• 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.

The old rules...

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

    The old rules...

    Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy

    WEEKLY COMMENTARY
    "Just Between Us"

    February 13, 2006

    Don't condemn Harper for playing by the old rules.
    It matters more how he will change them.

    Week one for the new government and all hell breaks loose.

    Many people are angry -- even seething -- about Harper's cabinet picks, especially Vancouver turncoat David Emerson and new Montreal senator Michael Fortier.

    I share their concerns. But what can be done?

    According to our Constitution, Emerson serves the people of Vancouver Kingsway as their representative in Parliament. How he does it -- including which party he's in -- is between him and them. It's no one else's business.

    Some people are demanding there be a law barring MPs from joining another party. Why? Parties and leaders are already too strong. This would just make individual MPs even weaker, and voters with them.

    Some are saying there should always be a mandatory by-election. Why? When 66 Alliance MPs and 12 Progressive Conservatives joined a new party in 2004, should there have been 78 by-elections?

    The only sensible solution is a law that gives voters a realistic right of recall when their MP leaves the party they elected him to serve, or gives other reasons of clear cause -- stealing rings, etc.

    But let's not forget, they may not care. They may even approve, as they plainly did in Belinda Stronach's riding of Newmarket-Aurora.

    Likewise, let's not spend too much time fuming about Harper appointing a new Conservative senator, Michael Fortier.

    Yes, it should concern us that Harper chose expediency over principle even before he took his oath of office.

    But it should concern us far more that the Conservatives are talking about making Senate elections an entirely federal affair, consisting of federal party candidates running in national elections.

    This would create a Senate in many ways even worse than the one we've got.

    The Constitution says that senators represent provinces. Not national parties, national leaders and national governments. Provinces.

    True, the Senate is a federal House. But provinces make up the federation.

    For this reason, it's crucial that Senate candidates be elected in provincial elections using provincial parties and election rules -- as they are in Alberta.

    Of course, the last thing a strong-minded leader like Harper may want (any more than Chretien, Trudeau, Mulroney or Martin would have wanted) is an elected Upper House over which he has no control.

    He can intimidate his own MPs into supporting bad policy. He signs their nomination papers. But he couldn't intimidate provincially-elected senators. They wouldn't answer to him.

    Instead he would have to actually persuade provincially-elected senators that his legislation does not harm provincial interests and is good for the country.

    "You'd have gridlock!" protest the defenders of the present elected dictatorship. "Nothing would get through."

    But they never explain how independent senates haven't prevented the U.S. and Switzerland from succeeding better than we have. In neither does the goverment have political control.

    Stephen Harper didn't invent the rules he's required to play by for now. I suggest we cut him some slack, and focus instead on how he intends to change those rules when he gets his chance.

    With such a weak minority, his promised democratic reforms may have to wait until he gets a majority, if he can, in another year or two.

    This would actually be good. Few Canadians have given democratic reform the careful thought it requires. During the last long decade of democratic paralysis under the Liberals, there was no point.

    - Link Byfield

    #2
    OF course Old LINK would love for Stephen to ensure that he gets his seat in the Senate !!!

    Comment


      #3
      Now Emrald, that is a drive by smear.You cast aspirsions on Link that are not in line with the fact that he has always pushed for the appointments of others that were elected, ahead of himself! Besides pushing for a triple E senate is a legitiment endevor.

      Also your remark suggests there is NO validity to his argument about federal versus provincial influence, and on this you are wrong!

      Comment


        #4
        Byfeld is very much right on this issue! And the fact is Byfeld IS the selection of the people of Alberta? Uh...its called democracy?
        If you have a federal election of senators well what do you get? You get a federal representative, not a provincial representative?
        Consider this fact: The first "elected" senator was not an Alberta Conservative but a Reform candidate? Perhaps in the future a province like Alberta might send an Alberta Alliance member? Personally I want my elected senator to stand up for Alberta...not for the Conservative party of Canada! None of this garbage where you vote for the "good of the country" or the "good of the party"? When the federal government tries to pass some BS that benifits the east at our expense I want my senator to be speaking up for our interests...not Ontario Conservatives!

        Comment


          #5
          Under Federal jurisdiction there is NO law allowing for elected senators. I have never voted for any of Alberta's so-called senators, in fact I deliberately spoiled my ballot once in protest.
          When the country enacts legislation for election of senators in all of the provinces and territories, then I will vote for a senator.

          Comment


            #6
            Always ready to bow to your Ottawa masters arn't you wilagrow.
            This is a CONFEDERATION of PROVINCES!!

            A triple E senate would mean the giving up of some power by the feds... and leave them with just national issues to deal with. Wouldn't that be neat!

            Don't wait for Saskatchewan or B.C. to lead the way on bringing the west in as equal partners in this CON-federation...hats off to Albertans for leading the way. To bad you don't have more patriots among you.

            Comment


              #7
              That vote for Senators in the last provincial election was pretty costly for us. Did any of us hear from a single candidate on an individual basis? No. Did any of us actually know who the majority of them were prior to seeing names on the ballot? No. Did many people vote for the senators? No. Was there informed decision making when it came to choosing the senators? No.

              I agree with emrald on this one. The author of the article has a pretty vested interest in making sure that the provincial election stays in place. Is he unbiased in this? The answer again is a resounding -- No.

              Comment


                #8
                Yeah, I guess you are right, democracy does suck.

