|
The Canadian politics thread (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
didn't they let it pass (for now)?
Once again, another bull "confidence motion" label is placed on an issue that is NOT a confidence item. The CPC know it has no chance of passing in the House otherwise...so the typical tactic is used to bully through their agenda, despite minority support for it.
pathetic. |
it's a perfectly valid parliamentary tactic.
it really doesn't matter how a bill is packaged. the PM can decide any bill is a confidence vote, because it's up to him to call an election anytime he wants pretty much |
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^ not anymore. The CPC introduced fixed election dates to eliminate the ability of a sitting gov't to call elections whenever they want (i.e. during a time of high support or low opposition support) in order to extend their mandate.
| quote: | | The bill was one of the democratic reforms originally promised by the Harper conservatives during the 2006 election campaign. Rob Nicholson, the past minister for democratic reform who introduced the bill, said that the new law will make elections fairer for all parties: "fixed election dates will improve the fairness of Canada's electoral system by eliminating the ability of governing parties to manipulate the timing of elections for partisan advantage." |
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Fixed_e...deral_elections
(laugh at the wiki reference, but the quote from Nicholson is the point).
So...the point was essentially to force a gov't to play fair and not take advantage of the current political climate. Regardless of whether the party is power is enjoying soaring support or the opposition is a mess, you can't just call an opportunistic election. Should this underlying principle of 'fair play' not be the current case when the opposition is in a weak position too? Is this not circumventing the very foundation behind fixed election dates?
You can't make everything a confidence motion and say "go ahead, trigger an election" because that's essentially giving the sitting gov't the very same ability they possessed before fixed election dates were introduced, so long as the opposition isn't in a position to win.
it's a very similar issue and the CPC is abusing the 'confidence motion' process for partisan advantage and circumventing the will of Parliament under the guise of "well, the opposition COULD topple us", knowing that it won't happen.
You have a MAJORITY of MPs opposing or supporting a motion/bill, but the CPC disagrees, so they make it a confidence motion, knowing the opposition is not *really* in a position to do anything about it.
That's CPC hypocrisy at its finest. Under the guise of desiring to clean up abusive practices from one angle, they simply engage in different abusive practices from another. The end result is the same. The sitting gov't is circumventing natural gov't procedure to advance it's MINORITY agenda.
And that's what's even worse here. If a majority gov't acts the way the CPC does, people cry abuse, but at least recognize that the gov't has a majority mandate from the people. Here, we have a MINORITY gov't with near carte blanche to implement and reject whatever it wishes?
ridiculous.
I blame the opposition for being so weak too...this situation is as much their fault as the CPC.
I blame the CPC because they came into office with promises of transparency and accountability and removing power from the gov't. The opposite is true. The gov't is centralizing power in the PMO office, giving ministers more power than ever (and gagging them, no less) with Bill C-10 tax credit issue that artists are crying about this week, the immigration policies on the table, the quashing of the RESP bill THAT PASSED IN PARLIAMENT, etc. |
|
|
| angrypole |
| Canadian policy making in general could use a healthy injection of good old malthusianism, thats my only thought on the subject. Same can be said for western europe. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Zoning patchwork frustrates propane regulation
Despite city hall's promises, moving facilities away from residential areas may not take place until new bylaw is previewed next year
Pledges to move or close down major propane storage sites like the one that blew up on Sunday, resulting in the deaths of two people, were promptly offered yesterday at city hall.
But they will be difficult to execute, experts said, in part because the city has yet to combine its zoning systems (and their 43 different bylaws) into a single planning regime, more than 10 years after the amalgamation of Toronto, York, East York, North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough and Metro into one city. A single, overarching bylaw will be previewed next year, but until then, any changes won't be easy.
"That's why we're doing this project. ... I was hoping to get this done before things like this happened again," said Joe D'Abramo, the city's director of zoning bylaw and environmental planning, who is heading the five-year task of combining the rules - a metre-high stack of papers weighing 35 kilograms.
"I know they're getting anxious, but if we can get the one single [zoning] bylaw through, it makes it easier to amend for all kinds of issues," he said.
Mayor David Miller pledged yesterday to do whatever he can to examine the proximity of propane storage sites to homes and apartments. But changes to such industrial zoning, to be rebranded as "employment" zoning in the new plan, wouldn't touch the city's existing 73 propane sites, five of which are as big as Sunrise Propane, the site of Sunday's explosion. Only changes to the provincial Technical Standards and Safety Authority Act, which shares a name with the arm's-length agency that enforces it, would alter enforcement of safety issues.
