These are the reasons under the Constitution Act that a senator could be removed:
1. If he or she fails to attend two consecutive sessions of the Senate.
2. If he or she swears allegiance to a foreign power.
3. If he or she is judged bankrupt.
4. If he or she is found to have committed treason or is convicted of a "Felony or of any infamous Crime."
5. If he or she ceases to be qualified in respect to his residence, with the exception that a senator can take up residence in the capital while doing his job.
I would think #4 might eventually be grounds for removal, if he's convicted of the assault charges.
Otherwise, they can serve until age 75. Brazeau was appointed by Harper to one of those "unofficial" 9-year terms, where the person appointed supposedly agreed to step down after 9 years, but since he's now out of the Conservative caucus, I guess Harper won't have much clout with him, so he'll probably stay as long as he can.
chemgal
Posted on: 02/08/2013 15:57
The current rules and 'should' might be two different things though!
I didn't know about the unofficial 9 year terms, that changes things too. Thanks for mentioning that!
ninjafaery
Posted on: 02/08/2013 16:17
Has he not been a "no show" too often as well? Not two full sessions though. That surprises me - it takes that much time away before anyone is removed.
ninjafaery
Posted on: 02/08/2013 16:18
These guys are falling like a house of cards.....
revjohn
Posted on: 02/08/2013 17:35
If only we had a Prime Minister who would reform the Senate and not make a ton of patronage appointments.
Is there a politician who dares to campaign on such a platform?
DKS
Posted on: 02/08/2013 17:51
revjohn wrote:
If only we had a Prime Minister who would reform the Senate and not make a ton of patronage appointments.
Is there a politician who dares to campaign on such a platform?
My goodness. Wasn't that Stephen Harper?
revjohn
Posted on: 02/08/2013 18:14
Hi DKS,
DKS wrote:
My goodness. Wasn't that Stephen Harper?
It it was that would be quite a dent in the integrity.
Grace and peace to you.
John
Mendalla
Posted on: 02/08/2013 19:49
I'm rather in with John Ibbitson's take on the whole current round of Senate controversies from the Globe. Basically, while the Senate may be capable of doing some good, it's being sunk in the public eye by the reprobates in its ranks.
I dunno. Once in awhile they may do something worthwhile, but what use are they in this era of omnibus bills?
Hey-how about that great idea to replace the beaver with the polar bear as our national symbol? We pay serious dollars for this waste.
Sober second thought my ass.
Looking at it from an employment type of standpoint, I was surprised he was kicked out of caucus. Technically, he is still innocent, although I wonder if they know more about the situation. From a PR standpoint I get it.
With the residence controversy, it would be nice to see some real consequences! The most I expect though, is for the housing fund to not be doled out to those who don`t qualify, and maybe some will have to paid back.
revjohn
Posted on: 02/09/2013 14:44
Hi chemgal,
chemgal wrote:
Looking at it from an employment type of standpoint, I was surprised he was kicked out of caucus.
Being kicked out of caucus is not an employment issue. Brazeau simply becomes an independant Senator.
Still, there is an optic issue. Senators Finlay and Gerstein were not removed from caucus when they were charged with violations of the Elections Act spending limits for the 2006 election which first put Harper in the PM's chair.
Perhaps the Conservative party is only tough on some crime?
chemgal wrote:
Technically, he is still innocent, although I wonder if they know more about the situation. From a PR standpoint I get it.
He is as technically innocent as Senators Finlay and Gerstein
chemgal wrote:
With the residence controversy, it would be nice to see some real consequences! The most I expect though, is for the housing fund to not be doled out to those who don`t qualify, and maybe some will have to paid back.
Oddly enough, fudging financials is not one of those crimes that the Conservative party seems to concern itself with. Which is probably why he was not removed from caucus when those allegations came forward and why Senators Finlay and Gerstein continue to belong to the Conservative caucus.
Grace and peace to you.
John
ninjafaery
Posted on: 02/09/2013 16:01
"Oddly enough, fudging financials is not one of those crimes that the Conservative party seems to concern itself with. Which is probably why he was not removed from caucus when those allegations came forward and why Senators Finlay and Gerstein continue to belong to the Conservative caucus."
