Cdn Senator alleges possible smear campaign - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Bobblehead · 10-20-2006, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

They can block bills, introduce legislation.

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

As I said in the beginning, I like the idea of them as "sober second thought". An entity that doesn't need to curry favour with any specific group, an entity that can vote with it's conscience and not be cajoled by a party whip or leader; essentially an entity that can review pending legislation without playing "politics" (in the dirtiest sense of the word), which can turn into a popularity contest or name recognition contest. Strong charisma should not be a requirement for a Senator.

I don't want them as elected simply because we already have an elected representation. Electing them would (in my opinion) foster the worst of the political system, increase the possibility of gridlock, and mean we would see even more campaigning for elections; elections that the general public is already becoming apathetic towards.

Municipal, Provincial and Federal are all the levels of government I think we need.

I have wondered about some sort of a compromise; for example, Alberta is currently allocated 6 Senators, allow 3 of them to be appointed by the PM as is currently done (via the governor general), and allow AB to designate the other 3 in any manner they wish, perhaps by election or Premier's decision. Then each region can decide on how they specifically wish to appoint their Senate representation, it moves a share of the power to the regions and still allows Federal input into a Federal institution. That's just an idea to mull over, I'm sure many on both sides of the issue would hate it, and maybe that's the best way to tell if it is fair.

But if the choice between an elected Senate and no Senate came down to me, I would bid the Senate goodbye.

transplant99 · 10-21-2006, 05:29 AM

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).

They elect the Parliament...they dont elect the Senate. The Senate IS government, like it or not....so no, government in its entirety is NOT already elected.

I would prefer it much much more if someone who has power over laws of the country is elected to do so, and not appointed because they are the flavor of the day for the sitting PM.

That being said, the whole thing is a multi-million dollar albatross of a joke.

Abolish it alltogether and you would have just as effective federal government (without a group of overpayed party loyalists to pay) for rubber-stamping new law.

CaramonLS · 10-21-2006, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

As I said in the beginning, I like the idea of them as "sober second thought". An entity that doesn't need to curry favour with any specific group, an entity that can vote with it's conscience and not be cajoled by a party whip or leader; essentially an entity that can review pending legislation without playing "politics" (in the dirtiest sense of the word), which can turn into a popularity contest or name recognition contest. Strong charisma should not be a requirement for a Senator.

I don't want them as elected simply because we already have an elected representation. Electing them would (in my opinion) foster the worst of the political system, increase the possibility of gridlock, and mean we would see even more campaigning for elections; elections that the general public is already becoming apathetic towards.

Municipal, Provincial and Federal are all the levels of government I think we need.

I have wondered about some sort of a compromise; for example, Alberta is currently allocated 6 Senators, allow 3 of them to be appointed by the PM as is currently done (via the governor general), and allow AB to designate the other 3 in any manner they wish, perhaps by election or Premier's decision. Then each region can decide on how they specifically wish to appoint their Senate representation, it moves a share of the power to the regions and still allows Federal input into a Federal institution. That's just an idea to mull over, I'm sure many on both sides of the issue would hate it, and maybe that's the best way to tell if it is fair.

But if the choice between an elected Senate and no Senate came down to me, I would bid the Senate goodbye.

Sober second thought? Don't we technically still have the governor general who provides that anyways?

Sorry, unless these government officals are elected, there is absolutely no way the can garentee the provision you've stated.

Azure · 10-21-2006, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

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.

Exactly. And the Senate would never DARE block a bill, simply because of the outcry most Canadians would have.

If they're not elected, they're useless.

jolinar of malkshor · 10-21-2006, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Exactly. And the Senate would never DARE block a bill, simply because of the outcry most Canadians would have.

If they're not elected, they're useless.

They have blocked bills in the past...not a lot but they have. Their typical MO is to sit on the bill for a long time and if they don't want it passed they will just sit on it till an election (which would kill the bill). This happens quite frequently....especially to private members bills. For example....the bill that was to increase criminal penalties for animal abusers.

Agamemnon · 10-21-2006, 01:58 PM

American Secretary's aren't elected either, and they have a whole lot more power than Canadian Senators. I'm a lot less comfortable with people appointed to run vast sections of the US government who aren't elected than with the teeny bit of power the Canadian Senate has.

Though, I do agree that if its not a functional part of the government its a waste of money.

jolinar of malkshor · 10-21-2006, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

American Secretary's aren't elected either, and they have a whole lot more power than Canadian Senators. I'm a lot less comfortable with people appointed to run vast sections of the US government who aren't elected than with the teeny bit of power the Canadian Senate has.

Though, I do agree that if its not a functional part of the government its a waste of money.