John Marshall, director of the TSSA's fuel safety program, declined to list the five Toronto companies of the same scale as Sunrise, but stood by the safety record of his 40-investigator team.
"To point fingers at anybody at this point, we just don't know," he said. "We have a significant, robust safety system in place today."
There are only a handful of regulations on such propane-storage sites. The city says any industrial building can be no closer than three metres to any home or apartment, while the province says any propane tank must be 25 feet (7.62 metres) from the nearest home, and 300 feet from the nearest school. The TSSA also inspects sites every three years.
Sunrise Propane's Downsview site satisfied all such regulations, Mr. Marshall said. The company also had a valid and government-registered emergency response plan, which lays out courses of action in case of disaster, Transport Canada confirmed yesterday.
About 12,000 people were evacuated after Sunday's explosion, and all but a handful were back yesterday. The casualty count was surprisingly low for such an enormous explosion: A body was removed from the rubble yesterday, and Toronto firefighter Bob Leek collapsed at the scene Sunday.
The Ontario Fire Marshal, Ministry of Labour, Coroner and TSSA are all investigating.
Public outcry followed, as displaced residents and others called for action. Foremost among critics yesterday was Brian Patterson, president of the Ontario Safety League, which typically addresses road safety. This time, though, it was personal - Mr. Patterson said he served as a reservist with Mr. Leek, and he singled out the TSSA.
"It's absolutely insane, and woefully inadequate if you've set yourself up as the public safety watchdog for that industry sector," Mr. Patterson said. "I think what this has shown us is the approved regulator may well be asleep at the switch."
The short-term solution for the city could be an interim control bylaw, which would block approval of any new sites while staff figures out what to do next, said Ted Davidson, a former manager of the Toronto planning department. All existing propane sites could continue to operate. The city has little power to move them, he said, but could prevent new ones.
But the old cities of York and Toronto tried that two decades ago. In 1987, York tried to regulate the capacity height, spacing, and buffering of propane tanks, city lawyer John Paton said yesterday. That bylaw was challenged by the propane industry and the province (which didn't want the city stepping on its regulatory toes), and struck down. A similar Toronto bylaw was killed soon after.
This time around, councillors including Karen Stintz are in favour of the interim bylaw, but want to wait until the cause of Sunday's fire is released before taking long-term action.
"We need to understand what caused the explosion to understand how we can best move to protect the residents of Toronto," said Ms. Stintz (Ward 16, Eglinton-Lawrence).
That moment's pause doesn't please Mr. Patterson.
"That must be incredible comfort to the 12,000 people who were evacuated. I mean, come on. Let's get people at the table ready to make those changes," he said. |
One facility blows up, and they want to move all of them! Ha. I guess we should also take out all the natural gas pipes running under our houses.
I guess it is good that it brought more spotlight on to Toronto's Bylaw problems, but could we not have a less destructive catalyst? |
|
|
| djeso |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I can't even participate here, lol...I get too worked up.
Suffice to say that I'm pretty disgusted with the CPC these days.
Offering a man dying of cancer a million dollars insurance policy for his family to vote with them...leaking a memo that impacts another country's election process...firing the head of an arms length nuclear watchdog agency because your own minister can't take responsibility for his portfolio...failing to act on a 15 yr old who's been held without due process for over 5 years, but now immediately intervening in a case in the middle east.
As far am concerned, Harper acts like a smug, deceitful, hypocritical piece of . I can't CALL him that or he might sue me! (even though he should be focusing on cleaning up the garbage in his own party).
I'm even more disappointed by the ineptitude of the Liberal Party to put themselves in a position to step up and turf the CPC from office. |
why you always pin pointing all the negatives :rolleyes: how about pointing out achievements for a change, I feel for you having such a negative mindset.
Bottom line is people will always find something negative about somebody, instead of crying whining, go do something about it. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by djeso
why you always pin pointing all the negatives :rolleyes: how about pointing out achievements for a change, I feel for you having such a negative mindset.
Bottom line is people will always find something negative about somebody, instead of crying whining, go do something about it. |
only 4 months later, you have an issue with my post? LOL!
so what exactly do you suggest?
