Tories take senate with 2 new appointments.

[Pliny]

Did they kill the legislation? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Is this a correct statement from you, nicky?

The Liberals never killed any piece of legislation while the CPC has been in government, at least in the last 40 years.

or is this incorrect?

The late 1980s and early 1990s was one of those periods. During this period the Senate opposed legislation on issues such as the 1988 free trade bill with the U.S. (forcing the Canadian federal election of 1988), and the Goods and Services Tax (GST).[11][12] In the 1990s, the Senate rejected four pieces of legislation: a bill passed by the Commons restricting abortion (C-43), a proposal to streamline federal agencies (C-93), a bill to redevelop the Lester B. Pearson airport (C-28), and a bill on profiting from authorship as it relates to crime (C-220).

Anyway, how long does someone have to lay there and be abused before they decide not to take it anymore?

You know that for two years Harper tried to get Senate reform with the co-operation of the Liberals and he was stymied on every attempt by them. He finally stops knocking his head against the wall and decides Liberals are not interested in being serious about any Senate reform they are only interested in being partisan.

Have a taste of your own medicine.

[Pliny]

Is it your reading ability or honesty that is tripping you up?

Or C both of the above.

[Pliny]

More hyperventilating from Nicky

That should be with a small "n", Morris. He is,after all, although he doesn't realize it, a socialist and socialists for some strange reason do not capitalize proper names.

[g_bambino]

Did they kill the legislation?

No. The Senate can't kill legislation. It can only either approve of it and pass it forward for Royal Assent or disapprove of it and send it back to the House of Commons.

[nicky10013]

That should be with a small "n", Morris. He is,after all, although he doesn't realize it, a socialist and socialists for some strange reason do not capitalize proper names.

So is that your definition of a socialist? Funny, after all this time, and after all the times I've asked, you've never actually answered the question of what is a socialist.

[Saipan]

what is a socialist.

One that likes Socialism.

[nicky10013]

Is this a correct statement from you, nicky?

or is this incorrect?

Anyway, how long does someone have to lay there and be abused before they decide not to take it anymore?

You know that for two years Harper tried to get Senate reform with the co-operation of the Liberals and he was stymied on every attempt by them. He finally stops knocking his head against the wall and decides Liberals are not interested in being serious about any Senate reform they are only interested in being partisan.

Have a taste of your own medicine.

Yep. These pieces of legislation were killed in the late 1990s. Liberal legislation killed by a Liberal senate.

1996 - Bill C-28, the Lester B. Pearson International Airport Bill, is defeated at third reading.

1998 - Bill C-220, the profit from authorship respecting a crime Bill, is defeated at report stage

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/senate/legisfocus/legislative-e.htm

Like I said, when was the last time the Liberals killed Conservative legislation? Furthermore, did it originate in the senate? I'm betting it did. What's so wrong with unelected senators killing their own unelected legislation?

For the record, Harper's "two years of trying to get senate refrom" was more like one bill and the goal of that was only to limit terms of senators to 8 years. Nothing more than a symbolic piece of legislation that no one believed would pass to mollify his own base. The second time he tried was after his own party who is against unelected members killing elected members legislation.

As for taste of my own medicine? What in god's name does that mean? What medicine?

[g_bambino]

Like I said, when was the last time the Liberals killed Conservative legislation?

Your question is inane. Firstly, it presumes that the Senate kills legislation. As I already pointed out, it cannot do that. Secondly, it blindly places blame for the bill's rejection at the feet of the Conservatives. Yet, at the time the Senate voted on the climate change bill, Conservative Party senators were in the minority, being 52 to the 49 Liberals, 2 Progressive Conservatives, and 2 independents (total: 53). Even then, the bill was defeated 43 to 32; not all Conservative senators voted against it and the Liberals certainly weren't there en-masse to ensure its passage. I know these facts throw a spanner into your automated Harper hatred mechanism, but there they are for you to consider, nonetheless.

