Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Dave_ON

Members
  • Content Count

    880
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dave_ON

  1. I know... somewhere though I heard that it's usually an opposition MP so that the opposition has a reduced vote.

    Nope, because in the case of a deadlock, as we saw with Martin's narrow confidence vote, the speaker casts the tie breaking vote.

  2. No one gets nominated for the position. All MPs that are not in Cabinet or party leaders are eligible. They actually have to withdraw their name to not be on the ballot. There is a secret vote, and so the house will decide.

    Actually if I'm not very much mistaken ALL 308 MP's are eligible for the position of speaker. It is a normal course of action that those mentioned withdraw their names from the running for obvious reasons.

    At least nine MPs are in the running, but the names of all 308 MPs are on the ballot unless they have indicated by 6 p.m. Wednesday that they don’t want to stand for the job.

    source : http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/06/01/pol-speaker-election.html

  3. Not even a news.

    Your brain has been washed since you were a baby.

    That's how come you think the western world has "freedom" or "human rights" or "democracy".

    Actually, non of those exists.

    Two things.

    First this is a thread that is about Canadian Politics, something that Fox news has no bearing on.

    Secondly if we have no freedom, why are you allowed to write whatever you feel like writing on these and any number of other forums?

    Bonus questions, please define for us what you feel "democracy" is precisely.

  4. What really made me decide to write this was a statement from Greg Weston, which basically said, that the speaker in Canada isn't all that important. After all, they aren't the Speaker of the US House of Representatives. Now, what does this even mean? Have we gotten to the point where those in the media only think of the ministers as being of any importance? Actually, yes, and it's dangerous. They don't talk about the speakers of either house when they're representing Canada, they don't talk about where the GG goes, and what he does, and so people have the impression he does nothing, they don't talk about the Senate, ever, except to disparage it, so people think that it does nothing. Even normal MPs don't get much respect from the media.

    Agreed but what can truly be done? Media, must appeal to the vast majority of Canadians, ie. the lowest common denominator of political knowledge. Most Canadians, don't understand, nor care to understand how our government works. In order to rope most Canadians in you have to aim at their level of knowledge. Hence, the PM and Cabinet, and the Leader of the official opposition get the lion's share of media attention. The rest of the parliament is largely regarded as voting drones, a means to an end.

    The current state of affairs, is merely a result of what Trudeau started nigh on four decades ago through various means, and a tradition that Mr. Harper is just as happy to continue. ie. further concentrating the power of the PMO, sapping the power of the Crown through obfuscation and stacking the senate.

    Many don't realize that abolishing the senate would allow the PMO that much more power and basically allow him and his cabinet unchecked across the country. There's no denying the senate isn't functioning fully as intended, to say that regional interests are represented so long as the PM appoints the senators is a stretch. However, we'd be in a sad state of affairs if we abolished it. I don't know what I think is worse, blatant patronage appointments and stacking of the senate, or the current disparaging of the senate which might ultimately lead to it's abolition.

  5. Yah you pay me 130,000 dollars a year give me a staff of 4 which I can use to clear my summer cottage, pay for 110,000 dollars a year for my fights, give me a place that will translate my book for free, not to mention office space. I will come to realize pretty fast there is nothing wrong with the Senate for me it is just wrong for the other 33,800,000 Canadians who don't have the cushiest job in Canada.

    MP's have a similar gig, let's be honest here. Cabinet ministers have it even better AND if you're lucky enough to be elected speaker of the house you have it even cushier. Government work is cushy no matter where you sit that's hardly an argument against having a specific house. We need to fix the senate not abolish it. We need a regional non-partisan check on the pop-rep house. If we moved the appointments of the senate to the premieres of the respective regions, it would go a long way indeed toward resolving the inherent problems.

  6. That situation can't exist. By disapproving the PM, one is disapproving a primary/foundation decision made by that government. If they can't even be trusted to competently select their own leader, what can they trusted with? It's a little like saying you have a really great mechanic, except for the part about being incompetent at fixing/maintaining your car.

    Indeed but this is a result of a convention that predates party politics in parliamentary systems. Once upon a time the PM was just the minister that commanded the confidence of the majority of parliament. There were no party leaders to become the defacto PM. All the same, the fact remains that as it stands now, even if a vote were held, we'd be in the same position regardless, with the possible exception of minority parliaments.

