The bravest person in Canada

[g_bambino]

And who was standing out front with a big smile on her face ,the (ex) page. She knew what she was doing and I will bet there are others inside that helped her.

What? Are you insinuating that DePape's presence at an anti-Conservative protest was actually the result of a conspiratorial orchestration by the Conservatives?

[mentalfloss]

The Star sure does seem fair and balanced.

They lean a little to the left, so they're pretty rational about most things.

Edited June 11, 2011 by mentalfloss

[Shady]

What's the percentage of deaths to the percentage of soldiers who have served there?

I understand such a remark gets people a little hot--I can sympathize, actually. But no, the fact is that the job is not incredibly dangerous, as warfighting has become (correctly, in my view) increasingly less dangerous over the decades.

This has to be the most retarded comment I've ever read in this forum!

Regardless of the percentages, odds of injury or death, and the possible instances of danger. You cannot possibly compare it to the job of a senate page. Which is what the assinine original post was all about.

Congratulations my friend. You win the retarded post of the year, and it's only June!

[bloodyminded]

Would you still feel the same way if she held up a sign that said "Stop Layton" or "Stop Socialism"?

I heard on the radio yesterday that she apparently has a website up where she is asking for donations via Paypal,credit cards etc

I'm not sure how much money she will actually get since left wingers are notoriously cheap when it comes to parting with their own money.

How much will you send her?

It's not that lefties are "notoriously cheap"; it's that, unlike our right-wing brethren and sistern, we don't reflexively offer financial support, like suckers, everytime one of our own makes some simplistic gesture against erstwhile political opponents.

That's why right wing causes manage to procure financial support. So many dummies, so many cheques to cash.

[bloodyminded]

This has to be the most retarded comment I've ever read in this forum!

Regardless of the percentages, odds of injury or death, and the possible instances of danger. You cannot possibly compare it to the job of a senate page. Which is what the assinine original post was all about.

Congratulations my friend. You win the retarded post of the year, and it's only June!

Or...just a thought...you might have read a couple of quick posts further, and discovered that I conceded to bush_cheney's very pertinent remarks (quite a bit more intelligent than your own, just incidentally), and remarked that I had temporarily lost sight of certain important factors.

What's the technical term for folks like Shady and AW who go after someone in such a manner after the person has conceded his error?

"Douchebag," perhaps?

Try to catch up before you respond, son.

[cybercoma]

That's why right wing causes manage to procure financial support. So many dummies, so many cheques to cash.

Do you know who else is good at raising money from their base? Televangelists. Take that however you want.

[Wild Bill]

It's not that lefties are "notoriously cheap"; it's that, unlike our right-wing brethren and sistern, we don't reflexively offer financial support, like suckers, everytime one of our own makes some simplistic gesture against erstwhile political opponents.

That's why right wing causes manage to procure financial support. So many dummies, so many cheques to cash.

Oh BM, what a rationalization for expecting something for free!

I' so impressed, I'm going to print out your words in larger print and frame them!

[CPCFTW]

Do you know who else is good at raising money from their base? Televangelists. Take that however you want.

You know who else is? Unions. Gross.

[Guest American Woman]

I, personally, believe that the system just needs to be a bit more fairly representative. Whether that's PR, some other system or some hybrid, I don't know. I don't have an answer about what would be more fair, but I think it's obvious this system could use some improvement.

Thank you for all of the information you provided, though I'm only quoting the last part of your post here. It is indeed a different system in Canada from ours. I was privileged to have had a private tour of your Parliament about three or four years ago as I had met someone who worked for a Senator and he was kind enough to offer a tour. He explained a lot of the differences to me, the Senators appointed for life and based on the population of the provinces, etc, but of course it was a lot for me to take in at the time and too much for me to remember. To be honest, I didn't realize how different your system is from ours.

At any rate, I can understand how you feel - it does make sense that the system should be more representative of the votes for all the parties. It seems to me the PM has an awful lot of power and basically controls every aspect of all the branches - which would result in a majority government since most of the appointments involve people from his party. Yet I know you don't always have a majority government, so there are apparently things about your system that I still don't understand. Seems as if our system is easier to understand, but then I grew up learning about it so I suppose it's only natural that I would feel that way.

Edited June 11, 2011 by American Woman

[Sandy MacNab]

You know who else is? Unions. Gross.

You give or get your tires slashed.

[bloodyminded]

Oh BM, what a rationalization for expecting something for free!

I' so impressed, I'm going to print out your words in larger print and frame them!

I don't think you got the same message from my post that was intended.

[cybercoma]

At any rate, I can understand how you feel - it does make sense that the system should be more representative of the votes for all the parties. It seems to me the PM has an awful lot of power and basically controls every aspect of all the branches - which would result in a majority government since most of the appointments involve people from his party. Yet I know you don't always have a majority government, so there are apparently things about your system that I still don't understand. Seems as if our system is easier to understand, but then I grew up learning about it so I suppose it's only natural that I would feel that way.

One thing I've always had a hard time understanding about the American system is the electoral college.

The Prime Minister indeed has a ton of power. The PM has the power to appoint a ton of different people: governor general, cabinet, senators, supreme court justices, and the heads of crown corporations. However, this in and of itself has nothing to do with majority governments.

The senate is a separate body from the house of commons. In our elections, the country is split into 308 constituencies. We go to the polls and place our votes for the various candidates that are trying to win that constituency and take its seat in the House of Commons. When the votes are tallied, the person with the most votes, regardless of whether it's a majority of the votes or not, gets that seat. After winning the election this person becomes MP and represents all the constituents in their riding. A majority government is formed when a single party gets 155 seats (50% +1) or more in the House of Commons. The senate has nothing to do with it at all.

