Alberta Election

[CivU]

"CivU, get with it sunshine, you wouldn't know leadership if it smacked ya in da head. Layton has done it, will do it again, and even though I don't like the man and the way he operates, he is a good leader. I don't want him as my leader but like you....i digress...
The difference between you and I is I can look at someone with whom I have issues and can still find qualities that I like, seems  all the people you don;t like need to be charactorly assasinated at every chance."

I'm not sure where this came from...

I agree Layton is a good leader, and I'm not sure what your referring to he has done and will do again...As far as your assesment of my leadership abilities, I'm not sure what that's based on.  A knee-jerk reaction? Because last time I checked the internet was hardly a conduit for expressing leadership...

As for, "seems  all the people you don;t like need to be charactorly assasinated at every chance."

I'm not sure who all these people are?  I mentioned a huge mishap involving Ralph Klein, and questioned whether someone else who hadn't garnered four consecutive majorities would have been given the same leeway...I like Jack Layton, so I'm hardly attacking his character... I think you may beed to re-read things if you can't make sense of what the person was saying the first time....

 

[cgyflames01]

Jack Layton, is the ferderal leader of the NDP, he has nothing to do with Alberta NDP's, and their issue's are very different.

 

[oyaguy]

I'm one the bastards who voted Green. I have a soft spot for the underdog. Then again, maybe I should have voted fpr the Liberals. Whatever.
As for the senate, I spoiled my ballot. What was the point? I don't elect the dogcatcher, or the mail women {Mine is a woman}, or the police chief. I elect the person who will ultimately appoint {well, hire}the dogcatcher, mailman, and police chief.
I think we as Canadians should give up on "reforming" the senate. The triple E senate, is a dumb idea {I need a new word, to describe what I think is a dumb idea, and I did it again}. I know where the people who are accountable to me sit. They sit in the House of Commons. I don't need another house to watch. What we should do with the senate is officially make it what it is. A unelected think tank that performs ceremonial functions. I think the senate does a lot, and we should make it official. For example that senate report that called for the legalization of marijuana, whether you agree with it or not isn't the point, but the fact is elected officials would have never published a report with that kind of a conclusion. This is where an unelected body can be useful.
In my mind for reform, the senate appointments should be passed in Parliament. Take the Senate away from the Prime Minister as a way of rewarding disciples. The salary and pay should be based on work done. So something like a base salary of $5,000.00 that the senator wiil get automatically as long the he/she shows up for the ceremonial bits. Anything more and perks, like vehicles or secretaries, would be based on whether the senator is on X committee that is looking into X topic etc...
I'm fairly certain something like this is already in place, but I think reforms are needed to combat the perception that the Senate is the PM's score settling arena, and that the senators essentially get a free ride for however long they are senators.
Sorry, for expanding way beyond the post's subject, but I hate government waste like Alberta's "senate elections".

 

[Torlyn]

I think the senate does a lot, and we should make it official. For example that senate report that called for the legalization of marijuana, whether you agree with it or not isn't the point, but the fact is elected officials would have never published a report with that kind of a conclusion. This is where an unelected body can be useful.

In my mind for reform, the senate appointments should be passed in Parliament. Take the Senate away from the Prime Minister as a way of rewarding disciples. The salary and pay should be based on work done. So something like a base salary of $5,000.00 that the senator wiil get automatically as long the he/she shows up for the ceremonial bits. Anything more and perks, like vehicles or secretaries, would be based on whether the senator is on X committee that is looking into X topic etc...
I'm fairly certain something like this is already in place, but I think reforms are needed to combat the perception that the Senate is the PM's score settling arena, and that the senators essentially get a free ride for however long they are senators.
Sorry, for expanding way beyond the post's subject, but I hate government waste like Alberta's "senate elections".

So, by this, you're all for a total non-democratic body producing laws for the country?  That's a bit alarming, don't you think?  We've been fighting for democracy for decades, and you're willing to throw it away?  Also, you state that you want the senate left alone, then say you believe that appointments should come from parliament...  Which is it?  Change or no change?  You say you want them to have sweeping powers to create laws, then reduce them to ceremonial functions.  Who on earth would be a senator for only $5000.00 a year?  Lastly, when you say "reforms are needed to combat the perception that..." to combat the perception, or the actuality of your statement?  You aren't quite clear on that point...

T

 

[oyaguy]

Huh? How am I for a totally non-democratic body making the laws in Canada?
Let me clarify myself by going into what the Senate currently does. As the Senate stands right now, they are appointed by the Governor General, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Senators are appointed until they are 75, when they have to step down. The Senate's legislative powers is that all bills must pass the Senate before the Governor General signs the bills into law. However, the Senate can only delay bills from the House of Commons, for 180 days, and cannot defeat a bill. The Senate also can't initiate money bills, i.e. a budget. I'm also fairly certain that the Senate cannot strike down, or delay money bills{don't quote me on that one}.
So while the Senate as it stands is an unelected body of officials, they don't have the real powers that the House of Commons has, which is the ability to tax, and then use the tax revenue. Though the Senate still can initiate non-money bills, they would still have to be passed in the House of Commons.
What I am getting at, is that the real legislative and governing powers, is in the House of Commons, who's members are elected by Canadians. Therefore, electing senators is not nessesary, because they would be elected to posts that don't have real powers.
Where I see the Senate as useful is with things like that report, which called for the legalization of marijuana. Whether anyone here agrees with the reports conclusion, isn't the point. The point is that an elected official, would never publish a report with such a conclusion. To controversial to risk re-election.
So I propose that we reform the Senate by formalizing its function as a think tank that performs ceremonial duties. How this could be done I suggested earlier of giving each Senator a base salary of $5000.00 for simply being a Senator and showing up for the ceremonial duties. The small amount of money is because being a Senator who only shows up for whatever ceremony, wouldn't be a full-time job. For Senators who choose to treat the Senate as a full-time job, they would get more money and perks for being on X committee, that is looking in to X topic. Whatever, the dollar amounts are not important and can be adjusted as neccessary.
Another reform I advocated for the Senate, is to take the Senate away from the Prime Minister as a way for the PM to settle scores and favours. This is a fancy way of saying lets take away some of the PM's powers of patronage. I suggest this could be done by having all Senate appointments passed through Parliament, which is the House of Commons.

