What do they teach people in the East?

[Patek23]

I was just watching CBC Newsworld and they had the reactions of some of the Maritimers and some lady claimed that the government wouldnt work because they don't have enough seats................what!?!?!


First off the Senate is not the run all be all of Canada in fact it is obsolete most of the time. It's the House of Commons that has more power in the first place. Also does she not realize that the Senators who do nothing in the first place are appointed by the Governer General at the consent of the PM if Harper wants he can clean the house and fill it with his buddies instead of all of Martins friends getting those useless pay checks...........

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

I was just watching CBC Newsworld and they had the reactions of some of the Maritimers and some lady claimed that the government wouldnt work because they don't have enough seats................what!?!?!


First off the Senate is not the run all be all of Canada in fact it is obsolete most of the time. It's the House of Commons that has more power in the first place. Also does she not realize that the Senators who do nothing in the first place are appointed by the Governer General at the consent of the PM if Harper wants he can clean the house and fill it with his buddies instead of all of Martins friends getting those useless pay checks...........

Did she say that this was specifically because of the Senate, or because 'they don't have enough seats'. She might be referring to the fact that a minority Conservative government will have more difficulty pushing through legislation, as it will require compromises with other parties.

Unless she referred to the Senate. You didn't put that in your 'quote' of her though, so its not clear.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Did she say that this was specifically because of the Senate, or because 'they don't have enough seats'. She might be referring to the fact that a minority Conservative government will have more difficulty pushing through legislation, as it will require compromises with other parties.

What does everyone think of this? Think it might be tougher to negotiate than the minority government the Liberals had, or not? The chance of the NDP siding with the Liberals on something...which would be more than the Cons have (in terms of #s)...and then you have to depend on the Bloc, and who knows...

Or do you think it will be avoid another election at all costs?

[MarchHare]

I think it's probably in the best interests of the Liberal Party to prop up Harper until they have a new leader in place and think they have a shot at winning another majority.

For the Conservatives, their best strategy would be to engineer their own defeat before the Liberals are prepared to run another campaign. With the Liberals in disarray, Harper might be able to win a majority.

If parties aren't interested in playing political election games like that, though, I wonder who the Conservatives will look to for support. Their options are either the socialist NDP, the separatist Bloc, or the Liberals whom they've spent the last two years blasting. It seems to me that the CPC has no natural allies in Parliament, which should make for an interesting session.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

if Harper wants he can clean the house and fill it with his buddies instead of all of Martins friends getting those useless pay checks...........

How does he do that?
Senators are appointed for life (or until they are 75) and cannot be removed unless they miss 2 complete parliamentary sessions, commit treason (or some other "infamous crime"), or declare bankruptcy.

So until current Senators pass away, resign or go broke, they can't be replaced.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Their options are either the socialist NDP, the separatist Bloc, or the Liberals whom they've spent the last two years blasting. It seems to me that the CPC has no natural allies in Parliament, which should make for an interesting session.

Well, I don't think the NDP factor in. By themselves, they don't have enough votes to give the Cons a majority. Liberals are probably fairly bitter, but I agree, they probably don't want an election too soon either.

The Bloc seem like the obvious candidates to work with, since they have the requisite votes. Though, does that provide the Lib/NDP's ammo next election, if the Con's are 'working with' the Separatist Bloc to run Canada?

[Resolute 14]

It's going to be a pretty "safe" Parliment this time around. The Conservatives wont be doing anything outrageous, like all of the anti-Harpers have been deluding themselves into thinking will happen. What the Conservatives will likely do is introduce bills that turn into grenades for the other parties.

Would any of the opposition parties have the balls to vote down a GST reduction? Or an accountability bill for MPs?

About the only controversial thing likely to rise will be the gay marriage thing, and one wonders if Harper isnt a genius if he brings it up now. He's said he will have a free vote on it, and he has said that if the vote fails, the issue is done. He's not likely to win such a vote in this parliment, but he can satisfy the social conservatives by introducing it, and the social moderates by arguing that it was tried, and the will of the majority prevaled.

Otherwise, we will be going to the polls in two years with Harper arguing "see, nothing scary happened since I became PM", and the Liberals countering with "that's because you don't have a majority."

This might be the most predictable government in history...

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I think it's probably in the best interests of the Liberal Party to prop up Harper until they have a new leader in place and think they have a shot at winning another majority.

For the Conservatives, their best strategy would be to engineer their own defeat before the Liberals are prepared to run another campaign. With the Liberals in disarray, Harper might be able to win a majority..

I agree. I see an election probably within a year . . . . long enough to do something but not long enough for a new Liberal face to grab hold.

And I would see the Conservatives gravitating towards the center to deny the space to the Liberals.

There will be lots of games being played in the next year or so.

Cowperson

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

How does he do that?
Senators are appointed for life (or until they are 75) and cannot be removed unless they miss 2 complete parliamentary sessions, commit treason (or some other "infamous crime"), or declare bankruptcy.

So until current Senators pass away, resign or go broke, they can't be replaced.