In the House of Commons, legislation is debated and goes through its readings and is subsequently passed or defeated by those 308 MPs voting on it. If it passes, then that piece of legislation goes up to the Senate. Those appointed Senators carry out similar functions, but there's far fewer of them and their make-up gives equal representation to the various regions of Canada. In theory, the House of Commons is representation by population, while the Senate is constructed of regional representation. We don't, however, actually vote for our Senators. They are appointed. In this way, the Senate seats are criticized as being given out as patronage. The Senate rarely if ever defeats a bill that is passed by the House of Commons. The political make-up of the Senate is slow to change, since they are only replaced when they reach 75 years of age. Moreover, this does not have any bearing on which party forms the government, as the Senate is completely separate. When the House of Commons goes to an election, the Senate still sits, so we always have a functioning government. So, as far as a party getting a majority or minority government, the Senate does not affect this at all. Only the representatives in the House of Commons, who are elected by the Canadian voters determine the government.

Nevertheless, you're right about the power held by the Prime Minister. In a majority situation, the PM pretty much has the entire say because someone called the Party Whip will usually ensure that all of their MPs show up to vote and vote along party lines, even if this means going against the wishes of the majority of their constituents (remember that they don't need a majority of the votes to win, but they're supposed to represent their ridings... it's a catch-22). Anyway, the point is that what the party leaders say, goes. In other words, in a majority situation, whatever the Prime Minister wants, the Prime Minister gets. The only things stopping him from passing whatever legislation he wants is the Constitution (which has a notwithstanding clause anyway) and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in other words the Supreme Court and the fact that he will have to face the electorate in an election.

[g_bambino]

When the House of Commons goes to an election, the Senate still sits, so we always have a functioning government.

According to the constitution, the government is actually the Queen acting on the advice of the Privy Council; we always have a functioning government because the Crown is infinitely continuous (succession happens automatically) and it is the duty of the sovereign (or the governor general) to ensure there is a prime minister to give direction on how the executive power should be exercised. Whomever is appointed prime minister must be able to hold the confidence of the House of Commons, the chamber populated by the representatives of the majority of Canadian voters; responsible government.

In other words, in a majority situation, whatever the Prime Minister wants, the Prime Minister gets. The only things stopping him from passing whatever legislation he wants is the Constitution (which has a notwithstanding clause anyway) and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in other words the Supreme Court and the fact that he will have to face the electorate in an election.

Well, there is the governor general, as well. If the hypothetical bill was blatantly unconstitutional, the governor general could refuse Royal Assent or delay by sending the bill to the Queen. This has never happened in the federal parliament, but lieutenant governors have denied assent to bills that, for instance, tried to nationalise banks within the province or curtailed the freedom of the press by forcing them to publish government propaganda.

[jbg]

Well, there is the governor general, as well. If the hypothetical bill was blatantly unconstitutional, the governor general could refuse Royal Assent or delay by sending the bill to the Queen. This has never happened in the federal parliament, but lieutenant governors have denied assent to bills that, for instance, tried to nationalise banks within the province or curtailed the freedom of the press by forcing them to publish government propaganda.

Very interesting. Examples?

[g_bambino]

Very interesting. Examples?

Well, there's the one I alluded to: The Lieutenant Governor of Alberta in 1937, John Bowen, refused Royal Assent to three bills put to the legislature by William Aberhart's Social Credit government, doing so on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. One forced the media to print Aberhart's rebuttals to stories he objected to and the other two put the province's banks under the control of the provincial government. They were sent to Ottawa for review by the Governor General (in other words, the federal Cabinet) and the Supreme Court ruled that Bowen was right, the bills were illegal.^[1] The only other example I know of was in 1961, when Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan Frank Bastedo didn't assent to the Mineral Contracts Alteration Act, also passing it to the Governor General for consideration. That time, the bill was assented to by the Governor General-in-Council.^[2]

[link]

Edited June 14, 2011 by g_bambino

[jbg]

One thing I've always had a hard time understanding about the American system is the electoral college.

The Senate has nothing to do with the Electoral College other than the way that the number of members per state are counted (except for I believe Nebraska and Maine). The number of Electors sent to the college per state is equal to the number of Senators per state (always two) and the number of Representatives per state (varies from one to "sky's the limit" according to population). In California's case that's 55 Electors as of the 2000 census; Alaska, Wyoming, a few other states and Washington DC get the minimum of three. The Electors are committed to a party and are selected (except for I believe Nebraska and Maine) by a method identical to Canada's "first past the post" system for MP's in the HOC.

The Electors, by tradition and not by law, have no discretion in how they vote. It wasn't designed that way. Originally, the Electoral College was supposed to be a "counsel of elders" who would select the President by consensus. That lasted through about two and one-half elections; it partially broke down in time for the 1796 elections, and collapsed in spectacular fashion for the 1800 election, which wound up being decided by the House of Representatives. That caused the amendment of the Constitution to fix the problem. The "Era of Good Feelings" election of 1820 was almost unanimous.

The fix, howeer, wasn't perfect; the 1826 election was wrecked by a "corrupt bargain" between Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams (similar to the scheme that Dion, Duceppes and Layton cooked up in December 2008). The elections of 1876, 1912, 1960 and of course 2000 had questionable aspects. The problem with changing the system is that the cure may well be worse than the disease.

Since then the Electors have almost as much discretion as computer chips.