  7. Quebec and Ontario do not rule the Senate. They only have fourty-eight of one hundred and five seats. Were it changed, Ontario and Quebec would have less than 20% of the seats and more than 50% of the population. And while it is certainly not the case that rep-by-pop is an enormously important principle to the Senate, given the dynamics of Canada I would not be surprised to see Ontario and Quebec intentionally hosed often enough.

    I don't think we should have a senate that is based on population truly, that is the function of the commons. Regional representation was truly intended to prevent the tyranny of the majority, ie. Ontario/Quebec. Ontario and Quebec getting hosed, really? So it's ok for Ontario/Quebec to hose the TROC but not the other way round? I don't think that's the intent of the senate, it's designed to balance the population representation with regional considerations. What check is currently in place to prevent the clear majority of pop rep which resides in Ontario/Quebec from imposing their will on TROC?

    The Oft cited NEP is a prime example of Ontario/Quebec hosing the west btw and one that the senate could have prevented had it been comprised in such a way. The west could have potentially opposed it. Why should PEI be overruled by Ontario in the upper house simply because there is a high population in Ontario? What if the issue is quite important to PEI and doesn't even affect Ontario? Confederation is supposed to be a partnership between Equals under the crown, how can we say this when all partners are not equally represented in the upper house? Population representation is a very important part of democracy, but we also must try and prevent the tyranny of the majority whenever possible. Why should Ontario be able to decide the fate of Westerners, simply because more people happen to live here?

    I'm not sure if you live in Ontario or Quebec, I currently do, but I'm from NB originally. There is very much a sense in TROC that Ontarians are out of touch with reality. They have this sense that they speak for all of Canada and that in fact all Canadians are like them.

  8. As it is, so long as a person holds the confidence of the House of Commons, he will be retained as prime minister by the governor general. It isn't so much about the absence of objection; the confidence votes we already have are essentially what TTM suggests we need.

    [c/e]

    I don't disagree in essence I suppose, but I do feel it is a somewhat backward means of achieving that. I suppose my central point is that, a vote of no confidence doesn't apply simply to the PM, but the government as a whole. Further, the issue is Parliament never gets to choose the PM, this is chosen on their behalf by convention, which they can then accept or deny at the throne speech or any other subsequent confidence motion. But if their objection is with the PM specifically and not the government as a whole what recourse do they truly have at present? A vote of no confidence topples the government in it's entirety.

    Can parliament as a whole ask the GG to dismiss a sitting PM, yet still maintain that PM's government?

    I don't think that parliament actively electing a PM from the get go is such a bad idea. Honestly, the notion of confidence of the house predates party politics, nevertheless the system still makes sense. If a party leader's party has a majority of the seats in the house, why would he not be elected PM? I suppose such a measure would be window dressing at best. About all it would affect is a minority situation, which would in turn create a number of different issues.

  9. Call me naive......but if Senators are elected with a prime goal of serving the region that they represent, it would seem to me that would reduce partisanship. I'm not sure of the "process" but each candidate vying for Senator should make it clear that they are not beholding to any party - only to the effective representation of their regional constituents. I'm sure it would more "partisan free" than the current system. Perhaps an independent committee system at the Provincial level to "vet" candidates before they are cleared to run would further ensure the proper caliber and allegiance.

    I don't think that's realistic, if they are elected they must campaign, campaigns cost money. Where precisely will that money come from? A party, do you honestly think a senator is not going to tow the party line of someone who's paying their election bills? We'd be turning the senate into a second commons, and it would be just a partisan.

  10. Historically, since our Senate has been essentially nothing more than a delay chamber it has poorly served as a defender of regional interests. Electing Senators is not going to change that, either. However, it is a step towards "Equal" and "Effective", the other two "E's" championed by Reform years ago.

    I agree with 2/3 E's namely Equal and Effective. I think Regional representation is essential in a federation, to balance the power of Ontario/Quebec and to a lesser degree BC. Honestly these goals could be achieved without the need to politicize the role. If the senators were appointed by each province, or at least if we maintain the 4 divisions philosophy provinces in each region, this would solve the patronage appointment issue, while still maintaining the non partisan/political nature of the senate. Senators would truly be beholden and accountable to their region, rather than the PM who appointed them.

