# Alberta Election



## atticus (14 Nov 2004)

Anybody following the Albertan election here? I'm trying too. Klein said it was going to be a boring election but I think he was wrong, he keeps making it interesting with his comebacks, and his debates.


----------



## Dogboy (15 Nov 2004)

and his unwillingness to have a real debate or platform 

"vote for me because I'm already in power and I know whats best"


good idea but it'll work in Alberta 

i just hope he gets bit for it


----------



## atticus (15 Nov 2004)

Dogboy said:
			
		

> i just hope he gets bit for it



I'm willing to bet he's only going to loose a few seats and will still have the majority.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (15 Nov 2004)

You rail on Klein for not having a platform, and yet post nothing substantial about what you think he is doing wrong.

A bit of a dichotomy, no?

I'll be voting conservative once again.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Nov 2004)

It's hard to argue against success.

Personally, why does he need a new platform.  Doesn't one stating "We've given you over a decade of good government, an we promise to keep on doing it" seem to cut the cake?


----------



## Dogboy (15 Nov 2004)

lucking out with gas prices is not good government 
the slash and burn with out replanting in health and education has gone on long enough 
also his party is starting to become corrupt in power because its the attitude of who's going to replace us.
also hes lied with auto insh.
and makes false statements about people on gov. support 
and he plagiarised a essay in university then used his power to get it covered up


----------



## Michael Dorosh (15 Nov 2004)

Dogboy said:
			
		

> lucking out with gas prices is not good government



Didn't realize his platform included lucking out.



> the slash and burn with out replanting in health and education has gone on long enough



LOL - I work in the health care industry, care to tell me why you think it has been "slashed and burned"?



> also his party is starting to become corrupt in power because its the attitude of who's going to replace us.



That's a perception, not a fact.  Can you substantiate this?



> also hes lied with auto insh.



In what way?  Can you provide a quote?



> and makes false statements about people on gov. support



Again, a quote would be good here.



> and he plagiarised a essay in university then used his power to get it covered up



So what?  No one ever claimed Mr. Klein was a scholar - in fact, part of his popularity stems from the fact he is NOT a lawyer or professor like all career politicians seem to be.  If the worst this guy has ever done is not know how to properly write a school essay, I'd say we can do a lot, lot worse....and have.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Nov 2004)

Trade him for Dalton?........please?


----------



## Infanteer (15 Nov 2004)

I love the "oil prices" attack.  In that line of thinking, Liberia, Angola, and Venezuela should be reaping in the success along with Alberta.  There is something to be said for good government.

As for the other complaints, they all seem to be based upon heresay and a really weak attempt to find fault (A school paper?!? c'mon...) with the current government in Alberta.  I don't get it, it is the most successful province in the Dominion and yet you are eager to replace him.  What ever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?"


----------



## Acorn (15 Nov 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I love the "oil prices" attack.   In that line of thinking, Liberia, Angola, and Venezuela should be reaping in the success along with Alberta.   There is something to be said for good government.
> 
> As for the other complaints, they all seem to be based upon heresay and a really weak attempt to find fault (A school paper?!? c'mon...) with the current government in Alberta.   I don't get it, it is the most successful province in the Dominion and yet you are eager to replace him.   What ever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?"



Tactics that work well for the Federal Liberals....

Acorn


----------



## atticus (23 Nov 2004)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/22/kleinelection041122.html
 ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2004)

I could only wish to have a Premier in Ontario like Ralph. Not that pantywaist LIEberal that we have now. :rage:


----------



## Torlyn (23 Nov 2004)

Too bad he didn't get the same number of seats.  I got a kick out of the liberals freaking out.  "Yay!  We won more seats, but we're still insignificant in the legislature!  Wee!!"  I'm looking forward to seeing the # of people who actually voted tomorrow...  I'm wondering if King Ralph lost seats due to conservative voter apathy or because there actually has been a shift in the political thoughts of Albertans.  Not in my riding of Calgary-Elbow, anyway...  Kinda nice to actually be voting for the grand-poobah, anyway.  

