• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Senate election.....

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Senate election.....

    Note to Supporters of the Citizens Centre


    WEEKLY COMMENTARY
    "Just Between Us"

    October 8, 2004

    Why I'm running for the Senate

    It now looks almost certain there will be an Alberta election on Monday, November 22.

    This matters to me personally, because I'm standing as an Independent candidate for the Canadian Senate.

    On voting day, Albertans will be given two ballots, one to pick their local MLA, and the other to choose province-wide nominees for Alberta's three existing Senate vacancies.

    Premier Klein will send the winners' names to Prime Minister Paul Martin, urging him to appoint them.

    There is, of course, no guarantee Martin will cooperate. Mulroney appointed an elected senator in 1989, but Chretien stuck to the old practice of choosing party favorites hardly anybody's heard of.

    This is why the Canadian Senate has little credibility or public respect.

    It's also why not one Albertan in a thousand knows the name of any of their senators, or how many there are supposed to be (six), or that half the seats have fallen vacant.

    All they know (if they follow politics) is that in our last Senate election in 1998, Albertans chose Bert Brown and Ted Morton to sit for us in the Upper House, but for six years Jean Chretien refused to appoint them. Their terms have now elapsed.

    Some people understandably ask, what's the purpose of electing more?

    There's a very good reason.

    The Alberta Senate election creates a new democratic platform for Albertans to promote federal reform and provincial rights.

    Democracy functions properly only with "checks and balances." In Canada today, the courts are too strong, the prime minister is too strong, and the central government is too strong.

    Meanwhile, the provinces have become too weak, and the premiers too politically dependent on federal money. Canada wasn't supposed to work this way, but it does now.

    A reformed Senate--one that's democratically accountable to the people of the various provinces--would be a useful check on premiers and prime ministers.

    And the only way to reform it is to keep electing senators, to force the issue.

    Paul Martin says he wants to end western alienation, and to close the "democratic deficit" in Parliament.

    Well here's your chance, Paul, on a platter!

    Federal reform goes well beyond electing senators, of course, but senators-elect (whether appointed or not) have a democratic mandate to speak for their province to the people of Canada.

    We should stop relying entirely on premiers and provincial governments to do this, because they don't. How often, for example, have you heard any Alberta politicians mention that Ottawa siphons a net $10 billion each year out of their province? If they started talking about such things, people would expect them to do something about it.

    Now, however, with oil reaching $50, the minority Liberals will soon recall how they won huge national majorities a generation ago. They only need to promise to deliver Alberta's resource earnings to eastern voters--all in the "national interest," of course. It worked before and it will work again.

    Albertans need to be ready to fight back with everything they can.

    That's why this Senate election matters and why I'm running in it.

    - Link Byfield

    Link Byfield is chairman of the Edmonton-based Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy.

    #2
    Well if Martin and his crew intend to make a grab at the oil I doubt very much they would want some pesky senators from Alberta stirring things up? So don't look for this to happen.
    The whole Martin idea of "ending western alienation" is about the biggest joke I've ever heard? Does he think if he gets old squealing Annie or old dull Ralph Goodale out and about some more, we'll suddenly see the light and fall back into our natural roles of supplying the cash for them to blow?
    Hey Paul, you want to end western alienation? How about giving us a triple E senate? How about sending us some of the road tax back? How about getting rid of some of the stupid rules you and your kind have forced on us??? How about treating our industries like you do Bombardier? How about treating us like an equal instead of a colony?
    I can't think of a better man than Link Byfeld to stir the pot...unless it was his old man, Ted!

    Comment


      #3
      As you know Cowman I agree with you completly. I will limit my comments to one issue you raise, "road tax" I expect you meant fuel tax.

      The federal fuel tax has been one of my most acute aggravations as it is not applied equally. For example a manufactured item made in Hamilton and delivered to Toronto has far less tax charged to it than when the same item is shipped to Bonnieville Alberta.

      This is one reason why in the states they had no federal fuel tax for many years.

      Comment


        #4
        Well I call it the road tax because that was what it was for originally? Alberta also has a "road tax" but of course it goes into general revenues just like all the other taxes...but this was not the intention of this tax? It was supposed to be exclusively for maintaining the roads!
        The federal "road tax" is of course supposed to maintain and build federal roads as well as share some with the provinces and municipalities. I believe Alberta sends about $700 million every year to the federal government in "road tax"? I believe Ottawa spent $70 million a couple of years ago on the Trans Canada and before that the last money we got was when they built the Rogers Pass? I believe that was in the mid-sixties!
        So if you figure we've been sending Ottawa $700,000,000/yr. for the last 40 years with nothing to show for it, then I guess they should be able to build us some really nice roads? Afterall that is $28 BILLION dollars(and never mind the interest)!

        Comment


          #5
          Can you imagine the audacity of these people charging more in fuel tax for a manufactured item shipped to Bonnieville from Hamilton compared to the same one shipped from Hamilton to Toronto! especially when we ship them the fuel in the first place. The next thing you know someone will get the bright idea to manufacture in Bonnieville.

          Comment


            #6
            Of course it is going to cost more for fuel to send a product a geater distance! That has nothing to do with the fuel tax. The fuel tax is nothing but a blatant unfair tax? It goes straight into the federal coffers to be used how ever they see fit.
            Does a small part of it go to fix and build roads? Yes, it surely does! The bridge to PEI would be a classic example also the improvements to the highway in Quebec? Unfortunately that is pretty well where the gravy train ends.

            Comment


              #7
              Why would you say that the fuel tax is a blatant and unfair tax.

              Comment


                #8
                The fuel tax is charged on every gallon of fuel! Thus when it takes more gallons to ship an item a greater distance, the cost of the item is higher, making the fuel tax a tax that is not applied equally across the country.
                Why is this so hard to understand?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Perhaps it's a misunderstanding of the word, unfair, but for every litre of fuel you pay the same tax, what could be fairer, should the company sending goods to western Canada or Newfoundland pay less taxes than someone shipping from the same plant in Ontario to someplace in Ontario? Now that would be unfair.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Its the reciever paying the tax...NOT the sender! Get it?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I guess I don't GET IT, certainly the receiver or the consumer pays the tax. Does he pay more for the goods because of the tax if the goods are produced in Bonnyville and shipped to Wainwright or if they are produced in Hamilton and shipped to Wainwright?

                      This is your point, the fuel tax is unfair because someone out west pays more tax on goods manufactured in Ontario. You seem to think that removing the tax on goods shipped out west would be fair to the manufacturer in Bonnyville.

                      Alternatively if the tax is removed completely then the ratio of cost to the consumer in Ontario and the one in Alberta would be pretty much the same.

                      Comment

                      • Reply to this Thread
                      • Return to Topic List
                      Working...