Author
|
Topic: Fortier currently ineligible for Senate
|
up
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9143
|
posted 11 February 2006 07:22 AM
Apparently he doesnt own the 4K worth of land as required by our archaic constitution.Which leaves me with a bit of a quandry. Assuming he gets the land somewhat inapproriately, ie, from a Con or a Con backer, or gets the loan to buy the land from a Con or corporate Con backer, should we complain about his circumventing the rules, Or do we say its a stupid rule/law anyway and deserves to be ignored/wored around?
From: other | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 11 February 2006 08:15 AM
Good heavens! How much land is that again? I don't mind seeing Harper embarrassed once more by lack of foresight, but I think I gotta oppose a rule like that. Many years ago, our local citizens' organization was called the Annex Ratepayers' Association. Sometime in the 80s, I think, it finally occurred to all those (notoriously progressive) people that there was something a little undemocratic about both the name and the structure of the organization, so it became the Annex Residents' Association. Quite rightly, too.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 11 February 2006 08:52 AM
Well the Senate, by its very nature, is undemocratic.I think opponents of the Senate can still take pleasure in its unfair rules biting its supporters in the ass without being hypocritical.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604
|
posted 11 February 2006 08:56 AM
He hasn't actually been appointed to the Senate yet. Harper's just announced that he's going to appoint him to the Senate.Seemed pretty obvious to me that it was what Fortier was referring to when saying that there were technical requirements that needed to be fulfilled before he was actually appointed to the Senate. Further note that the requirement for Quebec isn't just $4000 in land, and isn't even just $4000 in land in Quebec, it's $4000 in land in the Senatorial district for which the Senator is appointed. (That rule only applies to Quebec.) Even Senator Delaire had to go out and buy $4000 worth of land just prior to being appointed to the Senate.
From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 11 February 2006 09:13 AM
I was wondering how you expected anyone to answer how much land $4000 is, since it depends so much on where the land is.I imagine at confederation this was quite an obstacle to ordinary people. If it were 4,000 square kilometres it would be 63.25 x 63.25. Or if you prefer, a strip 76 metres wide, stretching from Toronto to Montreal. [ 11 February 2006: Message edited by: RealityBites ]
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 11 February 2006 09:31 AM
Well of course the ownership requirements for the Senate pale beside the cost of running for the Commons. It's a bit more of a complication in Quebec, because their senate seats are divided into 24 ridings.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400
|
posted 11 February 2006 03:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by the grey: Further note that the requirement for Quebec isn't just $4000 in land, and isn't even just $4000 in land in Quebec, it's $4000 in land in the Senatorial district for which the Senator is appointed. (That rule only applies to Quebec.)
Or $4000 anywhere in the province, while residing in that district. 22. In relation to the Constitution of the Senate Canada shall be deemed to consist of Four Divisions:-- 2. Quebec; which Four Divisions shall (subject to the Provisions of this Act) be equally represented in the Senate as follows: Ontario by twenty-four senators; Quebec by twenty-four senators; In the case of Quebec each of the Twenty-four Senators representing that Province shall be appointed for One of the Twenty-four Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada specified in Schedule A. to Chapter One of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada. 23. The Qualification of a Senator shall be as follows: (1) He shall be of the full age of Thirty Years: (2) He shall be either a natural-born Subject of the Queen, or a Subject of the Queen naturalized by an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of One of the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, before the Union, or of the Parliament of Canada, after the Union: (3) He shall be legally or equitably seised as of Freehold for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Free and Common Socage, or seised or possessed for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Franc-alleu or in Roture, within the Province for which he is appointed, of the Value of Four thousand Dollars, over and above all the Rents, Dues, Debts, Charges, Mortgages, and Incumbrances due or payable out of or charged on or affecting the same: (4) His Real and Personal Property shall be together worth Four thousand Dollars over and above his Debts and Liabilities: (5) He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed: (6) In the case of Quebec he shall have his Real Property Qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that Division.
From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400
|
posted 11 February 2006 03:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by 'lance: Damme, where was I?Stollery's Senate appointment, which was supposed to leave the "safe" Liberal riding open for Jim "Bagman" Coutts, actually led to the election of Dan Heap. Equally delish.
Ugh. Dan Heap. Blecchers.
