Bill C-231

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

If the Liberals have a majority in the Commons, a Conservative-dominated Senate would be very unlikely to block any bill they passed ... it is very rare for the Senate to block a bill passed by the Commons for the simple reason that the Senate is well aware it is an unelected body.

When was the last time the Senate actually blocked government legislation?

---

Not government legislation but PMB C-290 Single Game Betting. They've held it up - for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Not sure how Mulcair uses tax payer money?

---

Well it sounds like the RCMP may soon be asked to find out ....he's skating on the issue for sure :)

Quote:

---

Police may yet be called in to investigate dozens of New Democrat MPs who used taxpayers' dollars to pay the salaries of aides working in satellite party offices.Well-placed sources say referring the matter to the police is an option that has been considered in the past by members of the board of internal economy, the multi-party committee that oversees House of Commons spending.
And they say it's still a "live" option that could be employed if the NDP continues to thumb its nose at the board, which has ordered 68 MPs to personally repay a total of $2.75 million.

Multiple sources spoke to The Canadian Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for the ultra-secretive board.
The board ruled last August that New Democrat MPs improperly pooled money from their Commons office budgets to pay the salaries of 28 staffers working in satellite party offices in Montreal, Quebec City and Toronto.

---

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02...n_6741498.html

Forgot about that little "misunderstanding"......LoL. Isn't Mulcairs response to this ruling the same damned thing as Duffy's lawyers are spinning? Funny that eh.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fishy Wishy

Which is what makes me wonder. "What exactly is the Senate doing?"

---

Finding creative ways to expense things, as far as I can tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fishy Wishy

Can I save this and bring it up next year, or whenever they make their move?

---

Go right ahead. If they make a move, it will be because the polls tell them there's political advantage to be gained.

That was ultimately why they brought in C-68.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Because you asked...recent memory was the Union Disclosure Bill in 2013. Interestingly it was a Conservative bill too !!

---

Actually, the bill in question was amended and passed by the Senate. Because it was amended, it had to go back to the Commons. And it was a private member's bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Interesting link says there were 672 times the senators have stopped a bill for one reason or another.

---

Actually, no. Read the link: those are Senate bills not passed by the Senate. That is, legislation originating in the Senate that was not passed by the Senate. Senate bills are numbered with an S (S-231), while bills originating in the House of Commons are numbered with a C.

You can find a list of bills referred to the other house that were not passed ... and there will be quite a few Commons bills that died in Senate committee when Parliament was prorogued -- which of course is controlled by the Prime Minister. All kinds of stuff dies in committee, thanks to all the nonsense bills clogging up the order paper, introduced by members riding their favourite hobby horses.

But finding a government bill passed in the Commons that was then rejected by the Senate? That's a rare occurrence. Especially if it's something the government had fought an election campaign on. If the Liberals do make gun control a campaign issue, then the Senate blocking their bill would give us a constitutional crisis.

Thanks Welsh, you are helping clear these convoluted waters we numpty's are trying to understand. I get the fact no party will run on drastic gun control unless they believe they will gain politically from them but I fear they will bring them in anyway and hope the public forgets before the next election. You know ( hidden agenda) lol.
So for arguments sake lets say Harper ekes out a minority, and the coalition of losers decide they want to run the show, how would the senate proceed with passing bills brought forth by an unelected government. Just thinking out loud here.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Actually, the bill in question was amended and passed by the Senate. Because it was amended, it had to go back to the Commons. And it was a private member's bill.

---

I missed that it finally made it thru the Senate back this past Apr....

But like you said..eventually, for the most part, they all do once amended: “As per Parliamentary convention, we expect that the Senate will respect the will of the House of Commons should the bill be returned to the Senate”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

So for arguments sake lets say Harper ekes out a minority, and the coalition of losers decide they want to run the show,

---

It'll be interesting to see how a coalition will be formed ....this past week the pundits are toying with the concept that it may end up being the NDP sitting in the birds seat. The Liberals are sliding fast and the "Anything but Harper Vote" may go orange...would be a hoot !!!

It's ok for Muclair he's NDP. My understanding is Liberals / NDP and supporters are above the law. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Forgot about that little "misunderstanding"......LoL. Isn't Mulcairs response to this ruling the same damned thing as Duffy's lawyers are spinning? Funny that eh.......

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

Justin Trudeau has talked about the "need" to "reclassify firearms to make Canada safer".... think all semi-auto firearms (rifle or shotgun) in the same category as the AK-47....

and look at his comments on the changes to modernize the Authorization to Transport on C-42.

https://www.liberal.ca/lpc-opposes-cpc-gun-bill/

"“First, it eliminates the need for owners of prohibited and restricted firearms to have a transportation license to carry those guns in their vehicles. This means they could freely transport handguns or automatic weapons anywhere within their province, whether to a grocery store or a soccer field."
Fear mongering gone nutso!

---

I read this yesterday too. It's amazing that they can just flat out lie like this. I mean really, there's no bending the truth or embellishment. It's just a straight up lie. I said it in one of my previous posts and it's true. I feel like I've experienced an awakening. It scares me that I was so easily fooled in the past. To think that the other sheep of the world just swallow what they are fed is terrifying. Not just about guns, but with everything. I'm sure it's done on both sides too. All I have to say is that I'm going to be much for informed about things from now on before forming an opinion.

As for the gun registry... any bets it still exists in some form or another.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle24965632/

"Federal information commissioner Suzanne Legault is seeking a court order to preserve any remaining records from the now-defunct long gun registry, part of a wider court challenge contesting the RCMP’s handling of records under the Access to Information Act."