Here's the shocker...  Infanteer & Michael Dorosh - Good lord...  I actually AGREE with you guys on something...  ISn't the world supposed to stop now, or something?    You're right though...  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

T


----------



## Blindspot (23 Nov 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Trade him for Dalton?........please?



Hopefully, Tory will be Ontario's Ralph Klein in a couple of years. Toronto, as usual, blew it when they passed him over for Mayor.


----------



## Pieman (23 Nov 2004)

The next election in Alberta should be interesting. Who will take the throne of King Ralph? 
I nominate Dar Heatherington, just to make things interesting. LOL


----------



## canadianblue (23 Nov 2004)

Well, here's the final results.

PC     61
LIB   17
NDP 4
AA     1

I personally don't like Kevin Taft, that was all that was on peasentvision last night. He has one of the worst voices and speeches ever made I think "people participated in the most important part of democracy, tttthhhheeee eeeeelllleeeeecccctttttiooooon" :boring: I know thats pretty shallow but still.

Plus he seems really conceded now, since voters stayed at home he has an attitude like he's going to become premier in no time. I think that if the PC's were to ever vote in a pink tory, I would just be better off to go vote for the Alberta Alliance, their's no way in heck that we'll have a NDP or Liberal government in 4 years, or a 100 years. 

I would probably say that next election the party which will make the biggest inroads are the Alberta Alliance. I think they were extrememly close to winning in three riding, and got second and third in a large number of ridings. Plus in Rural Alberta the Alberta Alliance was second. It is also well known that Albertan's tend to vote in completely new parties and not established older parties.


----------



## Torlyn (23 Nov 2004)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> I think that if the PC's were to ever vote in a pink tory, I would just be better off to go vote for the Alberta Alliance, their's no way in heck that we'll have a NDP or Liberal government in 4 years, or a 100 years.
> 
> I would probably say that next election the party which will make the biggest inroads are the Alberta Alliance. I think they were extrememly close to winning in three riding, and got second and third in a large number of ridings. Plus in Rural Alberta the Alberta Alliance was second. It is also well known that Albertan's tend to vote in completely new parties and not established older parties.



Um, a pink tory?  Could you clarify?

I disagree with your comments regarding the Alberta Alliance.  While they did garner 9.2% of the popular vote, the seat they did win they did by a margin of 129 seats, (less than 1.5% of the votes for that area) and the only other riding they came close to winning they were over 300 votes shy...  As for rural Alberta they were in 2nd place 10 out of roughly 31 (less than 33%).

As to it being well know that Alberta tends to vote in completely new parties, what do you call the PC party of Alberta?  It's an older, established party...  I'm not sure if you're attempting to forecast the next election or not, but if you could clarify it would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Acorn (23 Nov 2004)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> It is also well known that Albertan's tend to vote in completely new parties and not established older parties.



Really?

1905-1921 - Liberals (not quite 16 years - 4 elections)
'21-'35 - United Farmers of Alberta (just over 14 years - 3 elections)
'35-'71 - Social Credit (36 years and 7 elections!)
'71-present - Conservatives

Now, I'm not sure how many elections the UFA or the SoCreds fought before finally being elected, but the trend looks, to me, that Albertans tend to be reluctant to witness major political change. Also, it looks like that change comes about when a leader retires without a popular successor (i.e. Manning's departure sealing the fate of the SoCreds) it remains to be seen who will succeed Ralph in 3 1/2 years.

Acorn


----------



## canadianblue (24 Nov 2004)

Before Peter Lougheed the PC's were basically non-existent at the provincial level. Once they gathered a few extra seats one election, they won a majority the next. If you were to look at the history of Alberta their were no PC's before I believe 1967, I might be wrong. Plus I think that if Albertan's were to choose a new party to replace the PC's it would probably be on the right as well, which most Albertan's are. I don't think many Albertan's would be willing to vote in a Liberal majority government, when most of the members of the liberals are with the federal liberals also. 