[sp]

Edited December 22, 2010 by g_bambino

[M.Dancer]

Yep. These pieces of legislation were killed in the late 1990s.

iMPOSSIBLE! It's been at least 80 years....

[William Ashley]

Is this a correct statement from you, nicky?

or is this incorrect?

Anyway, how long does someone have to lay there and be abused before they decide not to take it anymore?

You know that for two years Harper tried to get Senate reform with the co-operation of the Liberals and he was stymied on every attempt by them. He finally stops knocking his head against the wall and decides Liberals are not interested in being serious about any Senate reform they are only interested in being partisan.

Have a taste of your own medicine.

The world is filled with more people than liberals and conservatives.. attacking the whole on the basis of a personal grudge against one party is uncalled for.

[Topaz]

Since Harper was to have term limits in the senate, should we also have term limits in the House of Commons to 8 years? PM and memebers get 8 years to do their worse to the country and we elect all new members. Thoughts?

[William Ashley]

Since Harper was to have term limits in the senate, should we also have term limits in the House of Commons to 8 years? PM and memebers get 8 years to do their worse to the country and we elect all new members. Thoughts?

why?

I'm starting to think Stephen Harper may have a whole different plan to acheive an elected senate.

shutting down parliament - plans to make Canada a US protectorate

harmonization of US and Canadian laws without US law being effected

The only issue I think some Canadians may have with his elected senate, is that Canadians won't be voting for the seats.

Edited December 23, 2010 by William Ashley

[Saipan]

Since Harper was to have term limits in the senate, should we also have term limits in the House of Commons to 8 years?

Yes, we should but Liberals and NDP won't go for it.

PM and memebers get 8 years to do their worse to the country and we elect all new members.

No, they ought to be recalled if they do worse.

[g_bambino]

Since Harper was to have term limits in the senate, should we also have term limits in the House of Commons to 8 years? PM and memebers get 8 years to do their worse to the country and we elect all new members. Thoughts?

No. The Commons and Senate are two entirely different beasts and should be treated as such, not made into twins. The former could never work, anyway - at least if we continued with Westminster parliamentary and resonsible government - if everyone were locked into it for eight years.

[Topaz]

Wednesday, Larry Smith, appeared on CBC to discuss his plans to the senate and the House of Commons. Smith complained that he is giving up "catastrophic" pay cut to get into politics. Guess what , Smith, the average low paying middle-class wage earner faces that every year and they don't half a multi-million dollar wage, that THEY turned down, to change jobs. So what did Harper promise him, to get him to give up a richie life? http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/12/22/larry-smith-senator.html

[M.Dancer]

So what did Harper promise him, to get him to give up a richie life? http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/12/22/larry-smith-senator.html

A chance to corner the tinfoil hat marketn and become a talking toaster overlord.

[William Ashley]

I wonder if this will upset Canadians and want to get rid of him - I know a two year old would want to...

then maybe when he runs.. he can not be reelected to parliament..

wow isn't that a novel concept to reinforce in the public mindset

(even though resigning the senate doesn't have an official mechanism I'm aware of and is a life appointment - even though that premise hasn't been challenged in court. There are only very specific means of losing your seat such as "illegal acts"

hmm I wonder if this is 'intentional' you know another blood apparent and so simple minded ploy it might actually work plan. Reaching out to the masses.

You know first pervert the constitution and law.. so people don't realize it...

the other part of course is that you need to present the fact that there are ways of removing senators that are unconstitutional.

Boo to deviousness, unconstitutionality, and unlawful governance by the Harper Government.

Although I think recognizing him running for member of commons is problematic while he is a senator.. and illegal and unconstituional means of loosing his seat arn't justified

him holding under the minimum amount of money would be justified but unless it is less than 4000$ and property it may not be justified

Edited December 23, 2010 by William Ashley

[Bonam]

That should be with a small "n", Morris. He is,after all, although he doesn't realize it, a socialist and socialists for some strange reason do not capitalize proper names.

A reason which should be fairly obvious, given the fundamental nature of socialism.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Bonam