[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

The notion of removing a Senator from their office is a bit disturbing.  The power to remove a Senator is apparantly grounded on the same power Parliament has to remove a member of Parliament.

"It is clear that the Senate does have the power to suspend a member," said Mr. Carnignan.

The Constitution stipulates that the Senate has the same power that the British House of Commons had at the time of Confederation, which included the power to suspend its members, he said. And there are no limits on that authority, he said, when it comes to protecting the Senate from discredit.

It seems to me this is a dangerous precedent.  If a member can be removed before any allegations are actually proven in a court or some other body where due process is provided one can easily see the mischief that might ensue.  If saving the chamber from "discredit" is the only test I can think of a lot of Senators and MPs who could have been removed in the past.  I think there are good reasons this power has not been used before (at least to my knowledge) and I think the current cases set a pretty low bar for expulsion.

Take for example the members of Parliament - from all three of the major parties who violated election laws in the last election.  Dont they bring descredit to that body?

I think we are going to regret this step in the future.  Bad facts make very bad precedents.

[Sheilbh]

It seems to me this is a dangerous precedent.  If a member can be removed before any allegations are actually proven in a court or some other body where due process is provided one can easily see the mischief that might ensue.  If saving the chamber from "discredit" is the only test I can think of a lot of Senators and MPs who could have been removed in the past.  I think there are good reasons this power has not been used before (at least to my knowledge) and I think the current cases set a pretty low bar for expulsion.

Take for example the members of Parliament - from all three of the major parties who violated election laws in the last election.  Dont they bring descredit to that body?

Interesting. In the UK the power was given to the courts and there was a recent case which I don't think had happened for years:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/05/phil-woolas-ejected-parliament-election

[Jacob]

Perhaps you could explain when that occurred.

I think the government would like to consider its response to global warming and other environmental concerns to be entirely factual and science based rather than contain a political element, so any kind of correction of facts and science is viewed as "nakedly political statements".

[Ed Anger]

As long as Dr. Suzuki gets a hockey stick up the ass, I'm for it.

[crazy canuck]

As long as Dr. Suzuki gets a hockey stick up the ass, I'm for it.

Now there is a guy who does often dress naked politics in a blanket of science.  But I dont think he has ever denied being a political advocate for the NDP. 

Hardly the government scientist type.

[Ed Anger]

I just want him gently touched with a hockey stick. Up the ass.

[crazy canuck]

I just want him gently touched with a hockey stick. Up the ass.

Out of curiousity, how do you know about him and why the special treatment?

[Ed Anger]

I just want him gently touched with a hockey stick. Up the ass.

Out of curiousity, how do you know about him and why the special treatment?

He pops up on American TV and he is a nag. I don't like naggers. Thus, He should be cornholed.

[crazy canuck]

The notion of removing a Senator from their office is a bit disturbing.  The power to remove a Senator is apparantly grounded on the same power Parliament has to remove a member of Parliament.

"It is clear that the Senate does have the power to suspend a member," said Mr. Carnignan.

The Constitution stipulates that the Senate has the same power that the British House of Commons had at the time of Confederation, which included the power to suspend its members, he said. And there are no limits on that authority, he said, when it comes to protecting the Senate from discredit.

It seems to me this is a dangerous precedent.  If a member can be removed before any allegations are actually proven in a court or some other body where due process is provided one can easily see the mischief that might ensue.  If saving the chamber from "discredit" is the only test I can think of a lot of Senators and MPs who could have been removed in the past.  I think there are good reasons this power has not been used before (at least to my knowledge) and I think the current cases set a pretty low bar for expulsion.

Take for example the members of Parliament - from all three of the major parties who violated election laws in the last election.  Dont they bring descredit to that body?

I think we are going to regret this step in the future.  Bad facts make very bad precedents.

I am encouraged that at least one Senator seems to agree (Hugh Segal).  Hopefully he can talk some sense into the others.

[viper37]

It seems to me this is a dangerous precedent.  If a member can be removed before any allegations are actually proven in a court or some other body where due process is provided one can easily see the mischief that might ensue.  If saving the chamber from "discredit" is the only test I can think of a lot of Senators and MPs who could have been removed in the past.  I think there are good reasons this power has not been used before (at least to my knowledge) and I think the current cases set a pretty low bar for expulsion.

In a previous case, where an MP (a federal Liberal, IIRC), was suspended from his duty by the Parliament, the court kinda overturned his suspension, I think... I might be mixing cases though... but I'm sure there's a Federal MP the parliament tried to suspend...  IIRC, the only thing they can do until he is found guilty is to suspend him/her from caucus, not fire him from the House, or in that case Senate.  It seems strange to me...

[crazy canuck]

There was an interesting interview on the CBC Radio show "The Current" with the author of the new book on Harper called As Long As I Am Prime Minister.  The author made the interesting point that the things that have caused Harper trouble has nothing to do with the skill (or lack thereof) of the opposition but rather times when Harper tries to be too clever.   I recommend you check out the interview  http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/politics/2013/10/22/pm-stephen-harper-plays-the-long-game-says-author-paul-wells/

If Duffy is to believed this Senate scandal would appear to fall squarely within that categorie.

[Josephus]

Agree. He should stop trying to be clever all together.

Edit: i say that in jest...couple things he's done lately I'm actually in favour of.

[viper37]

The Conservatives have decided they had enough with Quebec and have accelerated the pace in pushing us out of the Confederation.
First, the colonial past & monarchy worshipping, as if not offensive enough was followed by a whitewash of the Acadians expulsion out of their lands.  Followed by the disregard for bilinguism, and what it really means in this country, by nominating unilingual people in courts and high official positions.

Then, they thought it was a good thing for Canada to decide after the fact if the question and result of an hypotethical referendum on sovereignty were valid.  Disregarding international practice, Canada wants to decide alone how Quebec can secede.  Basing its argument on a Constitution we never signed.  That's strikingly similar to mafia deals.

Last but not least, in all its wiseness, our Federal government has decided to ask the Supreme court if their 9th member can effectively be there as 3rd judge from Quebec, given he doesn't resided in Quebec and has not practice law as a judge in Quebec for over 20 years.  Oh, and btw, just to be sure of the result... let's change the law so that no matter what the Court decides, it will be a valid change

This Federal government has clearly decided Quebec is no longer wanted in the country and is trying his best to let the PQ win.

Of course, it could be that Harper is trying to secure his position by a very risky move and crush the PQ&independance movement once and for all by forcing them to win and hold a referendum they are sure to lose at this time.  As I said, very risky move.  And not good for Quebec either way.

[Barrister]

[Malthus]

Agree. He should stop trying to be clever all together.

Edit: i say that in jest...couple things he's done lately I'm actually in favour of.

Heh, my impression is that the problem with Harper is that he's a natural born autocrat, secretive, manipulative and bullying. That's true whether he's doing stuff I approve of, or stuff I disapprove of. 

In a way, it's been a benefit, as his autocratic tendencies have allowed him to bully down the fractious members of his own party who are into social-conservative policies I disapprove of ...