    Punked is right, the Senate once stacked doesn't go against the sitting PM often. I disagree with his assessment that it should be abolished though, the senate is not functioning as intended but it certainly is essential. If we can fix the senate, I think things will go far more smoothly for Canada, and a great deal less smoothly for the lower house.

    Honestly though for the Senate to truly be effective it must be an equal number from each province, not each "region". Once upon a time that may have worked, but now it's somewhat of an outdated philosophy based on population shifts and varying provincial interests. Why exactly if all 10 provinces are truly "equal" partners in Confederation do they not all have "equal" say on the federal level. As it stands now, Ontario/Quebec effectively rule both houses, which isn't fair in the least.

  11. Dave, central Canadians have said the same of Harper for several years now. And yet Harper seems to win, and make his agenda central. Whatever the Toronto/Montreal MSM think.

    I think you miss my point. It's not about whether Harper gets elected or not, its about whether people would care or not if his own election law or senate term law was ignored. I posit most people wouldn't even notice much less care about it. Given the rather low level of political knowledge the general public have, how many are even aware of a second house? A shocking majority aren't aware of our head of state. I'm just not confident it's as big a deal to most Canadians as many people here are making it out to be.

  12. Moving on.

    We got sidetracked into a discussion of the arts, and I caught this response. The $1.7B would only save a fraction of the DEFICIT, not of the budget. I would argue that ending all arts programs would affect the quality of life in Canada.

    Aren't there other industries that are heavily subsidized as well ? Why single out the arts - they seem like a bargain to me in that they mediate our national dialogue and make Canada a place where civility thrives.

    I would tend to agree, the arts are low hanging fruit for politicians. I doubt Mr. Harper would go down that road again however, although it's not like he really has anything to lose in Quebec at present.

    I'd suggest cutting the size of cabinet, his personal security force and several other direct government expenses. These should get the axe far before any public services do.

  13. This isn't necessary. The prime minister is already selected, in essence, by the House of Commons.

    Well I suppose in a sense, in as much as if the HoC doesn't expressly state there is no confidence he remains PM. I don't believe this is precisely what TTM was referring to however, as the absence of objection isn't the same as the presence of a direct mandate from parliament. Either way, would this differ in essence from our present situation? If a party leader commands a majority, how would he not become the PM? The only thing this could truly potentially affect is a minority situation.

  14. I agree with you, August. Harper may not be able to make it constitutional but if a precedent is set that proves popular with the voting public then any premier or PM that tries to take it away would face a negative reaction at the polls. I'm betting that once Harper's changes are implemented the only way they would ever be removed is if for some reason Canadians hated them! Then some politician could remove them and claim to be some kind of savior.

    Honestly I'm not convinced that senate reform is a truly resonating factor for most Canadians. In the west perhaps, but certainly not in Ontario or the Atlantic. My guess is most people wouldn't even notice if a PM ignored a senate "election". Much like people won't care if Mr. Harper chooses to ignore his own "fixed election" law.

  15. We could argue about the Senate for another 50 years - and do nothing - which is likely what would happen. Or we can at least take SOME steps that would take most of the patronage and some of the partisanship out of appointments and permit a "refreshing" of Senators through term limits. Argue, carp, and do nothing....or start taking some steps?

    But if the steps are void of any constitutional weight what is the point? This is little more than pandering on Mr. Harper's part. He's simply trying to make it look like he's keeping his promise to what remains of the reform base. It's a sham and does absolutely nothing, it's about as effective as the warnings on cigarette packages. How many smokers have quit as a result of that? I agree steps need to be taken for senate reform, but real steps, not window dressing. Let's draft a constitutional change, and go from there, THAT would be doing something.

  16. Please tell me you're joking? Did I even address you at all in this thread? I don't know what ideologies you share but I assume you are generally left of centre on most issues, hence you are probably a "lefty".

    And isn't Michael Hardner a moderator? I was more rude to him than anyone else and he just gave it back like a man. Leave the moderation to the moderators. If you're so interested in censorship, you'd be better served chaining yourself on stage at a Christie Blatchford speech than whining that I called people who are left of centre "lefties".

