Subject:
|
Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 May 2003 16:36:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
538 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lester Witter writes:
> !!!
> >
> > > The issue I see today with you Yanks is that when your senate and house and
> > > pres are all of one party, where does the 'sober second thought' come in?
>
>
> I thought that in a parlimentary type government like in Canada and many
> European countries, the Prime Minister and the parliment are from the same
> party (unless no one has a majority and then there is a coalition)
>
> Lester
The Party that has the most seats in the house are 'in power', and the party
in Power has the PM--PM's are voted on by the party.
The senate in Canada, on the other hand, are appointees. When a seat
becomes vacant, whichever PM is in power appoints a new senator (iirc).
Senate seats, in todays Canadian parliament, are life-appointments (again,
iirc). So the senate can consist of people from all the parties that have
been in power over the years--basically liberals and progressive
conservatives, with, I believe, a high slant towards liberals.
So members of parliament introduce bills, the bills are debated, and then
voted on. Now this is something I'm not totally sure of, but I don't think
our PM has a "veto" in the way the president does. The PM does, however,
lead his party, and if his party has a majority gov't (not just 50+1, but
more votes than all other parties combined), then his party can pass
whatever bills it wishes.
The senate has the final word, however. They do have the ability to shoot
down any bills passed in the house. Now the last time they did actually
'vetoed' a bill--well, I've never heard of when.
Hence many Canadians say that our senate needs reform. In order to do so,
however, bills have to get past the senate ;)
For the most bit, we don't worry about it. Certain times, though, the issue
flares up, especially when some paper publishes how much we pay in order to
maintain the senate as it currently stands, or when a senator gets into
mischief.
I think that the Gov. General has veto power on any bill, for he represents
the Queen, but that's more of a superfluous power--I don't think it actually
can be used now.
All the above is from my dusty recollection of poli-sci classes and from
being Canadian for, oh, 36ish years and reading the paper every once in a while.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
