Cdn Senator alleges possible smear campaign - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

RedHot25 · 10-20-2006, 10:28 AM

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

A Liberal senator is suggesting there is a well-organized smear campaign against the upper chamber and possible attempts to obstruct an investigation into Canada's mission in Afghanistan. Colin Kenney held a news conference today responding to allegations the all-party security and defence committee misspent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on a recent trip to Europe and the Middle East.

...

"It's clear the government doesn't like what we're doing. The government is uncomfortable with us," he said, "and the objections being raised by the government whip, who happened to approve the budget, seems a bit ironic."

JohnnyFlame · 10-20-2006, 12:37 PM

It's not possible to smear the Senate. It's an institution that shouldn't exist as there is not ONE single reason for it to exist.

They are some of the most pathetic parasites alive in Canada today.

The government and anybody else should feel free to say anything they want about them and to work towards their complete elimanation ASAP!!!

CaptainCrunch · 10-20-2006, 12:42 PM

Actually of all of the useless senators out there, I have a ton of respect for Colin Kenney, he seems to be one of the only guys that takes his senate job seriously, and he has a decidedly un liberal like slant on Canada's defense and its armed forces. If all of the other senators actually put in the effort that he does then the Senate would work.

White Doors · 10-20-2006, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Actually of all of the useless senators out there, I have a ton of respect for Colin Kenney, he seems to be one of the only guys that takes his senate job seriously, and he has a decidedly un liberal like slant on Canada's defense and its armed forces. If all of the other senators actually put in the effort that he does then the Senate would work.

### - although I still think that they should be elected.

jolinar of malkshor · 10-20-2006, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Doors

### - although I still think that they should be elected.

Ya..they would be worth something if they were actually elected.

Bobblehead · 10-20-2006, 02:23 PM

I agree with Sir John A. MacDonald who said "the Senate was to be a place of "sober second thought" so that legislation would receive proper, careful consideration before finally becoming law."

I think there needs to be amending to the Senate - manditory attendance, term limits, perhaps allowing some regional decisionmaking as to who to nominate.

But I would rather see the Senate abolished before it was elected. We already elect our government; the last thing I want is to elect another level of federal government. If we want to elect more people, make the constituencies smaller.

White Doors · 10-20-2006, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I agree with Sir John A. MacDonald who said "the Senate was to be a place of "sober second thought" so that legislation would receive proper, careful consideration before finally becoming law."

I think there needs to be amending to the Senate - manditory attendance, term limits, perhaps allowing some regional decisionmaking as to who to nominate.

But I would rather see the Senate abolished before it was elected. We already elect our government; the last thing I want is to elect another level of federal government. If we want to elect more people, make the constituencies smaller.

Why not elect with provincial representation as is already included in our Constitution? How would that make it worse? Make the senate elections different timing from the house of commons to give voters more power in how the country is run? What could possibly be the argument against that? I happen to like the people running a democracy, don't you?

jolinar of malkshor · 10-20-2006, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I agree with Sir John A. MacDonald who said "the Senate was to be a place of "sober second thought" so that legislation would receive proper, careful consideration before finally becoming law."

I think there needs to be amending to the Senate - manditory attendance, term limits, perhaps allowing some regional decisionmaking as to who to nominate.

But I would rather see the Senate abolished before it was elected. We already elect our government; the last thing I want is to elect another level of federal government. If we want to elect more people, make the constituencies smaller.

They would still have no accountability and that is the problem. Sir John A. McDonalds idea was a good idea....but it is just like communism.....in theory it works....in theory. (Homer J Simpson)

Bobblehead · 10-20-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Doors

Why not elect with provincial representation as is already included in our Constitution? How would that make it worse? Make the senate elections different timing from the house of commons to give voters more power in how the country is run? What could possibly be the argument against that? I happen to like the people running a democracy, don't you?

Way to put words in my mouth. What are you, an O'Reilly wannabe?

The voters already elect the government. Half of politicians are already crooked (and members of all political stripes). I would prefer not to have any more, I think that would make it worse. There already is region representation entrenched in the constitution.

jolinar of malkshor · 10-20-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Way to put words in my mouth. What are you, an O'Reilly wannabe?

The voters already elect the government. Half of politicians are already crooked (and members of all political stripes). I would prefer not to have any more, I think that would make it worse. There already is region representation entrenched in the constitution.

Where? Other than the fact that rural areas are allowed to have a smaller proportion of people per representative.

White Doors · 10-20-2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Way to put words in my mouth. What are you, an O'Reilly wannabe?

