[jj2424]

Will they still call him senator in prison?

[Jabberwalker]

jj2424 jj2424:

Will they still call him senator in prison?

Was Conrad still a "Lord" when he did his time?

[jj2424]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

jj2424 jj2424:

Will they still call him senator in prison?

Was Conrad still a "Lord" when he did his time?

Who knows? Who cares? who voted for him?

[Curtman]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Instead of abolishing the senate, could it just be made a policy that, as the senators retire or die, that no more are appointed in their place? And upon such time as there is no one left in the senate, declare it a defunct entity and scrap it then?

Manitoba seeks restrictions on Ottawa’s power to reform Senate

$1:

Manitoba is pushing back against the federal government’s hopes for unilateral Senate reform, arguing in a Supreme Court submission that some of Ottawa’s proposed changes “ignore the principle of federalism” and provinces must instead have a say in term limits and election of prospective senators.

The province filed its factum, or argument, on Tuesday to the Supreme Court after the federal government asked the court for clarity on the rules around Senate reform and outright abolition. The Manitoba submission was the first of any province, and follows the filing of federal government’s factum last month.

Manitoba’s stance signals Ottawa will get push-back from the provinces on any Senate changes, up to and including abolition, and suggests the status quo won’t soon be changed. Manitoba, however, argues that “the failure to reach consensus on Senate reform in the past is certainly not a reason” to allow the federal government certain unilateral powers.

The federal government believes Parliament should be allowed to unilaterally “impose term limits, provide for public consultative process on Senate appointments” and remove the “archaic” rule that senators must own $4,000 worth of land in the province they represent.

But Manitoba only agrees on the last point, saying the property qualifications are “unrelated to the functioning of the Senate” and therefore can be changed by the federal government.

The province insists the federal government can’t act alone on Senate nominations or term limits.

“Term limits affect the independence of the Senate and cannot be unilaterally imposed by Parliament,” the Manitoba submission, which was made public Wednesday, argues. It goes on to say term limits could affect Senators’ independence by encouraging them to favour the government of the day in a bid to earn a second term.

Further, it says “non-binding elections [of nominees] impacts the functioning of the Senate and does not fall within Parliament’s unilateral authority.” Alberta already does this, electing Senate nominees that are then candidates for appointment. But Manitoba argues that “holding elections for senators, even elections that are non-binding, will profoundly affect the operation of the Senate” by creating a “hodgepodge” of appointment processes and a “hierarchy of senators with those who have been elected seemingly having more legitimacy than those who have not.”

The Supreme Court question comes amid ongoing investigations into the expenses of senators Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy, Mac Harb and Pamela Wallin. Manitoba’s factum concludes that while there “may very well be compelling reasons for Senate reform,” there are no compelling reasons to “depart from our nation’s tradition of respect for federalism” by allowing the federal government to make unilateral changes.

Many other provinces are expected to submit factums before Friday’s deadline, but stayed quiet Wednesday when asked what they might include.

The Premiers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia have publicly called for abolition, a position also shared by the federal NDP. It’s unclear, though, how the Senate could legally be abolished.

The federal government argued that abolition requires the support of seven provinces with at least 50 per cent of the population. Manitoba argues that outright abolition goes beyond “general amending” and requires unanimous provincial consent – an unlikely feat, as many provinces prefer Senate reform to abolition.

The federal government has said the Senate must change or “vanish,” but that it will wait for the Supreme Court’s ruling before proceeding with any changes.

Next up: The Quebec Constitution Thing, Indian Affairs...

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Harb has to pay that loan back, so it is his money. Had it not been discovered, who knows whether or not Duffy would have ever had to pay anything back to Wright.

Harb didn't need to rely on a favour - he manned up and took care of the cost of his expenses himself.

Big difference in my books.

Oh come on boots!

A loan is a loan. They both received favours from friends to get the money to pay back their misdeeds.

Amazing how'll you look to paint the worst offender as some sort of saint because he borrowed his money differently than the others. No partisanship here.

Let's see.