I disagree wtih the GST cut...so now what? I disagree with letting the U.S. admin flaunt international law and our Gov't not demanding a trial for Arar or releasing him to Canadian authorities. What can I do that hasn't been done? I disagree with the lack of movement on environmental policy of the CPC. What should I do?
I did not, and will not, vote for Harper and I'm a card-carrying member and supporter of the federal Liberal Party. I HAVE voted PC in the past, so I'm not a blind Liberal supporter.
Not much else I can do about a PM that consolidates power within his office and whose achievements I find significantly lacking in comparison to his many shortcomings. I disagree with a chunck of the CPC's policies and legislation thus far and take issue with the hypocrisy of campaigning on "transparency and accountability", but then doing the opposite.
I'm just curious...but what have you personally done about what you like/don't like with the current and past governments?
If you're answer is "not bitch about it on a music forum", consider that if anyone's opinion is impacted by my posts at all, and they switch sides when voting or get out and vote against the CPC when they didn't before, then it's worthwhile.
and there's nothing wrong with debate for the sake of debate. |
|
|
| Yohan |
Please welcome Mike Duffy as a Senator of Canada :haha:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...tory/Front/home
| quote: | Duffy, Wallin, Greene among 18 new Senators
BILL CURRY
Globe and Mail Update
December 22, 2008 at 7:01 PM EST
OTTAWA — Career broadcaster Mike Duffy, his former colleague Pamela Wallin and Olympic athletic icon Nancy Greene are headed to the Senate as Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed Monday that he is filling all 18 current vacancies, triggering a debate over patronage as the fate of his government hangs in the balance.
Mr. Duffy currently hosts a daily political news show on CTV called Mike Duffy Live. Ms. Wallin was also a prominent figure at CTV and CBC before being named consul-general to New York by the former Liberal government.
Ms. Greene helped break the European stranglehold on downhill skiing by winning a gold medal at the 1968 Winter Olympics. She was named Canada's female athlete of the 20th century in a vote by Canadian Press members and will take a seat in Parliament just before her province hosts the Olympics.
Both Mr. Duffy and Ms. Wallin have agreed to join the Conservative caucus and have pledged to oppose the proposed coalition of opposition parties threatening to unseat the government next month.
The basic annual salary for an appointee is $130,400 until they retire or reach age 75, followed by a very comfortable pension — and both are indexed to inflation.
Mr. Harper has always believed senators should be elected and he refrained from filling most vacancies while trying to make the upper chamber more democratic. Those efforts ran into roadblocks erected in Parliament and by Ontario and Quebec.
Liberal-affiliated senators had occupied 58 of the seats, while 20 were held by Conservatives.
Mr. Harper's timing, just before Christmas when most Canadians are preoccupied with holiday cheer rather than politics, suggests the government isn't anxious to showcase the appointments.
Opposition parties have questioned whether Mr. Harper has the political legitimacy for a patronage spree, having averted the almost-certain defeat of his minority government in the Commons only by suspending Parliament until the new year.
And the Prime Minister himself has admitted he takes no joy in having to stack the Senate, a move seen by some as tantamount to waving a white flag of surrender on his dream of reforming the chamber.
“I've waited for three years,” he noted in a recent TV interview.
“We've invited the provinces to hold elections. We've put an electoral bill before the House of Commons. But for the most part, neither in Parliament nor in the provinces has there been any willingness to move forward on reform.”
Until now Mr. Harper had appointed only two senators — Alberta's Bert Brown, victor of a Senate election in his province, and Michael Fortier, who got the plum so that Mr. Harper could have a minister from Montreal in his first-term cabinet.
The other appointments announced Monday are: -Former Conservative MP Fabian Manning will represent Newfoundland - Fred Dickson, a lawyer - Stephen Green, a former chief of staff to Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald - Michael MacDonald, a Nova Scotia businessman with ties to the Conservative party - Percy Mockler, a former Conservative MLA in New Brunswick - John Wallace, a former Conservative party candidate and lawyer who has represented Irving Oil - Patrick Brazeau, the national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, a group representing off-reserve aboriginals that has been largely supportive of the Harper government - Suzanne Fortin-Duplesis, the first woman elected to the Municipal Council of Sainte-Foy and a former MP for Louis-Hebert from 1984 to 1993 - Leo Housakos, the co-founder of the Montreal Hellenic Chamber of Commerce - Michel Rivard, a former Parti Quebecois MNA for Limoilou, Que. who joined the Canadian Alliance under Stockwell Day - Nicole Eaton, director and vice-chair of the National Ballet of Canada - Irving Gersetein, an Ontario business man and chair of the Conservative Party's fundraising organization, the Conservative Fund of Canada.