    Why the indignation? At any rate I'm done with this discussion, if you want to take it personally, be my guest. Suffice it to say calling someone a "leftist" or a "right wingnut" are both equally inappropriate and doesn't end an argument. You can't simply dismiss someone simply because you perceive them to be a certain way. Address the issue, keep the insults down and stick to the facts plain and simple. You can disagree with someone and still show them common courtesy. Labels are dismissive and comes across as flippant.

    For the record it's not about sensorship my friend, it's about common courtesy. If you have to resort to being insulting to make your point, do you really have one to begin with?

    It's ok, I know that when you lefties are taking a break from smelling your own farts, you love to point out that any opinion that differs from yours is stupid and uneducated.

    This is a prime example of what I'm speaking of, I'm certain I could find more. Either way as mentioned I've made my point, I don't wish to harp upon the subject any more than I have. Don't be so quick to judge or make assumptions about people, just because someone disagrees with you on a specific topic, doesn't mean you can peg where they stand on the political spectrum.

  17. Its not my problem you don't like the term "lefties". I'm not going to start typing "those on the left side of the political spectrum" because your e-peen shrivels up in indignation whenever your read "lefties".

    And while you're perched atop your self-anointed moral high ground, why not try calling out those who use much worse insults than me but happen to share the same political ideologies as you?

    Lefties is a term that you use for those who do not agree with you, regardless of where on the political spectrum they actually happen to fall. I've noted you've called several people, who are not the least bit "leftist" thus, simply for disagreeing with you. You can't categorize people as leftist, because of one specific position they hold on one specific issue. People are not that simple to categorize. One can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, the two are not mutually exclusive and terming someone a "leftist" is overly simplistic. I actually don't like the term right wing either, as it's often used as a self explanatory argument, and people use it to cop out of actually addressing an issue. As if to call it right wing speaks for itself.

    Precisely what political ideologies do I have that others supposedly share? I'm willing to bet you haven't the foggiest clue as to where I stand on almost anything let alone know who would share my political ideologies. I get it you're young and idealistic and think you've got the world figured out, or perhaps you get off on being inflammatory. Either way there is a certain level of etiquette that exists on this board, and people can disagree with one another without having to resort to being childish. There are many people I have disagreed with on many occasions on this board that I have a great deal of respect for and the discourse has always been civil. I don't want this board to turn into a CBC/CTV/ insert news media here comment board, that consists largely of buzz words and grunts.

  18. Sounds like someone's got a small epeen.

    How sad if that is your rebuttal sir. You realize this only serves to further illustrate my point? You have only vapid sloganeering and nothing of merit to say whatsoever. You're not even particularly clever, nor are you the least bit entertaining. You are merely wasting everyone's time. Give us something of substance or at the very least have the wherewithal to keep from waxing childish at every turn. I suppose that's asking a lot from someone who has "FTW" in their name.

  19. Simple. We replace it with an elected president and vice president. We elect the Senate as well. It would take only an act of parliament to abolish the monarchy. How do you think all those other nations did so?

    I'm afraid an act of parliament is utterly incapable of unilaterally altering the constitution. The senate must also pass such a motion and in terms of the monarchy it is likely we would need the 7/10 50% pop rule. to make a fundamental alteration to the constitution. Why must the executive, as it exists in Canada be elected? How does it benefit us to politicize the head of state? Why do we need a vice president, what purpose would that serve? Are you simply attempting to copy and paste the US executive into the parliamentary system? History has proven on many occasions that such botch jobs, result in more harm than good.

  20. I think this sums up the situation rather well.

    While the poll suggests Canadians are ready to engage in specific constitutional reforms, the Meech and Charlottetown experiences proved it's well-nigh impossible to confine negotiations to only certain subjects. Once opened, those negotiations quickly became a swamp of conflicting demands from provinces and various interest groups.

    "Maybe all we need is another round of constitutional hearings or negotiations to remember that, oh yes, this is trickier than we think," Anderson said.

    Sounds like a good idea in theory, but once you see what's involved in the process, and what it means, I'm fairly certain any constitutional amendments would suffer the very same fate as Meech and Charlottetown.

  21. I doubt it. I'd say it's more likely some scientist in Japan tries to imitate transformers by then. I'll be sure to bump this in 100 years.