Can that not be said for the deputy ministers and the heads of Canadian Crown Corporations such as Canada Mint and VIA rail (just as examples). Almost all the day to day decisions and policy is done by non elected deputy ministers.

Agamemnon · 10-21-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Can that not be said for the deputy ministers and the heads of Canadian Crown Corporations such as Canada Mint and VIA rail (just as examples). Almost all the day to day decisions and policy is done by non elected deputy ministers.

Sure... its just that some people in the thread have pointed out that the Canadian government is not entirely elected. Neither is the US government, and I'd say the Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense have a lot more clout than the head of the CBC or Via Rail, or the Canadian Senate.

jolinar of malkshor · 10-21-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Sure... its just that some people in the thread have pointed out that the Canadian government is not entirely elected. Neither is the US government, and I'd say the Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense have a lot more clout than the head of the CBC or Via Rail, or the Canadian Senate.

IC what your saying. I only used VIA rail as an example....but there are deputy ministers for every agency including CSIS, RCMP, CBSA, DND.

Agamemnon · 10-21-2006, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

IC what your saying. I only used VIA rail as an example....but there are deputy ministers for every agency including CSIS, RCMP, CBSA, DND.

Fair point... though the Ministers themselves are elected directly as MP's.

White Doors · 10-21-2006, 02:57 PM

The USA citizen has much more direct ability to elect their power brokers than do Canadians. Keeping in mind the shortfalls of both systems.

transplant99 · 10-21-2006, 03:08 PM

The "diffuse to another topic completely" is alive and well I see.

What does the US system have to do with the question at hand exactly?

Agamemnon · 10-21-2006, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

The "diffuse to another topic completely" is alive and well I see.

What does the US system have to do with the question at hand exactly?

There were complaints that sections of the Canadian government aren't elected. I was pointing out that its a common aspect of many democratic nations (like our neighbour)... maybe you think its "another topic completely", but I don't think so. Debate evolves... if you don't like it, don't respond. You can also use the ignore feature for people you believe are constantly taking things off topic, so maybe give that a try. If you've got a legitimate beef, report it to the Mods.

White Doors · 10-21-2006, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

There were complaints that sections of the Canadian government aren't elected. I was pointing out that its a common aspect of many democratic nations (like our neighbour)... maybe you think its "another topic completely", but I don't think so. Debate evolves... if you don't like it, don't respond.

In many threads I wish you would take your own advice.

Bobblehead · 10-21-2006, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Sober second thought? Don't we technically still have the governor general who provides that anyways?

Sorry, unless these government officals are elected, there is absolutely no way the can garentee the provision you've stated.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Another layer of elected representative won't do anything the current ones can't do already.

CaramonLS · 10-21-2006, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Another layer of elected representative won't do anything the current ones can't do already.

I think that checks and balances are a good thing.

As it stands right now, the House of commons with a majority gov't can force anything it wants to through, as long as its not too contraversal, your party will vote for you or be kicked out.

A house of commons with more regional representation + a free vote, whom are elected making them accountable to the voters is a good thing.

Bobblehead · 10-21-2006, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I think that checks and balances are a good thing.

As it stands right now, the House of commons with a majority gov't can force anything it wants to through, as long as its not too contraversal, your party will vote for you or be kicked out.

A house of commons with more regional representation + a free vote, whom are elected making them accountable to the voters is a good thing.

Checks and balances are a good thing, but an elected Senate would not acheive it. If the Senate is held by the ruling party, it is a rubber stamp. An opposition party, it is gridlock.

jolinar of malkshor · 10-22-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Checks and balances are a good thing, but an elected Senate would not acheive it. If the Senate is held by the ruling party, it is a rubber stamp. An opposition party, it is gridlock.

They could make it a party free elcetion. You vote on the individual, and the individual is not allowed to associate or be a member of a party. They may still have the same ideloigies but I think it would break up that idea that they would have to stick together within the senate.

CaramonLS · 10-22-2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Checks and balances are a good thing, but an elected Senate would not acheive it. If the Senate is held by the ruling party, it is a rubber stamp. An opposition party, it is gridlock.

Not really, it would be more like a minority gov't IMO than gridlock.

Really, you are making it sound like when the senate is the opposite party of the house in the US, it has NEVER worked.

transplant99 · 10-22-2006, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

maybe you think its "another topic completely", but I don't think so. Debate evolves... if you don't like it, don't respond. You can also use the ignore feature for people you believe are constantly taking things off topic, so maybe give that a try. If you've got a legitimate beef, report it to the Mods.

Hello pot...kettle here.

Unbelievable.

And I will do as I wish thanks.