So I'd say that the only real alternative for Albertan's would be the Alliance if the PC's were to get a poor leader. Thats my own thinking on it though. If the liberals moved to the right then they might be a viable alternative. Pretty well the only real reason I think the liberals got elected was voter apathy, lowest voter turnout in Alberta's history.

Alot of my info I got off the CBC's website. You have to admit for a new party they did pretty well.

http://www.cbc.ca/albertavotes2004/ridings/

A pink tory is a left leaning tory, basically the same as a red tory.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Nov 2004)

DAMMMMITTTTTT

I just checked and realized I'm in one of the three ridings that voted Liberal.  And it wasn't even close.  Needless to say, I voted PC....

Ugh.


----------



## Torlyn (24 Nov 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> DAMMMMITTTTTT
> 
> I just checked and realized I'm in one of the three ridings that voted Liberal.  And it wasn't even close.  Needless to say, I voted PC....



Ouch...  I still maintain voter apathy hurt the PC's.  Absolutely no stats, but I can't see Calgarians electing liberals any other way..

T


----------



## canadianblue (24 Nov 2004)

The Liberals are really high on themselves right now. But in the end the only real reason they did well was because of voter apathy, I bet that in most of the ridings in Calgary alot of the voters in those ridings thought the PC's were going to be elected for sure. I can't get over what people find wrong with the province though, I think that all in all Alberta is doing alot better than the rest of Canada. 

The only real time I think that I would consider voting for somebody other than the PC's is if the PC's got a poor leader.


----------



## Pieman (24 Nov 2004)

I suspect that the Liberal gains in this election are really the result of low Tory voter turn outs. Not an increase in Liberal supporters. Everyone in Alberta knew that Klein was going to win it hands down, so why bother voting? The result is a larger percentage gain of people who voted Liberal, because every Liberal supporter knew every vote was going to count....see what happens when you're too lazy to go vote?

Oops! Just noticed your post FutureTrooper, I guess we agree on this point.


----------



## canadianblue (24 Nov 2004)

Hey, don't worry aboot it, sometimes I might mirror somebody elses opinions without knowing it. But the Liberals are really cocky right now, Kevin Taft said that he's going to be the next premier handsdown next election. The thing is though Albertan's will never ever vote for a left wing party. It just won't happen in my lifetime.


----------



## CivU (24 Nov 2004)

"The only real time I think that I would consider voting for somebody other than the PC's is if the PC's got a poor leader"

I'm not sure how marching into a homeless shelter, heavily intoxicated no less, and telling all the persons there to get off their asses and get a job translates into leadership...

This is not to diminish the economic miracle of Alberta, but whose to say that without Klein this would not have happened?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Nov 2004)

I'm not sure how marching into a homeless shelter, heavily intoxicated no less, and telling all the persons there to get off their asses and get a job translates into leadership...

.....WHAT?.....he whom is without a single sin?....didn't realize  screwing up one time made you a bad leader....I can see a lot of resignations coming. :


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Nov 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how marching into a homeless shelter, heavily intoxicated no less, and telling all the persons there to get off their asses and get a job translates into leadership...
> 
> .....WHAT?.....he whom is without a single sin?....didn't realize   screwing up one time made you a bad leader....I can see a lot of resignations coming. :



Damn right, he should have had some of us march in with him.


----------



## Torlyn (24 Nov 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Damn right, he should have had some of us march in with him.



Between that and the comment to AISH...  I hate to say it, but all he did was reiterate what many Albertans felt.  You can't honestly get me to believe that walking downtown, you've never seen anyone sitting on a street corner begging for change, (my favourite are the squeegie kids) and not thought "lazy bastards need to get honest work...".  Abuse the system, and so shall ye be abused.

CivU - As for the leader comment, anyone who can do such things, and STILL have the majority of people respect him, and re-elect him, shows some fairly impressive leadership skills, don't you think?  

