Brazeau... Ex-Senator?

[PIK]

How many scandals will it take before some of this finally starts to rub off on Harper?

Let have some scandals 1st instead of the made up ones. I see the boy wonder had to take a shot at him when he is down. Silver spoon trudeau should not be taking shots at anyone that did not have a royal upbringing. What a jerk. Edited February 13, 2013 by PIK

[jacee]

How many scandals will it take before some of this finally starts to rub off on Harper?

It's being speculated that Harper set up the scandals with ill advised appointments to convince Canadians to get rid of the Senate and concentrate even more power in his office.

[scribblet]

LOL of course.. and he really does eat kittens doncha know.

[cybercoma]

It's being speculated that Harper set up the scandals with ill advised appointments to convince Canadians to get rid of the Senate and concentrate even more power in his office.

It's the NDP's platform to abolish the Senate. The Reform Party was about Senate Reform, not abolishment.

Keep in mind that the provinces got rid of their upper chambers a long time ago and that hasn't concentrated power in the premiers' offices.

[g_bambino]

Keep in mind that the provinces got rid of their upper chambers a long time ago and that hasn't concentrated power in the premiers' offices.

Well, it removed an obstacle premiers faced from time to time in getting legislation passed.

Small and unitary countries like New Zealand seem to function okay with a unicameral parliament. Provinces are unitary entities. However, all federations have a bicameral legislature to temper the tyranny of the majority.

[cybercoma]

I suppose I would argue that we have a constitution, charter of rights and freedoms, and a judiciary to safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. Senatorial oversight in this context is an undemocratic redundancy.

Granted, the Lt. Govs seem to be more active in shooting down bills in the provinces than the Gov Gen is at the federal level. So it may be the case that the Gov Gen would need to be more proactive if there was no upper chamber.

Nevertheless, the Senate does seems to be redundant, imo.

[g_bambino]

I suppose I would argue that we have a constitution, charter of rights and freedoms, and a judiciary to safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. Senatorial oversight in this context is an undemocratic redundancy.

Amendment to the constitution constitutionally requires the approval of the Senate. Remove the Senate and changes to parliament, the Supreme Court, the Charter, or any other constitutional amendment becomes easier. Regardless, there are no constitutional provisions stopping bills that unduely favour the most populous part of the country at the expense of another or other parts with smaller populations from becoming law.

Call the Senate "undemocratic", if you wish (though, I'm sure you know already that democracy means more than elections), but it is hardly redundant. If such a chamber were needless, why does every federation (and even some countries that aren't) have one?

Granted, the Lt. Govs seem to be more active in shooting down bills in the provinces than the Gov Gen is at the federal level. So it may be the case that the Gov Gen would need to be more proactive if there was no upper chamber.

When lieutenant governors have witheld Royal Assent, the bills were mostly reserved for the governor general, as the Constitution Act 1867 states lieutenant governors may do. But, it was, overall, still a rare occurrence. The Crown should not get involved in politics unless absolutely necessary, a core element of responsible government that would be dispensed with should the governor general take the place and role of the entire Senate in representing each of the country's regions in debate over legislation.

[cybercoma]

Are there many (any?) examples of the Senate acting as a regional balance to rep. by pop. in the House? In any case, would not the same thing apply to provinces? The majority of Ontario lives in Toronto. Despite some of their complaints, the North has not been destroyed by not having an upper chamber in Ontario.

Edited February 14, 2013 by cybercoma

[Peanutbutter]

I suppose I would argue that we have a constitution, charter of rights and freedoms, and a judiciary to safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. Senatorial oversight in this context is an undemocratic redundancy.

Granted, the Lt. Govs seem to be more active in shooting down bills in the provinces than the Gov Gen is at the federal level. So it may be the case that the Gov Gen would need to be more proactive if there was no upper chamber.

Nevertheless, the Senate does seems to be redundant, imo.

Yes so instead we have the Tyranny of the minority. The majority is shamed into silence by the vocal minority.

The Senate is really intended to put the next government in check not the sitting government. The Senate is intended to be made up of party members from the former government so it's always opposite of the sitting government. That's in a perfect world anyhow.

[g_bambino]

Are there many (any?) examples of the Senate acting as a regional balance to rep. by pop. in the House? In any case, would not the same thing apply to provinces? The majority of Ontario lives in Toronto. Despite some of their complaints, the North has not been destroyed by not having an upper chamber in Ontario.

The Senate has blocked bills passed by the House of Commons; the one implementing the GST being one of the more famous cases.

The seats in the Senate are divided by region, 24 for each, plus late-comer Newfoundland and Labrador (with 6), and the territories (one each), regardless of population. I don't know what you mean by "the North"; but, Ontario isn't a federation.

[ed.: +]

Edited February 14, 2013 by g_bambino

[WWWTT]

If bambino says it.....generally spot on. He knows his parliamentary shtuff.

LOL!

You got to be freekin kiddin me???

Details are somewhat hard to find on this one and the senate likes it that way.