One guy gets a loan and tells everyone about it when he pays off his debt. The other guy gets money from a friend and pays off his debt. But it isn't until AFTER it was found out to be a 'gift' from a friend in the PMO's office that guy #2 tells anyone where he got the money.

Yep, that's certainly the exact same thing...

[bootlegga]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

He's as guilty as Duffy....pretending otherwise clearly demonstrates a political bias.

Oh, they are both guilty as hell on the fraudulent expenses issue - no doubt about that. That's why I'm glad one of them has resigned - now the other three need to do the same thing.

The only difference I see here is how they went about making amends. One was totally above board about where he got the money and and the other guy tried something sort of shady and got caught (again).

[bootlegga]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Lemmy Lemmy:

There is no difference between any of them in my books....except that one of the four has had the decency to resign. I want all four of them to just disappear. And I bet that number will be greater than four by the time this whole business shakes down.

Agreed - as I said on the first page.

However, one of the four at least had the balls to won up and pay for it himself and resign, the others have not.

Balls to resign.

The prick resigned and stands to make over $5 million dollars during the life of his pension. A pension that may I add shouldn't be paid because of his criminal activity.

$1:

Harb qualifies for full pension

Harb, who was the MP for Ottawa Centre for 15 years until he was appointed to the Senate in 2003, maxed out on his parliamentary pension in 2007. He was also a city councillor in Ottawa prior to becoming an MP.

A spokesman for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says Harb can collect his full MP pension immediately. That's worth $122,989 a year and is fully indexed, Gregory Thomas told CBC News.

The pension over Harb's lifetime could be worth "$5,020,790... assuming living [until] age 90 which is average life span of pension plan members. In the event of his passing, his surviving spouse will collect 60 per cent of his pension for life, which is not included in this calculation," Thomas wrote in an email.

What a magnanimous gesture on his part but, before we beatify Marc Harb perhaps we should really look at the most likely reason for his largess. Even more taxpayers money. Money that neither Wallin or Duffy will get should they resign because of their less than 4 year tenure in the House of Sober Second Thought.

What a joke.

I don't like paying him a pension one bit, but it's a lot less than his salary as a senator and all the other expenses for housing and staff and so on (assuming he was smart enough to only expense the right things this time).

Still, there is hope - you should have read to the end of the article;

$1:

But Thomas said a private member’s bill could soon change that.

It was introduced by John Williamson, a past director of the Taxpayers Federation and one-time spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper who went on to be elected as a Conservative MP in New Brunswick.

Williamson’s bill would deprive any senator or MP convicted of an indictable offence while in office of their public pension.

Unless the current government is as crooked as these four senators, then the bill will pass and he won't get a dime...win-win. no salary and no pension.

[Freakinoldguy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I don't like paying him a pension one bit, but it's a lot less than his salary as a senator and all the other expenses for housing and staff and so on (assuming he was smart enough to only expense the right things this time).

Still, there is hope - you should have read to the end of the article;

$1:

But Thomas said a private member’s bill could soon change that.

It was introduced by John Williamson, a past director of the Taxpayers Federation and one-time spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper who went on to be elected as a Conservative MP in New Brunswick.

Williamson’s bill would deprive any senator or MP convicted of an indictable offence while in office of their public pension.

Unless the current government is as crooked as these four senators, then the bill will pass and he won't get a dime...win-win. no salary and no pension.

One can only hope but given that it's been successive Governments from 1865 till now that have put these hogs at the trough, I really don't think Mr. Harb will go without one penny of his ill gotten pension.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Let's see.

One guy gets a loan and tells everyone about it when he pays off his debt. The other guy gets money from a friend and pays off his debt. But it isn't until AFTER it was found out to be a 'gift' from a friend in the PMO's office that guy #2 tells anyone where he got the money.

Yep, that's certainly the exact same thing...

Your partisanship knows no bounds.

You're comparing two guys that stepped in shit and because you're guy has a little less shit on his shoe, you're making him out to be the better guy....despite the fact that he was the WORST offender with false claims.

Amazing.