T


----------



## CivU (24 Nov 2004)

".....WHAT?.....he whom is without a single sin?....didn't realize  screwing up one time made you a bad leader....I can see a lot of resignations coming. "

If Jack Layton were to march into a board meeting and condemn the capitalisit horde I wonder if it would so easily be forgiven and forgotten...I digress...


As for, "CivU - As for the leader comment, anyone who can do such things, and STILL have the majority of people respect him, and re-elect him, shows some fairly impressive leadership skills, don't you think? " 

Absolutely, that's why I wish they were printing Clinton (Bill) for President 2008...


----------



## Infanteer (24 Nov 2004)

> Absolutely, that's why I wish they were printing Clinton (Bill) for President 2008...



Should they be getting his next impeachment papers ready as well?


----------



## CivU (25 Nov 2004)

When their preparing Clinton's impeachment papers perhaps they should draft up George W. Bush's.

It would seem to me if oral sex is fitting such a penalty, then falsifying claims to engage in unliterial military mobilisation would be in such a category...


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Nov 2004)

I thought it was a cigar.... I seem to remember having a few Dominican "Monicas" laying around!


----------



## CivU (25 Nov 2004)

From the accounts I've heard perhaps a cigarillo might be more appropriate than a cigar...


----------



## canadianblue (25 Nov 2004)

> It would seem to me if oral sex is fitting such a penalty, then falsifying claims to engage in unliterial military mobilisation would be in such a category...



But then again how many politicians conservative and liberal lied in the United States, I think that even FDR lied a little bit in order to try to get the US to join the allies in the war against Germany [before pearl harbour]. Plus in Canada how many times did the liberal's lie, and continue to rule the country with a comfortable majority.


----------



## CivU (25 Nov 2004)

"continue to rule the country with a comfortable majority"

I'm not sure we were voting in the same election this past June.  Last time I checked a majority was 50% + 1...

The Liberals won a minority government under our plurality system, which means the persons with the most votes wins...while they remain comfortable they hardly represent a majority...


----------



## atticus (25 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> "continue to rule the country with a comfortable majority"
> 
> I'm not sure we were voting in the same election this past June.   Last time I checked a majority was 50% + 1...
> 
> The Liberals won a minority government under our plurality system, which means the persons with the most votes wins...while they remain comfortable they hardly represent a majority...



PC   61
LIB  17
NDP 4
AA   1

61 - 17 = 44

44 - 4 = 40

40 - 1 = 39

I think that they may outnumber the opposition by about 39 seats. Last time I checked a majority is when a ruling party holds more seats than all of the opposition.


----------



## Korus (25 Nov 2004)

What about the senatorial election? How many people voted for that? I know a lot of my friends abstained from that, and a lot of people think it's a big waste of time regardless what message it may send.


----------



## cgyflames01 (25 Nov 2004)

I one of those unlucky bastard's that has a liberal MLA? LOL :crybaby:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Nov 2004)

Quote from CivU,
_If Jack Layton were to march into a board meeting and condemn the capitalisit horde I wonder if it would so easily be forgiven and forgotten...I digress..._

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.


----------



## atticus (25 Nov 2004)

~RoKo~ said:
			
		

> What about the senatorial election? How many people voted for that? I know a lot of my friends abstained from that, and a lot of people think it's a big waste of time regardless what message it may send.



It sure was a big waste of time, and about 3 million dollars too. I was just reading the paper and Martin said that he is not going to put any of the three people elected from Alberta into the senate. He was talking about senate reform and how if he instated these three it would not help.


----------



## CivU (25 Nov 2004)

"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 (25 Nov 2004)

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 (27 Nov 2004)

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 (27 Nov 2004)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> 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 (27 Nov 2004)

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 (28 Nov 2004)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> 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?



			
				oyaguy said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				oyaguy said:
			
		

> 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



			
				oyaguy said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				oyaguy said:
			
		

> 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)



			
				oyaguy said:
			
		

> 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


----------

