I don’t get that, either. I’ve worked in plenty of accounting departments and been involved in expense processing in many of them, and there are always rules about what gets reimbursed, and as you say, multiple levels of people approving them. It also looks to me like the senate reimbursement process is the senators just bring in any receipts they can find and are immediately cut a cheque for them, with no checks and balances. Or maybe it’s a case where the expenses are for very powerful people, and the underlings don’t really have a say in what they won’t approve.
As someone who occasionally has to invoice the federal government, I wish the rest of the government followed these (apparent) rules.
No one is more nit-picky and slow to pay than the feds; and while it’s professionally annoying at times I like it as a taxpayer.
I chopped down 4 dead trees last night, inflicted with the emerald ash borer. Today I carved up two of them and lugged them, via wheelbarrow, to my neighbour’s fire pit. I am now going over there to drink beer and watch my dead trees go up in flames.
I’ll post later, if I live.
First outing with the neighbours post-separation. I hope I don’t get too drunk. 
I’m a Senator! How dare you question my expenses?
Seems to be the status quo.
Two (fictional) reasons we don’t:
– Wild in the Streets, and
– Prez.
Maybe it’s different when it’s from government down (as to vendor) instead of government up (as to senator).
I’m sure it is. I just dream of getting government invoices paid in a timely manner, rather than having them sit on my aging making my metrics look awful.
I will admit, this is an intriguing idea. I’ve often wondered what we’d have if we had (for lack of a better term) a parliament of ordinary people. While most of us cannot afford to run for the House of Commons, or perhaps just do not want to be affiliated with a political party (which is pretty much a prerequisite); we could be chosen, by lottery, for the Senate.
There would have to be a position created to explain to such “ordinary people” senators just what they can, and cannot, do under the Constitution; as well as how to speak and otherwise behave in the Senate chamber. There are likely other issues that would arise, but it certainly is an interesting idea.
It really is. I don’t know if I’d want the common people parliament (or CPP) to have too much power, but a veto power or the ability to modify bills if they’re too odious for the majority of CPPs might be interesting.
That’s what I’d have in mind. One of the problems I’ve seen with our various governments, of all political stripes, is that they are like parents: “eat it; it’s good for you.” Unlike parents trying to entice a six-year-old to eat broccoli, however, they are dealing with adults who are trying to raise kids, pay the mortgage or rent, keep their jobs, pay the car note, hope to get a promotion and subsequent raise, pay the groceries, try to have a once-a-year vacation, and pay the insurance. It’s a lot different from the bargain one gives to a six-year-old: “Eat the broccoli, and I’ll help you with your homework.”
I well remember numerous budgets, at the federal level, back in the 1980s and 1990s; all of which seemed to be designed to raise yet more taxes that separated Canadians from their hard-earned money. We complained, we made our views known through polls and through the media, but we were told that “it was good for us”; and besides, that we couldn’t possibly know what was best for us–we shouldn’t worry; we should just leave all that nasty worrying to the government.
But we the people had no voice–none that was official anyway. If we complained to our MPs, we were told that the government was voted in by a majority, and that our representative in the Commons had to vote along party lines. The court of public opinion, and the media were no help; in spite of reflecting our views, often quite loudly, our governments of all political stripes ignored us.
In those days, it seemed that the government was contemptuous of the people. I don’t think that’s right. In this way, I agree with the statement made in the film V for Vendetta: “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.” And that attitude was sorely lacking in Canada. Perhaps it still is.
I’d like an “ordinary Canadian’s” voice in our government. Our country is too precious to be left to the career politicians to run as they please. If we become the architects of our own misfortune, well, so be it; but at the same time, a Senate made up of ordinary Canadians might give a reality check to the partisan House of Commons.
I’d much rather have a vote in who represents me, rather than be subject to some goverment appointee (e.g. the present senate appointment process) or some random appointee (Antonio’s proposal).
As far as “ordinary people” goes, it is nowhere near sufficient. I expect my representatives to be extraordinary people.