From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717
|
posted 11 February 2006 05:51 PM
$4000 of land - just about enough room for a bus stop, I'd imagine.That's the crazy thing about tradition - obviously the rules have never been updated from the point of inception when $4000 would obviously buy a fair chunk of land, but rather than turf this undemocratic* requirement, they just let it drift on into increasing ridiculousness. *Yeah, I get the irony. Believe me, I get the irony here.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400
|
posted 12 February 2006 12:58 AM
quote: Originally posted by 'lance: His constituents disagreed. They elected him three times running.
Did any of them actually meet the man? God, he was enough to give anyone obsessive-compulsive disorder. Ugh, ugh, UGH.
From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cfkane
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12023
|
posted 13 February 2006 12:14 AM
Well, there was one for David Emerson and now there's one for Michael Fortier. A petition to "recall Michael Fortier" web site gives those who believe his "anointment" should be scrapped can do so now, at:Recall Michael Fortier Perhaps there's hope for democracy yet!
From: North York | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 13 February 2006 12:17 PM
quote: Originally posted by Krago: And the same constituents elected Tony Ianno four times in a row. No accounting for taste...
There is that; I'd forgotten. On the other hand, the riding boundaries were changed in 1987 -- could that partly account for it? I don't know, though I imagine some Toronto babblers could hazard a guess. [ 13 February 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874
|
posted 13 February 2006 03:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by RealityBites: I was wondering how you expected anyone to answer how much land $4000 is, since it depends so much on where the land is.I imagine at confederation this was quite an obstacle to ordinary people. If it were 4,000 square kilometres it would be 63.25 x 63.25. Or if you prefer, a strip 76 metres wide, stretching from Toronto to Montreal. [ 11 February 2006: Message edited by: RealityBites ]
So, which senator owns Highway 401?
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
margrace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6191
|
posted 13 February 2006 03:31 PM
off topic a bit but I was just wondering. Last night I could not get into either the Emmerson or fortier polls. I was told that it was something to do with me. This morning I could get into the Emmerson one but not the Fortier. Evidently although my email address was okay for Emmerson it was not for Fortier. So I went in and reposted it, I still can't get in Wrong address. What is going on???
From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064
|
posted 13 February 2006 05:06 PM
quote: Originally posted by West Coast Greeny: So, which senator owns Highway 401?
Actually, Peter Stollery officially represents the Senate district of "Bloor and Yonge", while Senator Anne Cools has grander ambitions. If our new Prime Minister wanted to give Toronto a cabinet seat, and increase his female and VM presence at the same time, he could have made Sen. Cools a Cabinet minister. The fact that she is a noxious homophobe probably wouldn't have been a drawback for him.
From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 13 February 2006 05:12 PM
quote: I used to be a friend of Dan Heap while I was at Trinity College (late 1970's). What's your problem with him? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Just makes my skin crawl.
I guess Pebbles has a problem with principled self-sacrificing, hard-working people who give their lives to fighting for peace and social justice.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400
|
posted 13 February 2006 11:37 PM
quote: Originally posted by Bacchus:
Hmm not if non-MPs/senators have been given cabinet seats in the last 50years or so. Be interesting to find out. A strong tradition does not meet common law requirements if there were exceptions.
Non-MPs have been, BUT, they have always run for election to my knowledge, and resigned if they fail to get elected. Someone is free to demonstrate otherwise. I don't know of any exceptions. The tradition is part of the common law of Parliament, and a constitutional convention.
From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400
|
posted 14 February 2006 02:09 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: The only politician you seem to worship is that creepy homophobic Liberal MP from Labrador
Creepy and homophobic, eh? quote: who fortunately dropped dead
Nice. Real class act, there, Stockholm? quote: before being able to shit on the gays and lesbians of Canada by casting a shameful vote in favour of hate. I'm sure the guy is roasting in Hell as we speak for having dedicated his pathetic political career to trying strip other people of their human rights.
You are hereby challenged to produce ONE WORD -- just one -- from the dead man's mouth that would justify this statement, or do the decent thing -- if you have any decency, which is highly doubtful -- and retract your statement. One word, let alone "dedicated is pathetic political career". One word, asshole. One word.