Many of them break the first one many times over (missing the sessions). In fact my papa (he's a little old so it could be semi-fabricated but he reads all of the newspapers religiously) told me a while ago about how there is a Senator that was living in MEXICO and recieving his pay checks while showing up for a few meetings a year.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Many of them break the first one many times over (missing the sessions). In fact my papa (he's a little old so it could be semi-fabricated but he reads all of the newspapers religiously) told me a while ago about how there is a Senator that was living in MEXICO and recieving his pay checks while showing up for a few meetings a year.

Entirely true. A scandal about 10 years ago.

Cowperson

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Many of them break the first one many times over (missing the sessions). In fact my papa (he's a little old so it could be semi-fabricated but he reads all of the newspapers religiously) told me a while ago about how there is a Senator that was living in MEXICO and recieving his pay checks while showing up for a few meetings a year.

Yeah, I recall that too. The actual wording I have read says:

a senator's seat automatically becomes vacant if he or she fails to attend the Senate for two consecutive parliamentary sessions

So it looks like if you show up a couple times a year you can skate by. I agree we need change in the Senate. I'm not sure I want it to go quite as far as advocated by many people who post here, but at a minimum there should be stricter attendance requirements, required committee work (in committees with real value), a re-aligning of senate seats by province instead of by region, shrink the number of seats, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

how many senate seats are actually filled? I think there's a number of vacancies is there not?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Many of them break the first one many times over (missing the sessions). In fact my papa (he's a little old so it could be semi-fabricated but he reads all of the newspapers religiously) told me a while ago about how there is a Senator that was living in MEXICO and recieving his pay checks while showing up for a few meetings a year.

Yup, that's true but to not count as missing an entire parlimentary session all a senator has to do is show up for one day (a session meaning say the spring session, not Tuesday).

Go ahead, name a Senator that has been fired. I'll bet you can't do it.

That being said, there's nothing stopping Harper from simply appointing more Senators. There is nothing in the constitution that says there has to be X number of Senators. I think it was Mulrouney who first appointed more Senators because it looked like the mostly Liberal Senators were up in arms and going ot stop him from abolishing the NEP.

Also that being said. I think it's pretty funny that you started a thread about what some dumb person from the east said, then misinterpreted it, and then made statements about the government that are wrong.
I don't know where you're from, but I'd like to know what they're teaching there.

[Resolute 14]

Also, Harper has stated that he will appoint any Senator elected to serve the position. So if a Province wants Liberal Senators, they merely need to convince their provincial authorities to hold an election on it.

Course, it would be nice if Harper could dump the Senators and start all over. The fact that all six Senators from Alberta are Liberals is terribly representative of the will of the people.

Edit: Q-scout: there are currently five vacancies in the Senate. Not certian which provinces they are in.

Prior to the 2004 Election, Alberta had three vacancies, two that had existed for a year, and one that was open for THREE years. Martin dumped two Liberals and a "Progressive Conservative" in right before the election. Guess he feared the democratic will of the populace.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

there is a Senator that was living in MEXICO and recieving his pay checks while showing up for a few meetings a year.

That would be the Dis-Honourable Andrew Thompson. If I recall correctly, Preston Manning had guys in sombreros and served up Mexican food for the press to draw attention to this

[Resolute 14]

Correct me if I am wrong, BBS, but didn't Mulrooney add the eight "regional" Senators to ram the GST through the Senate, not to kill the NEP?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

That being said, there's nothing stopping Harper from simply appointing more Senators. There is nothing in the constitution that says there has to be X number of Senators.

Sure there is.

Canada is devided into regions, and there are a maximum number of Senators from any region. Within each region, there is a standard number by province (I don't recall if that is by rule or by custom). Nfld isn't part of a region since they joined Confederation late, but they get 6 senators (same as BC, AB, SK & MB who together are the West Region), and each Territory gets 1.

However, you are right about Mulroney. There is a provision to allow 4 or 8 additional Senators to be appointed, with the approval (rubberstamp) of the Governor General. In 1990, Mulroney appointed appointed 8 Senators to ensure the passage of the GST.



Edit: Snakeeye beat me to it

[MarchHare]

a re-aligning of senate seats by province instead of by region

I've never understood why this was a desirable goal. Do people really want PEI (population: 140,000) to have as much power in the senate as Alberta (population: 3,300,000)? Is that fair?

I see nothing wrong with having senate seats divided by region, but I think a fifth region (BC) should be created, and I do fully support electing senators.

Anyway, if we were to keep the current number of 105 senators, what's wrong with allocating them like this?

Atlantic: 20
Quebec: 20
Ontario: 20
Praries: 20
BC: 20
North: 5


If you were to allocate based on province, you'd have:

Atlantic: 40
Quebec: 10
Ontario: 10
Praries: 30
BC: 10

That to me sees a very large and disproportionate amount of power going to the Atlantic Provinces, a region that represents only about 7% of Canada's total population. Why would someone in the West advocate such a change?

[Bobblehead]

Right now,
Ontario 24
Quebec 24
Maritimes 24 (10 NS, 10 NB, 4 PEI)
West 24 (6 each Prov)
Nfld 6
Each Territory 1

I don't think each province should have the same, but then again the West has grown much faster the the Maritimes so there should be a periodic redistribution.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Correct me if I am wrong, BBS, but didn't Mulrooney add the eight "regional" Senators to ram the GST through the Senate, not to kill the NEP?

My bad, I knew it was something controversial.