This is what I find most troubling. It's like some surreal desensitation has taken hold. It stems from the impunity with which so many in this current gov't abuse public funds. Gross dishonesty - criminal activity is being valorized.....no consequences....nothing to see here.
revjohn
Posted on: 02/09/2013 16:09
Hi ninjafaery,
ninjafaery wrote:
This is what I find most troubling. It's like some surreal desensitation has taken hold.
Well, no greater desensitization than the notion that Conservative Governments are always fiscally more responsible. They have managed to snow enough people into thinking that is true.
That con job wouldn't stand up if suddenly you were going after folk in your caucus who were generous with the potions they helped themselves to from the public purse. I suspect that is the nature of the partisan beast. It is only reprehensible when "they" do it and it is nothing important when "we" do it.
ninjafaery wrote:
It stems from the impunity with which so many in this current gov't abuse public funds. Gross dishonesty - criminal activity is being valorized.....no consequences....nothing to see here.
Well, I suppose it is considered a victimless crime right. After all taxpayers aren't people so much as they are revenue generators.
Grace and peace to you.
John
GordW
Posted on: 02/09/2013 16:40
What I found interesting were those who were vociferous in defending Brazeau's presumption of innocence and how unfair it was taht he was removed from caucus. I wonder if they would be nearly as vocal on the same point if it was a member of another party........
ninjafaery
Posted on: 02/09/2013 17:19
Deny and deflect. It seems to me at least that previous gov'ts have been more inclined to try & make timely inquiries - even of possible wrongdoing in their own parties.
This one almost parades it's guilt -- wasting money on lawsuits and appeals. Jeeez. You'd almost think they were hiding something!
graeme
Posted on: 02/09/2013 17:36
The SEnate was formed in the first place because our political leaders of the time, like John A. Macdonald, did not trust the people. The politicians wanted people in the Senate who could be trusted to vote for whatever big business wanted. The idea it was there for sober, second thought was always bilge.
I have had to appear before several senate committtees. Some senators were honest, impartial, thoughtul. But not most. Most were ignorant hacks.
Incidentally, with reference to Conservative financial wisdom, Conservative governments have been the biggest spenders for their time in Canadian history.
(I am not and have never been either a Conservative or a Liberal. And I am profoundly disappointed with the direction the NDP has been sliding in ever since it was founded - and post particularly since the last federal election.).
chemgal
Posted on: 02/09/2013 18:18
revjohn wrote:
Hi chemgal,
chemgal wrote:
Looking at it from an employment type of standpoint, I was surprised he was kicked out of caucus.
Being kicked out of caucus is not an employment issue. Brazeau simply becomes an independant Senator.
John
I agree with that, I was having trouble finding the right wording, which is why I through the word 'type' in there. It's something I would be fully supportive of he was guilty, or even if it was because of something else he has done wrong that at this point isn't officially just speculation.
chemgal
Posted on: 02/09/2013 18:19
Gord, I haven't heard of anyone supporting his innocence. Was there a group in particular that was doing so?
GordW
Posted on: 02/09/2013 22:20
NOt saying he was innocent, saying he should have the benefit of the doubt before being booted from caucus. It was on a Sun News thread in FB somewhere...
mind you some (many) of those comments appeared to be insisting he was set up, some how by supporters of Idle No More. It was Sun News supporters after all....
Rev. Steven Davis
Posted on: 02/09/2013 23:02
It's not a matter of benefit of the doubt. In or out of caucus is strictly a political decision. A political party has the right to decide who it wants in or out of its caucus for whatever reason it decides is appropriate in each case.
ninjafaery
Posted on: 02/12/2013 09:45
This one all but disappeared in the press last week.
Think of all the issues dogging this current "regime" that get buried this way. Fair-sized graveyard, I'd say. Maybe, as has been mentioned, Brazeau was thrown under the bus to divert attention from something more sinister.
Ok - I admit to extreme bias, but with my growing familiarity of the carefully-crafted branding used with genius strategy, I've become a conspiracy theorist. Now you might say that you aren't taken in - large numbers of people are not; but it's all about who this branding benefits or exploits. But I see a scenario similar to that of the US moving North where the middle-aged caucasian men are a becoming a minority. Scares the bejesus out of some, a cause for celebration for many.
