrassment Charge, Brazeau would be happy to double dip the government with 2 six figure salaries. OTTAWA–A new Conservative senator facing allegations of sexual harassment stepped down from his job as national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples yesterday.Patrick Brazeau, 34, had said he wanted to stay on as head of the organization representing off-reserve natives, Seems he wants his drinking buddies in Ottawa. Brazeau hires past colleagues amid drinking-at-work allegations BILL CURRY From Monday's Globe and Mail February 2, 2009 at 4:31 AM EST OTTAWA — The two most senior officials at the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, both of whom were accused of drinking at work, have resigned from the organization and have now been hired as aides by Senator Patrick Brazeau Have they put the Congress in Jeapardy? As national chief of the Congress, Mr. Brazeau, his chief of staff, Lorraine Foreman, and his director of public affairs, Al Fleming, regularly returned to the office after lunch outings smelling of alcohol, several former congress staffers have told The Globe and Mail. Drinking would also take place in Mr. Brazeau's second-floor office, according to former staff, where there was Scotch on hand and a small fridge stocked with beer....Several former Congress employees, who do not want to be identified, have told the Globe that Ms. Harper's description is accurate Seems Brazeau is going to have some splaining to do... Congress member suspended before he could raise Brazeau allegationsBILL CURRY From Friday's Globe and Mail OTTAWA — The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples suspended its entire Manitoba wing only days before the provincial president planned to go public with allegations of sexual harassment against the national chief, the Conservative-appointed Senator Patrick Brazeau. So, either Mr. Brazeau didn't disclose all these potential landmines or Mr. Harper has seriously flawed judgement or bad political radar. This is Harpers Senate Choice??? Edited February 2, 2009 by madmax Quote
daniel Posted February 2, 2009 Report Posted February 2, 2009 And Harper has appointed a Separatist to the Senate. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 I don't think Harper had much time to scrutinize his appointments. He was acting quickly, just in case the Coalition did take over and give Elizabeth May a senate positition. However, I'm in support of an elected senate with proportional representation from all provinces. They should only be allowed to sit for a maximum of 12 years and a minimum of 8. I've never liked that they were appointed and we were stuck with them for life. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
85RZ500 Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) Hey, good one PT, LOL, we kind of agree on something. I think I'd cut the max back to say 8yrs and I detest the present lifetime entitlement. Edited February 3, 2009 by 85RZ500 Quote
Smallc Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 I like the Senate. It serves the exact purpose that it was supposed to. Now maybe we could cut it back to 8 year terms (with the option to renew at the end of the 8 years), but an elected senate would completely defeat the intended purpose of having a check for the elected house of commons. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 Hey, good one PT, LOL, we kind of agree on something.I think I'd cut the max back to say 8yrs and I detest the present lifetime entitlement. We probably agree on a lot of things. We just have to find them. 8 years is probably the best number, but certainly no more than 12. What motivation do they have to do a job if they know they'll have it for as long as they want? Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Smallc Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 What motivation do they have to do a job if they know they'll have it for as long as they want? Well, if they don't show up often enough, they can be voted out by their colleagues. Other than that though, you're right. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 I like the Senate. It serves the exact purpose that it was supposed to. Now maybe we could cut it back to 8 year terms (with the option to renew at the end of the 8 years), but an elected senate would completely defeat the intended purpose of having a check for the elected house of commons. We don't have an unbiased check now. They're all Conservatives and Liberals appointed by the elected House of Commons. If each province is allowed to vote for senators, based on their population, there is more of a chance that the NDP and Green Parties will have seats. Right now, with them never forming a government (or at least highly unlikely that they will), they have no checks in the senate. Not all Canadians are being represented, only those who vote either Liberal or Conservative. What we're saying is that only the Prime Minister at the time a seat becomes vacant, is able to decide on a senate post. We know it will be one of their bureaucrats. I think Canadians are smart enough to know who deserves the job. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Progressive Tory Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 Well, if they don't show up often enough, they can be voted out by their colleagues. Other than that though, you're right. Just showing up shouldn't be enough. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Smallc Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 We don't have an unbiased check now. I didn't say unbiased...there's no such thing. The Senate..despite its partisan appointments, acts in a far less political manner than the HoC. Electing the Senate would turn it very political, no matter how long the terms were made. It would completely defeat its purpose. Quote
