Is Harper in trouble...

[downtoit]

The Senate does not have the power to bring down the government.

Unlike the House of Commons, the Senate has no effect in the decision to end the term of the prime minister or of the government. Only the Commons may force the prime minister to tender his resignation, or to recommend the dissolution of Parliament and issue of election writs, by passing a motion of no-confidence or by withdrawing supply. Thus, the Senate's oversight of the government is limited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Sena...ative_functions

I thought that too so they will probably just block it and send it back to the HOC but then what happens. Another vote?

[capricorn]

The Senate does not have the power to bring down the government.

Unlike the House of Commons, the Senate has no effect in the decision to end the term of the prime minister or of the government. Only the Commons may force the prime minister to tender his resignation, or to recommend the dissolution of Parliament and issue of election writs, by passing a motion of no-confidence or by withdrawing supply. Thus, the Senate's oversight of the government is limited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Sena...ative_functions

I thought that too so they will probably just block it and send it back to the HOC but then what happens. Another vote?

Yes, the Budget Implementation Bill, with Senate amendments, would return to the House for another round of debates on the amendments and another vote. It appears the Liberal dominated Senate is just playing political games. This in itself will cause many to question whether the Senate is acting properly.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...d922aef&k=24387

[hiti]

The Senate will not vote the budget down. They may hold hearings, make amendments and sent it back to the House but they cannot and will not vote down any bill sent to them by the lower House.

There is precedence for the Senate amending and even defeating budget implementation legislation. This precedent was set in 1993 with the Mulroney government.

At that time, the Senate, dominated by Tories, first tried to amend a budget implementation bill to delete a proposed merger of the Canada Council with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The Tory government of Brian Mulroney rejected the amendment so the Senate ultimately defeated the bill.

The Senate is not considered a confidence chamber and thus, unlike the Commons, it can defeat money bills without provoking an election. The Liberal Atlantic Canadian senators won't support the bill, regardless of the leader's view on the matter.

Steve's rhetoric is confusing and it looks like he is mixing up the Canadian Senate with the American Senate. Now either Steve has demonstrated an appalling lack of basic understanding of the government he currently is the head of or he knows the difference and is being deliberately dishonest and deceptive in creating a false opposition where none can exist.

Which is entirely consistent with his rhetoric in Afghanistan when he talked about how Canada would not "cut and run" from the mission, despite there being ZERO members of Parliament calling for anything that could even be remotely construed as such. However it sounds good, sounds decisive, and implies there really is such opposition to which he and his party are heroically preventing from getting their way. This deceptions are offensive.

When push comes to shove it is the HoC and the PM which will have the final say, which in turn makes Deceivin' Steve's rhetoric about how it is automatically Liberal bluster in the House if the Senate does not vote down this budget complete and utter horse pucks as well as a false choice open to the Liberals.

[scribblet]

But Liberal senators insist they're perfectly within their constitutional rights to amend or even defeat the bill. So there you go, the unelected senate thinks it can control and take on the roll of official government.

http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/070614/n061447A.html

[Michael Bluth]

You know, I never said you were ignorant. I said your comment was. Please, understand the difference.

Here's what you said.

That's an interesting take on my stance. Ignorant, but interesting.

Take applies to the person's take on your stance.

Not to a statement.

A statement cannot take a stance on anything.

A statement is merely the representation of a person's take on your stance.

Whether intentional or not, you iinsulted me personally.

[g_bambino]

You know, I never said you were ignorant. I said your comment was. Please, understand the difference.

Here's what you said.

That's an interesting take on my stance. Ignorant, but interesting.

Take applies to the person's take on your stance.

Not to a statement.

A statement cannot take a stance on anything.

A statement is merely the representation of a person's take on your stance.

Whether intentional or not, you iinsulted me personally.

Holy crap. Okay - your take on my stance was ignorant, founded on a lack of knowledge and/or understanding. That doesn't mean I think you're an ignorant person. Wow; I'll have to pay more attention to the exact wording of my sentences in future, but maybe you shouldn't be so sensitive.

[normanchateau]

You can say that he's a social conservative as a sort of epithet, but it's kind of meaningless unless you can show how that affects the way he runs the country.

Would you like examples of how his social conservatism affects the way he runs the country?

[normanchateau]

The article for it's part doesn't claim that Harper has raised income taxes in the budget...it merely points out that the alleged tax cuts are in fact programs rather than personal income tax cuts. I agree and I'd be much happier to see across the board tax cuts instead of programs, but there are no tax increases, so you're wrong.

I never claimed that the Andrew Coyne article I cited mentioned the increase in personal income tax rates. I stated that the Coyne article mentioned that the past two budgets were the biggest spending spree in the history of any federal budget.

There are numerous other citations to the Harper government's increase in personal income tax rates which I assumed was general knowledge. Since you're apparently unaware of the tax increase, here's one citation:

http://canadaonline.about.com/od/governmen...06budgettax.htm

[scribblet]

Back to the Senate topic again Canadians dont want an election, and a Liberal Senate forcing one would be horrific for Liberals. Maybe Harper will not fill the positions, and quickly LOL

POSTING CONTENT

It is also important that you stay on topic and keep the discussion focused. If the thread begins to wonder off into a new topic area, start a new thread and continue the discussion under the new thread. If you feel a thread is being watered down with too many different topic areas and you do not want to start the new thread yourself, feel free to contact the Admin and request a new thread.

[normanchateau]

Back to the topic of Harper appointing senators:

Was he right to appoint his personal friend and campaign manager to the Senate, subsequently making him a Cabinet Minister?

[Michael Bluth]

Was he right to appoint his personal friend and campaign manager to the Senate, subsequently making him a Cabinet Minister?

No, but if Fortier resigns and runs for parliament next election it will be a minor indiscretion.

Another reason why any future Senators should be elected.

[normanchateau]

Was he right to appoint his personal friend and campaign manager to the Senate, subsequently making him a Cabinet Minister?

No,

Thank you.