He is right by the senates desire to make details hard to find and that's it!

WWWTT

[Peanutbutter]

If he is convicted we can be r id of him. It's a shame that this has happened but I don't see how this can be blamed on PM Harper. The PM is not responsible for the actions of private citizens.

[guyser]

LOL!

You got to be freekin kiddin me???

nope!

You'll learn.

[WWWTT]

nope!

You'll learn.

Always am!And always want to!

Unfortunetly,the senate and the Canadian government are good at controlling info and do not want their enemies to be aware of how they can be de-throned!

WWWTT

[guyser]

Always am!And always want to!

Then learn at the feet of bambino. You wont go wrong.

Unfortunetly,the senate and the Canadian government are good at controlling info and do not want their enemies to be aware of how they can be de-throned!

Ok. but thats not what we are talking about

[g_bambino]

Details are somewhat hard to find on this one and the senate likes it that way.

The only way I can see an act of parlaiment leading to Brazeau's dismissal is if section 31 of the Constitution Act 1867 (spelling out the criteria under which a senator may be expelled) is amended as per section 44 of the Constitution Act 1982, so the constitution would be amended to include a sub-clause tailored specifically for Brazeau. That seems a little, well... odd.

[ed.: sp.]

Edited February 14, 2013 by g_bambino

[WWWTT]

Then learn at the feet of bambino. You wont go wrong.

Ok. but thats not what we are talking about

Learning at the feet of bambino???

I've caught g_bambino so many times miss speaking,he should change his handle to g_bam"bumbler" LOL!

And who are you,his cheerleading team?

Man that job must suck!

WWWTT

[g_bambino]

I've caught g_bambino so many times miss speaking,he should change his handle to g_bam"bumbler" LOL!

Oh. And here I thought I was having a mature conversation with you. Guess you did indeed catch me "miss speaking", this time.

[guyser]

Learning at the feet of bambino???

I've caught g_bambino so many times miss speaking,he should change his handle to g_bam"bumbler" LOL!

And who are you,his cheerleading team?

Man that job must suck!

WWWTT

Been around the bambino lon g enough to know he is astute on his parliamentary stuff.

He pays for the cheerleading outfit so what else can I do?

Like I said, he knows his stuff.

we have people on here who know things better than anyone else. I recognize those that do.

Edited February 14, 2013 by guyser

[WWWTT]

Oh. And here I thought I was having a mature conversation with you. Guess you did indeed catch me "miss speaking", this time.

Yes you and I were.

Not Guyser and I

Unless you are Guyser,then that would make much more sense.

WWWTT

[g_bambino]

Yes you and I were.

We must differ, then, on what constitutes mature conversation. I don't consider comments like "I've caught g_bambino so many times miss speaking,he should change his handle to g_bam'bumbler' LOL!" to fall within the definition.

[WWWTT]

We must differ, then, on what constitutes mature conversation. I don't consider comments like "I've caught g_bambino so many times miss speaking,he should change his handle to g_bam'bumbler' LOL!" to fall within the definition.

You got to be freekin kidding me g_bambino!

Lets keep the conversation to Brazeau and the senate ok!

I'm not going to be dragged further into your petty bikering!

WWWTT

[westguy]

let us all remember that Brazeau is INNOCENT till proven guilty

[Paradox]

If he is convicted we can be r id of him. It's a shame that this has happened but I don't see how this can be blamed on PM Harper. The PM is not responsible for the actions of private citizens.

Perhaps he cannot be blamed for the actions of private citizens, certainly, but he can be blamed for the quality of appointments made on his advice to The Honourable the Senate of Canada. The prime minister decried previous governments for the types of appointments made to the Upper House, and yet appointments made at his direction have become more hyper-partisan than the Red Chamber has ever before seen.

I should note that some previous prime ministers took a much more fair take on Senate appointments. For example, The Right Honourable Paul Martin P.C., P.C., the 21st Prime Minister, appointed seventeen senators—and among these were two appointments to the Conservative Party, one appointment to the New Democratic Party, and two independent conservatives. Contract this to the current prime minister, instead, who has appointed 58 senators. Every single one of these senators has been a Conservative.

[shortlived]

Perhaps he cannot be blamed for the actions of private citizens, certainly, but he can be blamed for the quality of appointments made on his advice to The Honourable the Senate of Canada. The prime minister decried previous governments for the types of appointments made to the Upper House, and yet appointments made at his direction have become more hyper-partisan than the Red Chamber has ever before seen.

I should note that some previous prime ministers took a much more fair take on Senate appointments. For example, The Right Honourable Paul Martin P.C., P.C., the 21st Prime Minister, appointed seventeen senators—and among these were two appointments to the Conservative Party, one appointment to the New Democratic Party, and two independent conservatives. Contract this to the current prime minister, instead, who has appointed 58 senators. Every single one of these senators has been a Conservative.

well except perhaps brazeau he's on team liberal.

I notice however you say has been, do you mean has been or is?

Edited February 25, 2013 by shortlived