Topaz Posted November 8, 2013 Report Posted November 8, 2013 (edited) So now that Harper has gotten the senators kick out with no due process, Clement wants their pensions. So did the Tories take away the late Sen. Finley pension when he was found guilty of the in and out scam? NO, Tory senators didn't even take away his job either. How many Tory MP's toss, will still get their pensions?? The Tories talk a good game but when it came to taxpayers money, they didn't even touch their own pensions, instead they are going to hit the pensions after the next election, and it didn't stop them from raising their. own. So now, taxpayers are going to be on the hook for the future lawsuits that will come. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/clement-vows-to-make-ousted-senators-ineligible-for-pension-1.1532674%C2'> Edited November 8, 2013 by Topaz Quote
Topaz Posted November 8, 2013 Author Report Posted November 8, 2013 (edited) Sorry about the link, I've tried 3x and it won't take and I'll try here. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/clement-vows-to-make-ousted-senators-ineligible-for-pension-1.1532674 Edited November 8, 2013 by Topaz Quote
Jimmy Wilson Posted November 9, 2013 Report Posted November 9, 2013 The Minister for Gazebos wants the senator's pensions??? Quote "Neo-conservativism,I think,is really the aggrandizement of selfishness.It's about me,only me,and after that,me.It's about only investing in things that produce a huge profit for yourself.It's NOT about society as a whole and it tends to be very insensitive to those people,who for one reason or another,have fallen beneath the poverty line and it's engaged in presumptions that these people are all poor because they are lazy.Neo-conservatives believe that fundamentally..." Senator Hugh Segal
Topaz Posted November 9, 2013 Author Report Posted November 9, 2013 Harper said in the House that they have no power in the senate, so how can Clements do anything. They must have gotten that one -e-mail asking the party to do something or lose a vote. Quote
Jimmy Wilson Posted November 9, 2013 Report Posted November 9, 2013 Welcome to Corporate Fascism brought to you by he Harper Albertans and the Harris conservatives... Quote "Neo-conservativism,I think,is really the aggrandizement of selfishness.It's about me,only me,and after that,me.It's about only investing in things that produce a huge profit for yourself.It's NOT about society as a whole and it tends to be very insensitive to those people,who for one reason or another,have fallen beneath the poverty line and it's engaged in presumptions that these people are all poor because they are lazy.Neo-conservatives believe that fundamentally..." Senator Hugh Segal
Shady Posted November 9, 2013 Report Posted November 9, 2013 So you people think that senators who break rules and behave improperly should have their suspension time count toward their pension eligibility? What? Huh? This might be the greatest example yet of Harper derangement syndrome. Also, I love the term fascism thrown in there to add extra absurdity! Lol. Quote
Topaz Posted November 9, 2013 Author Report Posted November 9, 2013 So you people think that senators who break rules and behave improperly should have their suspension time count toward their pension eligibility? What? Huh? This might be the greatest example yet of Harper derangement syndrome. Also, I love the term fascism thrown in there to add extra absurdity! Lol. First of all, we don't know for sure 100% that all three did break the rules because they never had their due process to defend themselves, like the Tory sen. Finley did when he was charged and found guilty of the in and out scam but he paid a fine and still sat in the senate,unfortunately, he died of cancer. No one would defend the three senators if they had their day in court the same as you would want, right? The RCMP are looking into Wallin's complaints about the senate and her expense and if anyone has a syndrome to Harper, go look in the mirror. Quote
Big Guy Posted November 9, 2013 Report Posted November 9, 2013 The Senate voted on the conditions of suspensions and the pension (payments into which they will still be making) conditions. There was no reference to the pensions in the last vote. The Senate would have to have a separate vote on that issue. It is even questionable if the government has the right to deny anyone the benefits of an investment which they have been paying into. Clement is the wrong vehicle for the government to use to comment on responsible spending. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Smallc Posted November 9, 2013 Report Posted November 9, 2013 First of all, we don't know for sure 100% that all three did break the rules because they never had their due process to defend themselves, Given the above statement, why are you always so quick to crucify Harper whenever there's even a hint that wrong was done? Quote
cybercoma Posted November 10, 2013 Report Posted November 10, 2013 Given the above statement, why are you always so quick to crucify Harper whenever there's even a hint that wrong was done?Some people want their government to be accountable, I guess. Quote
Smallc Posted November 10, 2013 Report Posted November 10, 2013 Due process should still be important. Quote
cybercoma Posted November 10, 2013 Report Posted November 10, 2013 That's what Topaz was criticizing: the lack of due process. Quote
Shady Posted November 10, 2013 Report Posted November 10, 2013 That's what Topaz was criticizing: the lack of due process. Due process is something related to criminal matters, not senate rules. Quote
cybercoma Posted November 10, 2013 Report Posted November 10, 2013 Then it should interest you that, at least in Brazeau's case, Deloitte found the Senate Rules to be so inadequately defined that it was impossible to audit him properly. Quote
Smallc Posted November 10, 2013 Report Posted November 10, 2013 That's what Topaz was criticizing: the lack of due process. My point was this - Topaz is fine with innocent until proven guilty....unless we're talking about Harper....and Shady is right. The Senate can fire anyone they want, for any reason that they want. I personally think they should have waited, but there's nothing saying they had to. Quote
cybercoma Posted November 10, 2013 Report Posted November 10, 2013 (edited) I'm not sure why you're pulling out a strawman. I never said that they had to or that there's some law requiring it. Edited November 10, 2013 by cybercoma Quote
Smallc Posted November 10, 2013 Report Posted November 10, 2013 It wasn't a straw man. It underscores my point even more. Either you believe in due process for everyone, or you don't. Quote
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.