Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 10958621)

What I am accusing Harper of doing is neither here nor there. What Duffy and Wallin have come as close as they dare to accusing Harper of doing is lying about his lack of knowledge of, or involvement in, the threats to have them thrown out of the Senate unless they bow to his will, and in Duffy's case of lying about his lack of involvement in or knowledge of the "scenario" of the $90k cheque written by Wright. If there is convincing evidence that Harper was a party to those negotiations - which he has categorically and frequently denied on the floor of the House - then that is a very serious matter indeed.

Threats to remove the whip are one thing: threats to have a Senator hounded out of office altogether, threatening their livelihood, is quite another. And if he has abused Parliament by repeatedly telling untruths on the floor of the Chamber, he cannot continue to sit as an MP, let alone as PM.

Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 10958621)

What I am accusing Harper of doing is neither here nor there. What Duffy and Wallin have come as close as they dare to accusing Harper of doing is lying about his lack of knowledge of, or involvement in, the threats to have them thrown out of the Senate unless they bow to his will, and in Duffy's case of lying about his lack of involvement in or knowledge of the "scenario" of the $90k cheque written by Wright. If there is convincing evidence that Harper was a party to those negotiations - which he has categorically and frequently denied on the floor of the House - then that is a very serious matter indeed.

Threats to remove the whip are one thing: threats to have a Senator hounded out of office altogether, threatening their livelihood, is quite another. And if he has abused Parliament by repeatedly telling untruths on the floor of the Chamber, he cannot continue to sit as an MP, let alone as PM.

Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 10958621)

What I am accusing Harper of doing is neither here nor there. What Duffy and Wallin have come as close as they dare to accusing Harper of doing is lying about his lack of knowledge of, or involvement in, the threats to have them thrown out of the Senate unless they bow to his will, and in Duffy's case of lying about his lack of involvement in or knowledge of the "scenario" of the $90k cheque written by Wright. If there is convincing evidence that Harper was a party to those negotiations - which he has categorically and frequently denied on the floor of the House - then that is a very serious matter indeed.

Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 10958621)

Threats to remove the whip are one thing: threats to have a Senator hounded out of office altogether, threatening their livelihood, is quite another.

Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 10958621)

And if he has abused Parliament by repeatedly telling untruths on the floor of the Chamber, he cannot continue to sit as an MP, let alone as PM.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10958732)

How does the term of a Senator come to an end? I believed it was similar to the House of Lords whereby, once appointed, one remained until one dies or chooses to leave.

Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10958757)

Traditionally, a Senator remains so until s/he's 75. Wallin is an exception (likely not the only one) who agreed to an eight year term. She was appointed (by Harper) in 2009 and pledged to step down in 2017 or whenever Saskatchewan holds it's first election to the Senate.

This may partially explain the hostility from Senator LeBreton et al.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10958777)

Thank you. I didnt know that. Does anyone have the power to dismiss them (other than for non party disciplinary matters)?

Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10958793)

Yes. The Senate itself can suspend/dismiss a member after due process which means bringing evidence for debate in the House and allowing the target to defend themselves with legal representation at the bar.

There was a Liberal Senator who was kicked out this way because he lived in Mexico and never attended Senate for several years. No problem with that.

There's never been any sort of precedent for kicking 3 Senators out in a single vote for unproven "gross negligence", the details of which three (very different) charges have not been presented in evidence in the Senate Chamber itself.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10958800)

OK

Have 3 been kicked out by an entity other than the Senate? Or has the Senate done so without due process? As you may notice, I have not been following this.

Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10958831)

FFS you're the lawyer. ;)

Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10958831)

FFS you're the lawyer. ;)

As I said, no. There is no precedent.

Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10958831)

Edited to helpfully add: Harper's screwed both ways. Either the amendment passes, in which case he's lost control, or the Senate motion passes, in which case one of more of the victims will take it to court. Then Wright, perhaps Harper himself, will either have to admit the truth or commit perjury. Lose-lose. Dead meat.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10958884)

I wasn't referring to precedent, I was talking about recently. You post made it sound as if 3 have already been kicked out. Having just watched the news, it appears that this is not the case.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10958884)

I wasn't referring to precedent, I was talking about recently. You post made it sound as if 3 have already been kicked out. Having just watched the news, it appears that this is not the case.

Originally Posted by montreal mike (Post 10958933)

...
and the comments she makes about deloitte, if accurate, are mind boggling (as any bean-counter with half a brain will conclude)

Interestingly, I've had several independent auditors tell me they were shocked that Deloitte would agree to audit my expenses under rules that were not in place when those expenses were incurred.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10...n_4151560.html