Just how exalted are senators?

[Argus]

The thought popped into my head, upon hearing that Harry Reid, the senate majority leader, had been involved in a small traffic incident. According to the report, he wasn't driving. That was his security detail. The accident involved four cars in the senator's motorcade while he was on his way to a dedication ceremony at some museum.

Needless to say, the only politician in Canada who would have a motorcade is the PM. No cabinet minister, as far as I'm aware, has a security detail.

[cybercoma]

Not even the Prime Minister should have a motorcade travelling around Ottawa. The PM is not like the POTUS. The Prime Minister's death would not accomplish anything in our system. The party would choose a new leader, who would assume the role of Prime Minister. Our head of state is the Queen or her viceroy. Senators especially should not have motorcades. It's sheer absurdity. Especially when he was travelling around Ottawa.

Edited October 28, 2012 by cybercoma

[punked]

The thought popped into my head, upon hearing that Harry Reid, the senate majority leader, had been involved in a small traffic incident. According to the report, he wasn't driving. That was his security detail. The accident involved four cars in the senator's motorcade while he was on his way to a dedication ceremony at some museum.

Needless to say, the only politician in Canada who would have a motorcade is the PM. No cabinet minister, as far as I'm aware, has a security detail.

He is the Senate Majority leader not just a Senator.

[Smallc]

Not even the Prime Minister should have a motorcade travelling around Ottawa.

While I understand where you're coming from, in practical terms, the death of the head of government of a country generally isn't a good thing, and Stephen Harper is definitely a target to some.

[cybercoma]

It's not that he shouldn't have any security, but a 6 car motorcade (that's what Harper has) is a bit overboard.

[Guest American Woman]

He is the Senate Majority leader not just a Senator.

Exactly. The speaker of the House is also provided with round-the-clock protection.

[Topaz]

Does anyone know the cost of that security? Last time I heard its was up to 50 million for the PM. A relative of mine that is in security said that the security people make $800. daily guarding the PM.

[Argus]

Exactly. The speaker of the House is also provided with round-the-clock protection.

Why? The speaker of the House in Canada gets no protection, and certainly no motorcade. Though I'd say the party house leaders would be a more comparable role here. But House Leaders get nothing either.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Argus

[Guest Derek L]

The thought popped into my head, upon hearing that Harry Reid, the senate majority leader, had been involved in a small traffic incident. According to the report, he wasn't driving. That was his security detail. The accident involved four cars in the senator's motorcade while he was on his way to a dedication ceremony at some museum.

Needless to say, the only politician in Canada who would have a motorcade is the PM. No cabinet minister, as far as I'm aware, has a security detail.

But the state will fund the individual protection of such lowly professions as Provincial Judges and Crown Prosecutors……….Why not Politicians if there’s a merited threat on their lives?

I’m certain a great many Americans don’t care for Senator Reid….

[cybercoma]

I can't imagine why judges and prosecutors would need security.~

[Guest Derek L]

It's not that he shouldn't have any security, but a 6 car motorcade (that's what Harper has) is a bit overboard.

So in your view, what number of cars should be in his motorcade?

When Foreign dignitaries travel to Vancouver they’re afford the escort of a police motorcade from the airport to the city.........The Vancouver Police will use 6-8 motorbikes and a couple of marked, and I’d assume unmarked cars.

[Guest Derek L]

I can't imagine why judges and prosecutors would need security.~

The same reason the head of our Government might?

[cybercoma]

Not even remotely close to the same reason.

[Guest Derek L]

Not even remotely close to the same reason.

Really? Care to expand on that?

[cybercoma]

Well, one group deals with convicting dangerous criminals in court, while the other deals with arguing about rules on paper in Parliament. I'm sorry, but the difference is obvious. Feel free to choose to ignore it though.

Edited October 29, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Derek L]

Well, one group deals with convicting dangerous criminals in court, while the other deals with arguing about rules on paper in Parliament. I'm sorry, but the difference is obvious. Feel free to choose to ignore it though.

But wait, couldn't there also be threats on both groups persons? A dead Judge is just as dead as a dead Prime Minister no?

[cybercoma]

Is just as dead as a high school student. Maybe the government should pay for security details for high school students.

[cybercoma]

And here's the part where you say it has a bigger impact if the PM is killed and he's at a greater risk, and I say, "Oh! So it's about risk. Then don't you think the people that tell dangerous offenders to their face several times a day that they will be locked away are at a greater risk than the guy pushing paper in Parliament?"

[Guest Derek L]

Is just as dead as a high school student. Maybe the government should pay for security details for high school students.

So you’re now comparing the threats to the Prime Minister or a Judge residing over an OC case, to that of a high school student…………That’s rather weak……….

Edited October 29, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

And here's the part where you say it has a bigger impact if the PM is killed and he's at a greater risk, and I say, "Oh! So it's about risk. Then don't you think the people that tell dangerous offenders to their face several times a day that they will be locked away are at a greater risk than the guy pushing paper in Parliament?"

You talking to yourself now?

[cybercoma]

Apparently I had to, since you missed the rhetorical point I was making.

[Guest Derek L]

Apparently I had to, since you missed the rhetorical point I was making.

I suppose so.......I'll leave you to yourself. Enjoy!