Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I'm sure a lot of the have secondary residences their, since that's where they do a lot of their work. That's allowed.

These are not MPs who have to get re-elected and so have to keep going home on weekends to meet and greet their constituents. They're in for life. It would make no sense for them to live in Alberta or Saskatchewan if they're to be working in Ottawa.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

These are not MPs who have to get re-elected and so have to keep going home on weekends to meet and greet their constituents. They're in for life. It would make no sense for them to live in Alberta or Saskatchewan if they're to be working in Ottawa.

Perhaps you missed the very point of this whole mess, senators are supposed to live in the province they represent.

Posted

Perhaps you missed the very point of this whole mess, senators are supposed to live in the province they represent.

The very point of this whole mess was him requesting reimbursement for ineligible expenses.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted (edited)

Oh, when did that happen?

You know, he reminds me of American Woman. No matter how many times you point something out he just sticks doggedly to his idiotic tangent.

Edited by Argus

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

When he appointed him apparently.

Cite? No, don't bother. We know you don't have one.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

When he appointed him apparently.

Apparently, I asked something different than I thought, given that this answer makes no sense in the context of what I thought I asked.

Posted

Apparently, I asked something different than I thought, given that this answer makes no sense in the context of what I thought I asked.

He keeps citing the testimony from the Duffy trial which says that Harper, when spoken to about it after things broke open, said in his opinion Duffy could claim to be from Nova Scotia. Of course, this was in 2013.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

Apparently, I asked something different than I thought, given that this answer makes no sense in the context of what I thought I asked.

I understood you to be wondering when Harper decided that the constitutional rules pertaining to residency for senators was determined by Harper to include Duffy.

Posted

He keeps citing the testimony from the Duffy trial which says that Harper, when spoken to about it after things broke open, said in his opinion Duffy could claim to be from Nova Scotia. Of course, this was in 2013.

You still don't seem to be able to even get the province correct.

Posted

You still don't seem to be able to even get the province correct.

Whatever. PEI, NS, they're both out there to the east. And you still don't have a cite.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

I understood you to be wondering when Harper decided that the constitutional rules pertaining to residency for senators was determined by Harper to include Duffy.

And you don't seem to recognize that the residency rules were made well over a century ago and they are useless. When we finally get around to defining them properly, do you really think that a Senator would have to be born in the province and lived there his/her entire life? Or maybe born there and recently moved out of province....or born somewhere else and recently moved to that province? What really is reasonable in today's context where people are so mobile? Would it be reasonable that Duffy was born and raised there? Once again - it's not his residency that's important - it's the fact that he used that residency to improperly claim expenses that were not incurred.

Back to Basics

Posted

I understood you to be wondering when Harper decided that the constitutional rules pertaining to residency for senators was determined by Harper to include Duffy.

That has nothing to do with what you claimed, actually.

Posted

And you don't seem to recognize that the residency rules were made well over a century ago and they are useless. When we finally get around to defining them properly, do you really think that a Senator would have to be born in the province and lived there his/her entire life? Or maybe born there and recently moved out of province....or born somewhere else and recently moved to that province? What really is reasonable in today's context where people are so mobile? Would it be reasonable that Duffy was born and raised there? Once again - it's not his residency that's important - it's the fact that he used that residency to improperly claim expenses that were not incurred.

Sounds like a Harper talking point. The rules may be useless as you claim, but they are actually relatively clear as written in the constitution to anyone with a reasonable level of reading comprehension. They don't have to be born there, they have to live there and own property there. Is that hard to understand? Of course the senate sits in Ottawa so one has to travel there to do ones job as a senator, hence the expense allowance. Duffy had his doubts as he knew, as did everyone else on the planet including Harper, that Duffy lived in Ottawa for decades. Harper said it didn't matter as he owned property in PEI (are you paying attention Argus?) and that made him a resident. His interpretation seems a bit flimsy and has come back to haunt both Duffy and Harper. The case resumes Nov 18.

Posted

Whatever. PEI, NS, they're both out there to the east. And you still don't have a cite.

This would be exactly why a senate is needed and stocked by those who know the difference between these 2 useless provinces. Actually being a resident helps in that regard.

Posted

Sounds like a Harper talking point. The rules may be useless as you claim, but they are actually relatively clear as written in the constitution to anyone with a reasonable level of reading comprehension. They don't have to be born there, they have to live there and own property there. Is that hard to understand? Of course the senate sits in Ottawa so one has to travel there to do ones job as a senator, hence the expense allowance. Duffy had his doubts as he knew, as did everyone else on the planet including Harper, that Duffy lived in Ottawa for decades. Harper said it didn't matter as he owned property in PEI (are you paying attention Argus?) and that made him a resident. His interpretation seems a bit flimsy and has come back to haunt both Duffy and Harper. The case resumes Nov 18.

So by the constitution's rules, if I wanted to be eligible to be a Senator - all I'd have to do is move there and get a Driver's license and Medicare Card, rent an apartment - and buy $4000 of land - even though I had never even visited the island before? And I could live high off the hog staying in hotels in Ottawa and claiming my per-diems? At least Duffy was born and raised in PEI. Residency would not even be an issue if he hadn't tried to scam the taxpayers by claiming housing allowances and per-diems.

Back to Basics

Posted

So by the constitution's rules, if I wanted to be eligible to be a Senator - all I'd have to do is move there and get a Driver's license and Medicare Card, rent an apartment - and buy $4000 of land - even though I had never even visited the island before?

This is what residency means, is it not?. When I became a resident of SK in 2011, it meant that I lived, i.e. resided, there, not that I was born or raised there or that I had visited there before. If I were not spending most of my time there, I would have to do a bit more to justify identifying that place as my primary residence.

Posted

So by the constitution's rules, if I wanted to be eligible to be a Senator - all I'd have to do is move there and get a Driver's license and Medicare Card, rent an apartment - and buy $4000 of land - even though I had never even visited the island before? And I could live high off the hog staying in hotels in Ottawa and claiming my per-diems? At least Duffy was born and raised in PEI. Residency would not even be an issue if he hadn't tried to scam the taxpayers by claiming housing allowances and per-diems.

Except residency would be an issue.Apparently your interpretation of the rules is as bad as Harper's.

Posted

So by the constitution's rules, if I wanted to be eligible to be a Senator - all I'd have to do is move there and get a Driver's license and Medicare Card, rent an apartment - and buy $4000 of land - even though I had never even visited the island before? And I could live high off the hog staying in hotels in Ottawa and claiming my per-diems? At least Duffy was born and raised in PEI. Residency would not even be an issue if he hadn't tried to scam the taxpayers by claiming housing allowances and per-diems.

Actually beyond the minimum requirements I would hope a democracy minded leader would appoint those with ties and empathy for the values/needs of those communities so they can be represented........2 strikes in that regard I guess for Harper.

Posted

Actually beyond the minimum requirements I would hope a democracy minded leader would appoint those with ties and empathy for the values/needs of those communities so they can be represented........2 strikes in that regard I guess for Harper.

Damn him! I mean, all the previous prime ministers were careful to only appoint men of Stirling character and independent minds! :rolleyes:

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,907
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    derek848
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • stindles earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • stindles earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Doowangle earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Doowangle earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Barquentine went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...