So ends the rant.
chemgal
Posted on: 02/12/2013 10:04
When it came to the assault and sexual assault charges, the media here got 2 days worth out of it. I'm sure it would have been more, but few details are known. I'm sure if more was known about the alledged victim, the story would have lasted longer.
Comments
Rev. Steven Davis
Posted on: 02/08/2013 15:51
These are the reasons under the Constitution Act that a senator could be removed:
chemgal
Posted on: 02/08/2013 15:57
The current rules and 'should' might be two different things though!
I didn't know about the unofficial 9 year terms, that changes things too. Thanks for mentioning that!
ninjafaery
Posted on: 02/08/2013 16:17
Has he not been a "no show" too often as well? Not two full sessions though. That surprises me - it takes that much time away before anyone is removed.
ninjafaery
Posted on: 02/08/2013 16:18
These guys are falling like a house of cards.....
revjohn
Posted on: 02/08/2013 17:35
If only we had a Prime Minister who would reform the Senate and not make a ton of patronage appointments.
Is there a politician who dares to campaign on such a platform?
DKS
Posted on: 02/08/2013 17:51
If only we had a Prime Minister who would reform the Senate and not make a ton of patronage appointments.
Is there a politician who dares to campaign on such a platform?
My goodness. Wasn't that Stephen Harper?
revjohn
Posted on: 02/08/2013 18:14
Hi DKS,
My goodness. Wasn't that Stephen Harper?
It it was that would be quite a dent in the integrity.
Grace and peace to you.
John
Mendalla
Posted on: 02/08/2013 19:49
I'm rather in with John Ibbitson's take on the whole current round of Senate controversies from the Globe. Basically, while the Senate may be capable of doing some good, it's being sunk in the public eye by the reprobates in its ranks.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/with-its-reputation-in-tatt...
Mendalla
ninjafaery
Posted on: 02/12/2013 08:59
I dunno. Once in awhile they may do something worthwhile, but what use are they in this era of omnibus bills?
Hey-how about that great idea to replace the beaver with the polar bear as our national symbol? We pay serious dollars for this waste.
Sober second thought my ass.
revjohn
Posted on: 02/08/2013 20:51
I liked Rex Murphy's kick at the Duffer.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/07/rex-murphy-has-words-for-mike-where-d...
chemgal
Posted on: 02/09/2013 10:56
Looking at it from an employment type of standpoint, I was surprised he was kicked out of caucus. Technically, he is still innocent, although I wonder if they know more about the situation. From a PR standpoint I get it.
With the residence controversy, it would be nice to see some real consequences! The most I expect though, is for the housing fund to not be doled out to those who don`t qualify, and maybe some will have to paid back.
revjohn
Posted on: 02/09/2013 14:44
Hi chemgal,
Looking at it from an employment type of standpoint, I was surprised he was kicked out of caucus.
Being kicked out of caucus is not an employment issue. Brazeau simply becomes an independant Senator.
Still, there is an optic issue. Senators Finlay and Gerstein were not removed from caucus when they were charged with violations of the Elections Act spending limits for the 2006 election which first put Harper in the PM's chair.
Perhaps the Conservative party is only tough on some crime?
Technically, he is still innocent, although I wonder if they know more about the situation. From a PR standpoint I get it.
He is as technically innocent as Senators Finlay and Gerstein
With the residence controversy, it would be nice to see some real consequences! The most I expect though, is for the housing fund to not be doled out to those who don`t qualify, and maybe some will have to paid back.
Oddly enough, fudging financials is not one of those crimes that the Conservative party seems to concern itself with. Which is probably why he was not removed from caucus when those allegations came forward and why Senators Finlay and Gerstein continue to belong to the Conservative caucus.
Grace and peace to you.
John
ninjafaery
Posted on: 02/09/2013 16:01
"Oddly enough, fudging financials is not one of those crimes that the Conservative party seems to concern itself with. Which is probably why he was not removed from caucus when those allegations came forward and why Senators Finlay and Gerstein continue to belong to the Conservative caucus."
This is what I find most troubling. It's like some surreal desensitation has taken hold. It stems from the impunity with which so many in this current gov't abuse public funds. Gross dishonesty - criminal activity is being valorized.....no consequences....nothing to see here.
revjohn
Posted on: 02/09/2013 16:09
Hi ninjafaery,
This is what I find most troubling. It's like some surreal desensitation has taken hold.