[jj2424]

bootlegga bootlegga:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Harb has to pay that loan back, so it is his money. Had it not been discovered, who knows whether or not Duffy would have ever had to pay anything back to Wright.

Harb didn't need to rely on a favour - he manned up and took care of the cost of his expenses himself.

Big difference in my books.

Oh come on boots!

A loan is a loan. They both received favours from friends to get the money to pay back their misdeeds.

Amazing how'll you look to paint the worst offender as some sort of saint because he borrowed his money differently than the others. No partisanship here.

Let's see.

One guy gets a loan and tells everyone about it when he pays off his debt. The other guy gets money from a friend and pays off his debt. But it isn't until AFTER it was found out to be a 'gift' from a friend in the PMO's office that guy #2 tells anyone where he got the money.

Yep, that's certainly the exact same thing...

Give it up you liberal hack.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Let's see.

One guy gets a loan and tells everyone about it when he pays off his debt. The other guy gets money from a friend and pays off his debt. But it isn't until AFTER it was found out to be a 'gift' from a friend in the PMO's office that guy #2 tells anyone where he got the money.

Yep, that's certainly the exact same thing...

Your partisanship knows no bounds.

You're comparing two guys that stepped in shit and because you're guy has a little less shit on his shoe, you're making him out to be the better guy....despite the fact that he was the WORST offender with false claims.

Amazing.

As I have said several times, all four of these people are guilty as hell - but if you choose to focus on only part of my reply, that's your problem not mine.

To me, the effort one makes to make amends counts in the end.

Look at Germany and Japan and their efforts after WW2 to apologize and make amends for their atrocities. Germany worked hard to make amends and Japan swept it under the rug. That's why hardly anyone in Europe is pissed at Germany (at least over events from WW2) these days and most of Asia hates Japan.

[bootlegga]

jj2424 jj2424:

Give it up you liberal hack.

Pot, meet kettle!

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

To me, the effort one makes to make amends counts in the end.

So two guys make "amends" and you just prefer the one guys favour over another?

Harb accepted his loan from a Ottawa businessman and philanthropist who does business with the federal government.

The Business Inn has received annual government contracts worth a total of more than $9.37 million since 2009.

The section of the Criminal Code related to “frauds on government” states a government official — defined as anyone “appointed or elected to discharge a public duty,” such as a senator — cannot accept an “advantage or benefit of any kind” from “a person who has dealings with the government” without written permission from the head of their branch of government. Harb never asked for permission.

So you can crow all you want about Harb being the 'better' of the two failures when in fact, it's quite the opposite. He's the worst offender for false claims and the borrowing of his money appears to be violation of the criminal code.

[Unsound]

bootlegga bootlegga:

[That's why hardly anyone in Europe is pissed at Germany (at least over events from WW2) these days and most of Asia hates Japan.

Most of your post is good, but this made me laugh a bit. My relatives in Denmark pretty much all still hate the germans. Granted, some of it cause they're the americans of europe. Loud, arrogant, etc. But it takes very little scratching to get to the bitterness and anger from the occupation.

It's a while since I've been there, so it's possible that the younger generations aren't as bad, but everyone my age has a grandparent or a parent or some other relative who suffered or died.

My dad's cousin suffered her whole life from various physical and mental ailments brought on by her time in a prison camp. Both my grandfathers were in the resistance. My grandmother would still get shaky 60 years later talking about the SS searching the house and actually looking into the closet were the rifles were hidden.

Sorry, it's a bit of a digression i know, carry on with the senate talk.

[Unsound]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Still, there is hope - you should have read to the end of the article;

$1:

But Thomas said a private member’s bill could soon change that.

It was introduced by John Williamson, a past director of the Taxpayers Federation and one-time spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper who went on to be elected as a Conservative MP in New Brunswick.

Williamson’s bill would deprive any senator or MP convicted of an indictable offence while in office of their public pension.

Unless the current government is as crooked as these four senators, then the bill will pass and he won't get a dime...win-win. no salary and no pension.

But would it apply retroactively?