    In all sincerity please try and show some maturity and keep your comments civil. If you want people to consider your POV, you should likely avoid name calling, (ie. Leftists, which is an utterly inaccurate generalization), as well as flippant and dismissive responses unless you want to be largely ignored by the patrons of this board. I'm not certain what type of board you're used to posting to, but many of us come here to engage in adult discourse, not to fling aspersions and conduct EPEEN contests.

  22. Of course you are beholden to the Queen of England, a foreign monarch. Look at the official website. It doesn't say "Canadian monarchy"; it's British. Where is her residence in Canada?

    Hmmm interesting how you never let the facts get in the way of your "opinion"

    Here's a link, perhaps you should educate yourself a bit further before posting your thoughts. You're entitled to your opinion, but at least have the wherewithal to backup your claims with some facts.

    http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/Canada.aspx

    From the Official Monarchy website, it took me about 2 minutes to find. And I quote

    In all these duties, The Queen acts as Queen of Canada, quite distinctive from her role in the United Kingdom or any of her other realms.

    Hmmm now distinctive, now to me and most people distinctive means different not "same". Is this like "discrimination" for you whereby you choose the definition that suits your current POV?

    As to the residences, take your pick she has more then most anyone else does in the country... ignoring for a minute that citizenship laws don't apply to the monarch, based on your logic she's more Canadian than most anyone else in the Country

    She has an official residence in Rideau Hall as small C pointed out as well as an official residence in each of the 10 provinces. I'm not certain about the territories however.

    How often does she set foot on your soil?

    Again from the official website which you oft site but rarely read apparently.

    Over the course of more than 50 years The Queen has been a regular visitor to Canada, paying over 20 visits. Together with The Duke of Edinburgh, The Queen has travelled through every part of the different provinces to meet people from all cultures, walks of life and regions.

    Other members of the royal family have also visited on numerous occasions. The Queen makes a habit of visiting all of her realms fairly regularly.

    And do the "rules" regarding the monarchy serve Canada - or Britain? This is why I keep bringing up the exclusion of Catholics, marriage to a Catholic; how does that serve Canada - a secular nation? Do the qualifications for a head of state that fit Canada apply - or are you left with whatever serves Britain?

    The Monarch has served Canada very well in fact, you don't like them but that doesn't change the fact that she has fulfilled her role effectively. You imply disparity where none exists. You speak as if the UK is able to somehow overrule our own parliament, or that the Queen, because she is the same person that occupies the UK royal office, serves us in the same way she does the UK. This is a fallacy on your part, and one you clearly need to educate yourself on. Many of the questions you ask, demonstrate how little you understand our system of government or how the monarchy functions in Canada.

    Do you have any say in it what-so-ever except to declare that the British monarch serves Canada separately? You get what serves Britain, and then, secondly, it serves Canada. She is British first and foremost. You are part of the commonwealth that is British.

    As has been pointed out already, she is not British at all, she holds no citizenship in any of her realms. She doesn't serve one realm first over another. You still fail to see, that Queen of Canada, while the same person as the Queen of the UK, is not the same role. Each of her realms has a different role for her, and each of the realms chooses what the role is. We can choose whomever we wish to be our sovereign in all technicality, but at present why would we need to change the current line of succession?

    As for the British Commonwealth, well that's technically as inaccurate as you referring to the UK as "England". It's the Commonwealth of Nations. This I can forgive I suppose, as many people still mislabel it thus. It suffices as it is the commonwealth of nations that stemmed from the old British Empire.

    Sure, you take the queen of England and declare that she is the queen of Canada - except but for the fact that she's the queen of England, she would not be the queen of Canada. They are one and the same, and she resides in Britain - and always will. You have a head of state that does not live in Canada and never will.

    No we take the Queen of Canada, who also happens to be the Queen of the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Bahamas, Barbados and a host of others. You can get the complete list from the official Monarchy site, which you are so intimately acquainted with already.

    Further it is the constitution of Canada that names who our monarch is not the UK. As has been pointed out dozens of times, we could have a different sovereign than the UK. If they scrap it we could potentially keep it regardless of what they decide. The Queen actually resides in all her realms and not Britain, she can't be in all her realms simultaneously which where the role of the GG comes in.

×
×
  • Create New...