- Yonah Martin, a former Conservative candidate in New Westminster-Coquitlam - Richard Neufeld, B.C.'s minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Services - Hector Daniel Lang, a former Yukon MLA With a report from Canadian Press |
Man. Why can't I score a cushy job like this?
At least Mike Duffy is a smart man. I'm going to miss his show though. I doubt he can be taken serious as neutral pundit now. |
|
|
| MarkT |
so much for only naming elected officials to the Senate. So much for Senate reform.
the CPC hypocrisy continues. nothing new, carry on.
oh right...he only did this because if the 'undemocratic' coalition takes power, it would fill the vacancies with its 'friends'. So before it *maybe* takes power and *maybe* does something Harper views as "wrong"...Harper preemptively does something he himself claims to be wrong.
lol |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
so much for only naming elected officials to the Senate. So much for Senate reform.
|
the senate reform didnt happen because none of the other 3 parties would get on board |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
the senate reform didnt happen because none of the other 3 parties would get on board |
Incorrect, the last senator that the Cons appointed was first vetted by way of a provincial election. The other parties don't have an option to veto senate appointments, even in a minority government. Senate reform in practice (electing senators) hasn't happened because Conservatives have not had a lock on support for their perspective senators in the provinces they would be representing and thus could not ensure their partisans would get the nod. Now, Harper has appointed these senators because he fears he may lose his chance. Besides, real senate reform (the proposed triple E) cannot be done without a constitutional amendment... and no one has the balls to even consider opening up the constitution.
I support Harper making the senate appointments; even though it acts as yet another example that all the Conservative principles that they fought for while in opposition are expendable once in power... in short; the Conservatives are just another brokerage party. Alas, the very reason for the senate being appointed by the government of the day but having "life long" tenure was to smooth out the instability of short term shifts in government. The Senate exists as mitigating force, to act as a check on the more volatile house... an anchor on the house left by the previous couple of regimes. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
...I support Harper making the senate appointments; even though it acts as yet another example that all the Conservative principles that they fought for while in opposition are expendable once in power... |
and that's the only point I was making. every gov't has recommended/appointed it's own Senators and I expected no different from this one. I doubt the NDP challenge to these appointments will go anywhere.
it's just funny...and yet another example of the CPC doing *exactly* what it campaigned against in the first place (as every other gov't does). let's just stop pretending Harper and the CPC are any more noble or different than previous adminstrations.
What annoys me is that the CPC just doesn't admit it. Now, it's about 'the elected gov't' appointing Senators instead of 'an unelected coalition' doing so. Riiiiight. it's about stacking the Senate with your people rather then letting someone else insert their people. nothing more, nothing less. why can't they just say so? That so many idiots buy into that is what bothers me...not that it's being done (becuse it's always been done that way). The spin is ridiculous...
edit: from an editorial in the evil liberal Toronto Star:
| quote: | | Harper whined on the weekend that he wanted to appoint elected people to the Senate but the provinces wouldn't go along with him, so he had no choice. But one is reminded of what Mulroney said to then prime minister John Turner about Senate appointments in a televised debate: "You had an option, sir. You could have said 'I'm not going to do that, it's wrong for Canada.'" |
|
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Incorrect, the last senator that the Cons appointed was first vetted by way of a provincial election. The other parties don't have an option to veto senate appointments, even in a minority government. Senate reform in practice (electing senators) hasn't happened because Conservatives have not had a lock on support for their perspective senators in the provinces they would be representing and thus could not ensure their partisans would get the nod. Now, Harper has appointed these senators because he fears he may lose his chance. Besides, real senate reform (the proposed triple E) cannot be done without a constitutional amendment... and no one has the balls to even consider opening up the constitution.
I support Harper making the senate appointments; even though it acts as yet another example that all the Conservative principles that they fought for while in opposition are expendable once in power... in short; the Conservatives are just another brokerage party. Alas, the very reason for the senate being appointed by the government of the day but having "life long" tenure was to smooth out the instability of short term shifts in government. The Senate exists as mitigating force, to act as a check on the more volatile house... an anchor on the house left by the previous couple of regimes. |
I meant not just for present govt, but for future as well, meaning, passing a legislation making it a law that Senators are elected |
|
|
|
|