Don’t like a trained seal? Then don’t vote for the trained seal.
That’s a fair assessment. But how do we separate the ordinary people from the extraordinary people? Who qualifies as an “extraordinary person,” anyway?
What if they’re all trained seals? In that case, I’d write in “Abraham Lincoln,” except there’s no place on our ballots for write-in candidates; much less dead ones.
Note, Muffin, that I am not necessarily disagreeing with you; but I think this question deserves more discussion among Canadians as a whole. Perhaps that discussion might start here.
Minimally, take a close look at a candidate’s track record before voting. If time allows, get to know the candidate personally.
Get involved at the riding level to have better influence on who ends up running, and make party discipline an issue at candidates’ meetings and in the press.
ideal in theory, clumsy in practice. I’m still pissed that our local MP (Jim Hillyer, Tory) refused to engage those of us who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Oh, he campaigned just fine in towns like Raymond and Stirling, where the majority of people are LDS. But in Lethbridge? Nope. He refused to. He would not participate in all-candidates meetings, he would not debate at the doorstep. Unless, you know, you were also an LDS member. Then, he had time for you. He refused to speak with me, upon learning that I was not LDS.
This I find absolutely intolerable. Religion has no place in our politics. Yet Hillyer seems to think that it should. I disagree. He’s supposed to represent the people of Lethbridge in Parliament; he does not. He represents the Mormon religious of southern Alberta, and that’s not right.
Not easy here, where you cannot do a damn thing unless you’re Mormon. Mormons locally seem to have forgotten that even without a First Amendment (curiously, many of them locally seem to think we obey the US Constitution), we have a separation of Church and State.
Although I have Mormon friends and colleagues, I am getting tired of how often they call “religion” as a reason not to be able to do something. No, it is not a reason, it is a convenience. You can drink Coca-Cola, you can play golf on Sunday, and you can freaking drink coffee without lecturing me (endlessly) on why you cannot. Just deal with those of us who are not LDS, willya? And stop preaching that you are better somehow, than me.
Sorry, Doper friends. I deal with this sort of stuff every day, and it bugs me.
I don’t necessarily agree, because I believe eliminating the voting institution as it exists today would have the potential to be more representative.
I see people who get elected, people who participate in riding associations, and they (largely) get cut from the same cloth. Are there any MPs who were living under the poverty line before elections? Any without a college or university education (Jean Belliveau in the Senate is the only that comes to mind)?
You’re a lawyer if I recall correctly. I’m going to be one in a short enough time. I see a process that–rightly or wrongly–is dominated by people with the same background and same pedigree as me. Doctors, lawyers, bankers, academics. I don’t think simply make a conscious choice to vote for another person will be enough change. Particularly when one considers the influence of the established political parties.
I’d like to see a radical change but then, like I said, I’m an idealist. 
Apparently 3 are now confirmed dead in the Lac Megantic (Quebec) train explosion, and they don’t even want to tell people how many are still missing because they don’t want to alarm anyone. Much of the town has been flattened, from what I understand.
I don’t want uneducated unemployed people making decisions for me, for although there are outliers, people who are uneducated and unemployed tend to not be the best decision makers. Since it is cheap and easy to stand for office, but such persons tend not to get elected, I expect that the only way you would get them into office would be to remove the franchise from a great many other people, e.g. assignment Parliament by lottery rather than by election. Removing the franchise to vote and removing the franchise run for office do not cut it. Suffrage is paramount for me. That’s democracy, and nothing less will suffice.
how horrible.
Part of the problem is that the Treasury Board rules only apply to government departments (the executive part of government). The House and Senate are the legislative part of government and get to set their own rules. This is as it should be, as the executive part should not be able to dictate to the legislative part, but the problem is that both the House and Senate are very bad at administering their rules and very secretive about the whole process. In most cases, they exempt themselves from even the minimal audit and accountability requirements imposed on the rest of the government. I’d like to see both chambers required to be open to public scrutiny in how they spend our money.