From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400
|
posted 14 February 2006 02:19 PM
Incidentally, Stockholm, you sack of -- never mind -- are you confusing the late Lawrence O'Brien with Pat O'Brien? Because it would be really embarassing on your part if you were.I repeat my challenge: find one word that Lawrence O'Brien ever had to say about gays, lesbians, or same-sex marriage. Thank you.
From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 14 February 2006 02:24 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: I'm sure the guy is roasting in Hell as we speak for having dedicated his pathetic political career to trying strip other people of their human rights.
It seems more like he dedicated it to avoiding voting on gay issues. He voted for the 1999 Reform motion on marriage and for the Modernization of Benefits Act, as did almost all Liberals, except for the rabid so-cons. He was absent for C250, the Alliance's 2003 repeat of the 1999 motion, and the 1996 Human Rights Act amendment. Egale's site has no quotes from Hansard for him. He doesn't seem to have been an advocate for gay issues, but I can think of lots of Liberals who are much worse. Is there something I missed?
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 14 February 2006 03:23 PM
quote: I repeat my challenge: find one word that Lawrence O'Brien ever had to say about gays, lesbians, or same-sex marriage.
According to the Egale website, he was on record as being adamantly opposed to same sex marriage and as being a rock solid NO vote. When he died, it meant one less vote for the NO side. Perhaps you can enlighten us on why this guy had such a pathological need to make sure that gays and lesbians were to be treated as second class citizens. I apologize for wishing someone dead. As it happens, the SSM bill passed by a wide enough margin that even his homophobic machinations would not have been enough to stop it.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400
|
posted 14 February 2006 03:41 PM
quote: Originally posted by RealityBites: He was absent for C250, the Alliance's 2003 repeat of the 1999 motion
Having cancer is a pretty good excuse for being away from the House. quote: He doesn't seem to have been an advocate for gay issues, but I can think of lots of Liberals who are much worse. Is there something I missed?
You haven't missed as much as Stockholm.
From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400
|
posted 14 February 2006 03:44 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: According to the Egale website, he was on record as being adamantly opposed to same sex marriage and as being a rock solid NO vote.
Does EGALE use the words "adamantly opposed" and "rock solid NO"? Or are those your editorial comments? quote: Perhaps you can enlighten us on why this guy had such a pathological need to make sure that gays and lesbians were to be treated as second class citizens.
Perhaps, asswipe -- and that's too nice a word for you, as an insult to toilet paper -- you can explain where the phoque you get off saying the man had a "pathological need" for anything? How do you know? [quoet]I apologize for wishing someone dead. As it happens, the SSM bill passed by a wide enough margin that even his homophobic machinations would not have been enough to stop it.[/QUOTE] What "homophobic machinations"? Please find me just ONE word from his own mouth which supports your theory. Not from the EGALE site -- from Hansard, from the web, from anywhere. One word, you coward. One word.
From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 14 February 2006 03:47 PM
quote: Having cancer is a pretty good excuse for being away from the House.
he incdicated to Egale that he was implacably opposed to equal marriage and was going vote against it. If you have information to the contrary, please share it and I will forgive him posthumously. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to have opposed equal marriage, other than total hatred of gays and lesbians. If he indicated that he planned to vote NO, he was ipso-facto and man of hate.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400
|
posted 17 February 2006 12:01 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: he incdicated to Egale that he was implacably opposed to equal marriage and was going vote against it.
Provide the source. Thank you. What jumps out at me on the Google cache of the page (the original is now taken down) is his Yes vote on C-23. "Ipso-facto a man of hate"? Ipso-facto, you are an idiot.
quote: There is absolutely no reason for anyone to have opposed equal marriage, other than total hatred of gays and lesbians. If he indicated that he planned to vote NO, he was ipso-facto and man of hate.
That's the stupidest fucking logic I have ever heard. Do you know, for example, that Lawrence O'Brien had, before his death, given his tacit support to Todd Russell to succeeed him if he were to die? Man of hate? You don't know the first goddamn thing what you're talking about. Why don't you do the honourable thing -- if you have any honour in you, you lying slandering bag of scum -- and admit it. The target of your lies is no longer able to defend himself. You are a spineless coward.
From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238
|
posted 17 February 2006 07:38 PM
L_W_N_D, you might want to check out this recent thread, where people are discussing the questions you've raised here (not that we can't discuss them here as well): I'm confused about Lillian Dyck.. is she an NDP senator??? [ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: obscurantist ]
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|