The whole point of this post is that Torlyn read my earlier post, but my meaning and ideas went past him, and I have tried to remove anything that might confuse the issue.

 

[Torlyn]

Huh? How am I for a totally non-democratic body making the laws in Canada?

Because you seem to want to destroy what little Canadians have in regards to checks and balances, a requirement for a democratic society.  If they're not elected, and they have no "real" power, then there's no way to balance the power that the house of commons has.  That's not very democratic now, is it?

However, the Senate can only delay bills from the House of Commons, for 180 days, and cannot defeat a bill. The Senate also can't initiate money bills, i.e. a budget. I'm also fairly certain that the Senate cannot strike down, or delay money bills{don't quote me on that one}

The senate does indeed have the ability to strike down bills, money or otherwise.  If they do not approve, it either goes back to the house of commons for a re-write, or it's quashed. Perhaps you should do a bit more homework before you post these things.  Your "meanings and ideas" such as they were, are based on incorrect information.  They did not go past me, they were factually incorrect.  From www.parl.gc.ca:
"The Senate possesses all of the powers of the House of Commons except that of initiating financial legislation."  So, while they cannot initiate any financial legislation, they can sure veto it.

I think where you got confused is the relation of powers between the senate and the house of commons during constitutional amendments.  Again, check your information.

What I am getting at, is that the real legislative and governing powers, is in the House of Commons, who's members are elected by Canadians. Therefore, electing senators is not nessesary, because they would be elected to posts that don't have real powers.
Where I see the Senate as useful is with things like that report, which called for the legalization of marijuana. Whether anyone here agrees with the reports conclusion, isn't the point. The point is that an elected official, would never publish a report with such a conclusion. To controversial to risk re-election.

Perhaps you should look into Canada's confederation, and the idea of checks and balances, and how they work in a democratic system.  I won't bore the majority of people here by reiterating, rather I'll allow you the opportunity to go check it out for yourself.  Also, that report never called for the total legalization of pot, and in regards to that post, I won't kill bandwidth, if you (badapple, you reading) want to look at it, go ahead:
http://www.medicalmarihuana.ca/pdfiles/senatesummary.pdf

So I propose that we reform the Senate by formalizing its function as a think tank that performs ceremonial duties. How this could be done I suggested earlier of giving each Senator a base salary of $5000.00 for simply being a Senator and showing up for the ceremonial duties. The small amount of money is because being a Senator who only shows up for whatever ceremony, wouldn't be a full-time job. For Senators who choose to treat the Senate as a full-time job, they would get more money and perks for being on X committee, that is looking in to X topic. Whatever, the dollar amounts are not important and can be adjusted as neccessary.

So in effect, you want to abolish the senate as it is today, and create government-funded fraser-institute (or left wing, whatever) think tanks that do, which particular ceremonial duties?  I mean, if you turn it in to a think tank, it inherently has no ceremonial duties.  You discuss what a wonderful thing the report on pot that the senate did, then you want to take away their money, and only give it back to them if they, complete more reports on say, pot legislation?  I'm hoping you see the inherent reduncancy in your statements.

Another reform I advocated for the Senate, is to take the Senate away from the Prime Minister as a way for the PM to settle scores and favours. This is a fancy way of saying lets take away some of the PM's powers of patronage. I suggest this could be done by having all Senate appointments passed through Parliament, which is the House of Commons

Ahh...  So, for the last 3 federal governments (not including the present one, obviously) we've had a majority liberal government, run by Cretien, who is known for having absolute control over his party.  Do you REALLY think that anyone in the house would refuse his Senate appointments?  I applaud the idea that we take away some of the PM's patronage powers, but the method you suggest wouldn't work.  I'll bet that second E in triple E sure would fix that problem...  (Equal, Elected, Effective)

The whole point of this post is that Torlyn read my earlier post, but my meaning and ideas went past him, and I have tried to remove anything that might confuse the issue.

I didn't misunderstand you.  You kept waffling with your ideas.  You state "I think we as Canadians should give up on "reforming" the senate. The triple E senate, is a dumb idea" and yet you do not back up why the triple E senate is a dumb idea, and you continue on in your posts about how you believe the senate should be reformed, and one of the two reforms you want are only solvable by having and elected senate.  Hmmm...  Which one is it?

T

PS. Mods - I'm wondering if this shouldn't be moved to it's own thread of Senate Reform?  We've gotten a litte far afield from the Alberta Election...
EDITED TO ADD PS TO MODS