Well, no greater desensitization than the notion that Conservative Governments are always fiscally more responsible. They have managed to snow enough people into thinking that is true.
That con job wouldn't stand up if suddenly you were going after folk in your caucus who were generous with the potions they helped themselves to from the public purse. I suspect that is the nature of the partisan beast. It is only reprehensible when "they" do it and it is nothing important when "we" do it.
It stems from the impunity with which so many in this current gov't abuse public funds. Gross dishonesty - criminal activity is being valorized.....no consequences....nothing to see here.
Well, I suppose it is considered a victimless crime right. After all taxpayers aren't people so much as they are revenue generators.
Grace and peace to you.
John
GordW
Posted on: 02/09/2013 16:40
What I found interesting were those who were vociferous in defending Brazeau's presumption of innocence and how unfair it was taht he was removed from caucus. I wonder if they would be nearly as vocal on the same point if it was a member of another party........
ninjafaery
Posted on: 02/09/2013 17:19
Deny and deflect. It seems to me at least that previous gov'ts have been more inclined to try & make timely inquiries - even of possible wrongdoing in their own parties.
This one almost parades it's guilt -- wasting money on lawsuits and appeals. Jeeez. You'd almost think they were hiding something!
graeme
Posted on: 02/09/2013 17:36
The SEnate was formed in the first place because our political leaders of the time, like John A. Macdonald, did not trust the people. The politicians wanted people in the Senate who could be trusted to vote for whatever big business wanted. The idea it was there for sober, second thought was always bilge.
I have had to appear before several senate committtees. Some senators were honest, impartial, thoughtul. But not most. Most were ignorant hacks.
Incidentally, with reference to Conservative financial wisdom, Conservative governments have been the biggest spenders for their time in Canadian history.
(I am not and have never been either a Conservative or a Liberal. And I am profoundly disappointed with the direction the NDP has been sliding in ever since it was founded - and post particularly since the last federal election.).
chemgal
Posted on: 02/09/2013 18:18
Hi chemgal,
Looking at it from an employment type of standpoint, I was surprised he was kicked out of caucus.
Being kicked out of caucus is not an employment issue. Brazeau simply becomes an independant Senator.
John
I agree with that, I was having trouble finding the right wording, which is why I through the word 'type' in there. It's something I would be fully supportive of he was guilty, or even if it was because of something else he has done wrong that at this point isn't officially just speculation.
chemgal
Posted on: 02/09/2013 18:19
Gord, I haven't heard of anyone supporting his innocence. Was there a group in particular that was doing so?
GordW
Posted on: 02/09/2013 22:20
NOt saying he was innocent, saying he should have the benefit of the doubt before being booted from caucus. It was on a Sun News thread in FB somewhere...
mind you some (many) of those comments appeared to be insisting he was set up, some how by supporters of Idle No More. It was Sun News supporters after all....
Rev. Steven Davis
Posted on: 02/09/2013 23:02
It's not a matter of benefit of the doubt. In or out of caucus is strictly a political decision. A political party has the right to decide who it wants in or out of its caucus for whatever reason it decides is appropriate in each case.
ninjafaery
Posted on: 02/12/2013 09:45
This one all but disappeared in the press last week.
Think of all the issues dogging this current "regime" that get buried this way. Fair-sized graveyard, I'd say. Maybe, as has been mentioned, Brazeau was thrown under the bus to divert attention from something more sinister.
Ok - I admit to extreme bias, but with my growing familiarity of the carefully-crafted branding used with genius strategy, I've become a conspiracy theorist. Now you might say that you aren't taken in - large numbers of people are not; but it's all about who this branding benefits or exploits. But I see a scenario similar to that of the US moving North where the middle-aged caucasian men are a becoming a minority. Scares the bejesus out of some, a cause for celebration for many.
So ends the rant.
chemgal
Posted on: 02/12/2013 10:04
When it came to the assault and sexual assault charges, the media here got 2 days worth out of it. I'm sure it would have been more, but few details are known. I'm sure if more was known about the alledged victim, the story would have lasted longer.
Ugh! I need to learn to use the reply feature.
ninjafaery
Posted on: 02/12/2013 09:56
http://m.thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/02/11/Senator-Brazeau-Harper-Oust/