Smallc Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 Just showing up shouldn't be enough. I never said it was. The Senate however, should not be making decisions based on majority rule. This would also defeat its purpose. Quote
OddSox Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 We don't have an unbiased check now. They're all Conservatives and Liberals appointed by the elected House of Commons.If each province is allowed to vote for senators, based on their population, there is more of a chance that the NDP and Green Parties will have seats. Right now, with them never forming a government (or at least highly unlikely that they will), they have no checks in the senate. Not all Canadians are being represented, only those who vote either Liberal or Conservative. What we're saying is that only the Prime Minister at the time a seat becomes vacant, is able to decide on a senate post. We know it will be one of their bureaucrats. I think Canadians are smart enough to know who deserves the job. Not exactly. Senator Lillian Dyck chooses to associate herself with the NDP. However the party does not allow her to be part of the parliamentary caucus, as the NDP favours the abolition of the Canadian Senate. She sits in the Senate as an Independent New Democrat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party Quote
Alta4ever Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 I don't think Harper had much time to scrutinize his appointments. He was acting quickly, just in case the Coalition did take over and give Elizabeth May a senate positition.However, I'm in support of an elected senate with proportional representation from all provinces. They should only be allowed to sit for a maximum of 12 years and a minimum of 8. I've never liked that they were appointed and we were stuck with them for life. Why proportional representation we all ready have that in the house (to a degree). If you wnt to make the whole country more democratic change it to a regional representation. It would be a step in removing a lot of the resentment that country towards central canada always running the show. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Alta4ever Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 If each province is allowed to vote for senators, based on their population, there is more of a chance that the NDP and Green Parties will have seats. Right now, with them never forming a government (or at least highly unlikely that they will), they have no checks in the senate. Not all Canadians are being represented, only those who vote either Liberal or Conservative. Currently the NDP doesn't allow its members to sit in the senate. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Jerry J. Fortin Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 The Provinces should be given the opportunity to appoint Senators to represent them. That can be done without a constitutional amendment, yet it would require the consent of the PMO. Further to this, there should be an equal number of Senators from each province. Term limits are something that would require an amendment, not somewhere most governments would care to go because of the can of worms effect. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 Currently the NDP doesn't allow its members to sit in the senate. There again is a reason why the system doesn't work. The Senate is supposed to be a watchdog for the House of Commons. Why does Jack Layton or any NDP have the right to say who sits there? They're supposed to be an independant body. As it stands now, their only job is to prop up their party. I would actually prefer that senators represent no party, but are all independants. I can hear the clicking of keys now from those who don't agree. However, we need less partisanship, not more. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Alta4ever Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 There again is a reason why the system doesn't work. The Senate is supposed to be a watchdog for the House of Commons. Why does Jack Layton or any NDP have the right to say who sits there? They're supposed to be an independant body. As it stands now, their only job is to prop up their party.I would actually prefer that senators represent no party, but are all independants. I can hear the clicking of keys now from those who don't agree. However, we need less partisanship, not more. They have the right to control their party and set its rules and constitution. Their is one NDP senator, but she is not allowed to sit as part of the NDP Caucus. As far as I have understood the senate votes aren't whipped anyway. