[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

The latest bits of news on Ford have put me right off him.  Bringing drugs and prostitutes into the mayor's office, that kind of thing.

The office is sacred. Keep that stuff in seedy hotels where it belongs, mayor! 

[Malthus]

Ford: "I get enough to eat at home" - not a reference to food btw.

Please tell me he didnt really say that.

Hott.

Wait, that's totally nott. 

[Barrister]

The latest bits of news on Ford have put me right off him.  Bringing drugs and prostitutes into the mayor's office, that kind of thing.

The office is sacred. Keep that stuff in seedy hotels where it belongs, mayor! 

Well it's the difference between someone whose personal life is a train wreck but manages to do his job, and someone whose entire life is a train wreck.

[viper37]

got to agree with BB.  I have nothing against prostitution, don't like the drug doing part, but doing it in the mayor's office... I mean, I would react the same if it was his wife on a regular basis.  This is workplace, there are other places for sex games.

[Sheilbh]

Ford: "I get enough to eat at home" - not a reference to food btw.

Please tell me he didnt really say that.

Extraordinary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMIQWRsYxak

[viper37]

Ontario gov is frantically searching for a way to destitute him.  Funny

[Grey Fox]

You guys are all a bunch of boring & unfunny square.

[Josephus]

You guys are all a bunch of boring & unfunny square.

[Ed Anger]

You guys are all a bunch of boring & unfunny square.

Silence rectangle!

[Josephus]

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/11/18/thomas_mulcairs_potentially_costly_quebec_mistake.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[viper37]

another silly op-ed about Quebec seperation from an English Canadian media.  How surprised I am.

So, to elect a government, you need 50%+1.  To fire a senator who has had no criminal accusations, 50+1.  To elect an MP, 50+1.  To vote any law that may send anyone in jail, 50+1.  You can actually change the Constitution of the country and decide it applies to everyone even if they don't agree to it by having 7 provinces with 50% of the pop.  How is that democratic?  Currently, we have a government arguing it could change the Senate by a 50%+1 vote in the Parliament, and the medias are ok with this line of defense.

Previously, the Federal agreed with the 50%+1 rule in two seperate occasion for the referendum.  With Charlottetown accord, it was necessary to obtain 50%+1 accross Canada to change the Constitution.  But suddenly, we have to invent some new rule about something else than 50%+1, but that's democracy for you

[crazy canuck]

Currently, we have a government arguing it could change the Senate by a 50%+1 vote in the Parliament, and the medias are ok with this line of defense.

Some of the Provincial intervenors were were arguing the Constitutional provisions regarding the Senate could be amended by the 7 provinces with 50% of the pop formula.  No parties suggested it could be amended by way of a majority vote in Parliament.   What are you referring to?

[Barrister]

Currently, we have a government arguing it could change the Senate by a 50%+1 vote in the Parliament, and the medias are ok with this line of defense.

Some of the Provincial intervenors were were arguing the Constitutional provisions regarding the Senate could be amended by the 7 provinces with 50% of the pop formula.  No parties suggested it could be amended by way of a majority vote in Parliament.   What are you referring to?

Stephen Harper has suggested that certain changes (changes that would not affect provincial representation or the powers of the senate) could be made by a vote in Parliament.  According to Harper, the government can not change the composition of the Senate, but can change how Senators are selected (going from appointments to elections) and change the length of their term (from lifetime down to a fixed term).

[crazy canuck]

Currently, we have a government arguing it could change the Senate by a 50%+1 vote in the Parliament, and the medias are ok with this line of defense.

Some of the Provincial intervenors were were arguing the Constitutional provisions regarding the Senate could be amended by the 7 provinces with 50% of the pop formula.  No parties suggested it could be amended by way of a majority vote in Parliament.   What are you referring to?

Stephen Harper has suggested that certain changes (changes that would not affect provincial representation or the powers of the senate) could be made by a vote in Parliament.  According to Harper, the government can not change the composition of the Senate, but can change how Senators are selected (going from appointments to elections) and change the length of their term (from lifetime down to a fixed term).

You did not read Viper's post very carefully.  The position of the Federal Government before the SCC is that the election of Senators would be in the Provinces from which the Senators are selected (Not a vote of Parliament) and further that the elections would not be binding but would serve as further advise to the PM regarding who the PM appoints to the Senate (again not a vote of Parliament).

The Federal goverment also wants to know whether the PMs appointment power includes the ability include term limits which would tie into further provincial elections.  Again not necessarily requiring a vote of Parliament as it is tied to the PMs power of appointment.

[Grey Fox]

It seems no one read Viper's post.