The voters already elect the government. Half of politicians are already crooked (and members of all political stripes). I would prefer not to have any more, I think that would make it worse. There already is region representation entrenched in the constitution.

How was I putting words in your mouth? I asked questions.
You chose to deflect.

Do you believe our leaders should be elected?
That's all I'm asking.

Bobblehead · 10-20-2006, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Doors

How was I putting words in your mouth? I asked questions.
You chose to deflect.

Do you believe our leaders should be elected?
That's all I'm asking.

I could have sworn Harper and his cabinet were elected - my mistake.

White Doors · 10-20-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I could have sworn Harper and his cabinet were elected - my mistake.

You don't believe that the senators have power over us Plebs?

Devils'Advocate · 10-20-2006, 05:14 PM

What power does the Senate have?

I don't like the idea of an elected powerful senate. Look what happens in the US when you have two houses. Remember "Gridlock!!!"? What happens when we elect a majority Liberal government and a majority Conservative Senate? Send everyone home for a few years?

And don't tell me that "they will have to compromise and cooperate to find solutions". Yeah. Right. We've got a minority government that is supposed to do just that. And the Liberals governed like a majority and the Conservatives are doing the same thing. There is no co-operation between parties and there never will be.

CaramonLS · 10-20-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

What power does the Senate have?

I don't like the idea of an elected powerful senate. Look what happens in the US when you have two houses. Remember "Gridlock!!!"? What happens when we elect a majority Liberal government and a majority Conservative Senate? Send everyone home for a few years?

And don't tell me that "they will have to compromise and cooperate to find solutions". Yeah. Right. We've got a minority government that is supposed to do just that. And the Liberals governed like a majority and the Conservatives are doing the same thing. There is no co-operation between parties and there never will be.

Senate pretty much has the same power as the house does currently.

They can block bills, introduce legislation.

Seriously though bobble, if they aren't elected, they are just wasting the money of tax payers.

Devils'Advocate · 10-20-2006, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Senate pretty much has the same power as the house does currently. They can block bills, introduce legislation.

Oh come on, when is the last time the Senate blocked a bill? As far a legislation is concerned they are simply a rubber stamp.

jolinar of malkshor · 10-20-2006, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

What power does the Senate have?

I don't like the idea of an elected powerful senate. Look what happens in the US when you have two houses. Remember "Gridlock!!!"? What happens when we elect a majority Liberal government and a majority Conservative Senate? Send everyone home for a few years?

And don't tell me that "they will have to compromise and cooperate to find solutions". Yeah. Right. We've got a minority government that is supposed to do just that. And the Liberals governed like a majority and the Conservatives are doing the same thing. There is no co-operation between parties and there never will be.

Sounds like you would rather have a dictatorship. Anikan Skywalker.

CaramonLS · 10-20-2006, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Oh come on, when is the last time the Senate blocked a bill? As far a legislation is concerned they are simply a rubber stamp.

Mulroney actually added more senators because one of his measures was going to be defeated if you recall.

Regardless, it is a complete waste of money as it currently stands.

Devils'Advocate · 10-20-2006, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Sounds like you would rather have a dictatorship. Anikan Skywalker.

If we abolished the Senate we would be in a dictatorship?!?!?

I prefer one EFFECTIVE layer of government. We've seen the U.S. government in gridlock for years with legislation completely unable to pass because one house disagrees with the other house. Though the current president proves that a gridlocked U.S. government is preferable to a government with absolute power.

Anyhow, the more layers you add, the more government waste, which I'm sure is what all the people of Calgary want. I want the government to have the power to enact the changes that the citizens of this country want and not have to broker deals with the other house simply to get something the people want passed into law.

jolinar of malkshor · 10-20-2006, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

If we abolished the Senate we would be in a dictatorship?!?!?

I prefer one EFFECTIVE layer of government. We've seen the U.S. government in gridlock for years with legislation completely unable to pass because one house disagrees with the other house. Though the current president proves that a gridlocked U.S. government is preferable to a government with absolute power.

Anyhow, the more layers you add, the more government waste, which I'm sure is what all the people of Calgary want. I want the government to have the power to enact the changes that the citizens of this country want and not have to broker deals with the other house simply to get something the people want passed into law.

The Senate NEEDS to be elected....anything else is basically a dictatorship. Although it may take longer for legislation to pass, at least it is not passed by a minority...which in our government...usually is...even if it is a Majority government it was usually elected by the minority of the population. Thats how out system works.