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Progressive Tory Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) They have the right to control their party and set its rules and constitution. Their is one NDP senator, but she is not allowed to sit as part of the NDP Caucus.As far as I have understood the senate votes aren't whipped anyway. The Senate is the Upper Chamber, or as Sir John A. referred to them "The sober second thought'. The fact that Jack Layton or whomever took it upon themselves to dictate to the Upper Chamber, should not be allowed. They are OUR watchdogs. It should be up to us who we have looking out for us. I don't care how much money they donated to the PM's campaign. If the NDP can't support representation in the Upper Chamber, than obviously they shouldn't expect to sit in the Lower Chamber. Edited February 3, 2009 by Progressive Tory Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Alta4ever Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 The Senate is the Upper Chamber, or as Sir John A. referred to them "The sober second thought'. The fact that Jack Layton or whomever took it upon themselves to dictate to the Upper Chamber, should not be allowed. They are OUR watchdogs. It should be up to us who we have looking out for us. I don't care how much money they donated to the PM's campaign.If the NDP can't support representation in the Upper Chamber, than obviously they shouldn't expect to sit in the Lower Chamber. The NDP has never stopped it members from sitting, they just don't allow them to be part of their caucus, and I respect their parties stance as they want to abolish the senate anyway. If there members sit it adds credibilty to the senate something that they don't want to do. They are following their parties policies. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Alta4ever Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 By your logic the bloc shouldn't be allowed to sit in the lower chamber either. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Progressive Tory Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 By your logic the bloc shouldn't be allowed to sit in the lower chamber either. The Bloc's situation is different. You might say that they are shut out by the Upper Chamber by us, since they only represent Quebec, and Quebec is already represented under the terms of our constitution. This would give them an unfair advantage. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Alta4ever Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 The Bloc's situation is different. You might say that they are shut out by the Upper Chamber by us, since they only represent Quebec, and Quebec is already represented under the terms of our constitution. This would give them an unfair advantage. The NDP is a very regionized party as well they are Urban ridings ony, they only represent cities how is that different the bloc only representing Quebec. Infact the liberals are just about the same, exept for al of 6 or so ridings they only represent urban Canada as well. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Wilber Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 Why proportional representation we all ready have that in the house (to a degree). If you wnt to make the whole country more democratic change it to a regional representation. It would be a step in removing a lot of the resentment that country towards central canada always running the show. Actually, so called regional representation is what we have in the Senate today and is the source of a lot of the resentment. BC because it is lumped into a region called the West has almost 14% of the country's population but less than 6% of its Senators while Quebec and Ontario get regional status on their own and the eastern provinces have representation that is far out of proportion to their population. If we are going to have provincial representation that bears no relationship to population, then let's make all provinces equal rather than divvy up seats according to Central Canada's vision of what constitutes a region. I agree with Jerry, an elected Senate should give equal representation to all provinces to make it truly different from the Commons. Who needs a mirror image of the Commons in another house? Pointless. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Alta4ever Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 Actually, so called regional representation is what we have in the Senate today and is the source of a lot of the resentment. BC because it is lumped into a region called the West has almost 14% of the country's population but less than 6% of its Senators while Quebec and Ontario get regional status on their own and the eastern provinces have representation that is far out of proportion to their population. If we are going to have provincial representation that bears no relationship to population, then let's make all provinces equal rather than divvy up seats according to Central Canada's vision of what constitutes a region. I agree with Jerry, an elected Senate should give equal representation to all provinces to make it truly different from the Commons. Who needs a mirror image of the Commons in another house? Pointless. I am in complete agreement when I said regional I ment ever province and territory gets the same number of seats . Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Progressive Tory Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 The NDP is a very regionized party as well they are Urban ridings ony, they only represent cities how is that different the bloc only representing Quebec.Infact the liberals are just about the same, exept for al of 6 or so ridings they only represent urban Canada as well. If you scroll down you will find a list of the numbers of senators for each province based on population. It's not based on urban areas. "The Bloc Québécois (BQ) is a federal political party in Canada that defines itself as devoted to both the protection of Quebec's interests on a federal level as well as the promotion of its sovereignty.[1] As such, it campaigns only within the province during elections." The NDP are allowed to campaign in the entire country, including Quebec. The Bloc are not. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.