                I liked it better when someone from Quebec, who I didn't vote for, got to choose someone out of the 3 million in this province to sit in the chamber of "sober" second thought. What were we thinking??? Those guys down there always know better than us silly hicks out here.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Well Linda, you could say the same thing about municipal elections? Pretty small turnout in just about every municipality? How many had a clue about who was running?
                  The senate obviously does have some power? They can delay a bill or send it back for amendments? In theory they could outright reject a bill...which they don't do because they are not a legitimate elected body? But if they were elected....
                  Harper has said that is the way we are going in the future...if the provinces choose to do so? He threw the ball squarely into their court. Now it is up to the individual provinces? If they choose to hold elections for senators he will honor those selections. The only other primeminister who ever did that was Brian Mulrooney.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    cakado I just do not believe that you , of all people, have to be spoon fed every thing political. If so, you would not vote in ANY election!

                    I also do not believe that you really are enamored with our federal system of elected dictatorship...but you seem to defend it at every turn??

                    No one ...not even Link would deny his motive (which many believe honorable) is based on a genuine attemp to improve our system of government. Please produce something here that points to his personal ambition or keep such nonsense out of the debate...with all due respect.

                    --------------------------------
                    National Post
                    December 14, 2004

                    Winnipeg Free Press
                    December 19, 2004

                    Quesnel Cariboo Observer
                    December 30, 2004

                    Nelson Daily News
                    December 30, 2004

                    By Dr. Roger Gibbins

                    CALGARY - In a recent Maclean's column, Paul Wells argues that Prime Minister Paul Martin should ignore the recent Alberta Senate election. He maintains that "electing senators would not fix the shafting of the West, it would entrench it."

                    His argument, which should not be tossed aside lightly, is that if we end up with only one E of a Triple-E Senate, and particularly a Senate that is elected but remains unequal, Western discontent could increase. Quebec and Ontario would retain 24 seats each (compared to six for each of the Western provinces), while the four Atlantic provinces would continue to have 30 seats.

                    Nor, for that matter, would the West fare particularly well in a Senate based on equal provincial representation. Any new Western clout would be overwhelmed by the additional power flowing to Atlantic Canada. The West, with 30% of the national population, would have 23% of the Senate seats whereas the four Atlantic provinces, with only 7.3% of the national population, would have 29% of the seats. British Columbia, with 4.2 million residents, would have the same number of Senate seats as Prince Edward Island, which has a population of 140,000.

                    As Mr. Wells correctly points out, a more reasonable distribution of seats could only be achieved through a constitutional amendment, and the odds of this happening, or even being attempted, are slim to none. Hence, Mr. Wells concludes, the Prime Minister will be doing the right thing for the West by ignoring the results of the Alberta election and instead making conventional appointments from defeated Liberal candidates and other provincial notables.

                    There is no doubt that Mr. Wells identifies a major problem. His solution, however, is also problematic. In essence, he argues that Western Canadians should abandon any thought of institutional reform in Ottawa, that they should accept the status quo for the simple reason that it cannot be changed. He assumes, and he may be right, that Canadians for the indefinite future will prefer an institution badly designed for the 19th century to any whiff of democratic reform. We should simply plod along, a beacon to the world for undemocratic principles long abandoned elsewhere.

                    But if Senate reform is dead, then this suggests that the "West-wants-in" strategy should also be abandoned. When the Reform party of Canada began popularizing this slogan in the late 1980s, Senate reform was seen as the vehicle for providing the West with a more effective national voice. If, as Mr. Wells suggests, Western Canadians abandon this strategy, what might be the alternative?

                    Certainly very few would opt for "the West wants out." Recent surveys put the percentage of Western Canadians who support an independent West in the low single digits. Many may opt, however, for the Quebec strategy of maximizing provincial powers. Lacking any prospect for a more effective regional voice within the national Parliament, they may opt for greater jurisdictional protection from the national government, as Quebec has done.

                    Senate reformers, whether they acknowledged it or not, were seeking to strengthen and revitalize the national government by making sure that parliamentary institutions would express regional interests and aspirations more effectively. In this limited sense, they have been centralizers at heart. If they are driven from the field by the arguments that partial reform is dangerous and comprehensive change is impossible, then the field is abandoned to the proponents of greater decentralization.

                    I'm not sure that greater decentralization would serve the interests or aspirations of Western Canadians. Political pressure in that direction seems inevitable, however, if we accept the argument that change at the centre is impossible. I would urge, therefore, that both Mr. Wells and Prime Minister Martin exercise some caution in damning Senate reform initiatives.

                    There are only two alternatives on the table. The first is a more decentralized federal system in which the political ties of Western Canadians to the national government are steadily eroded. The second, and complementary option, is a shift in power away from parliamentary institutions toward the new Council of the Federation, in short moving Canada from a federal to a more confederal model in which provincial governments would increasingly be the architects of national policy.

                    At the very least, the opponents of the Alberta Senate reform initiative should acknowledge the decentralizing consequences of their opposition. By striving to ensure that the Senate remains unelected, unequal and ineffective, they are necessarily channelling the reform impulse in Western Canada toward greater decentralization. Whether this would be in the best interests of the West or Canada is very much an open question.

                    --------------------------------
                    The only caveat I have with all the senate reform debate that I have seen is the talk of x number of senators being quite a bit higher than the two, each U.S. state has!!

                    Comment


                      #11
                      You're right, I don't have to be spoon fed everything and would prefer not to be because I want to make up my own mind about any given issue.

                      What I do find somewhat curious and amusing is that if one isn't crowing about how wonderful the Conservatives are, then one is automatically supporting the Liberals.

                      The "if you ain't with us, you're agin us" attitude is old, archaic and doesn't fit in today's world. I can be liberal about some things, conservative on others and on a really good day be somewhat socialist with my views. To be polarized one way or the other doesn't allow for differing viewpoints and gaining understanding.

                      If I am not a member of the Link fanclub, that also doesn't make me wrong or uninformed. For every one of the many who believe in him, there is likely an equal number who don't.

                      The old rules don't apply anymore. There is more to an issue than just black and white, right and wrong.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I don't really understand what the problem is though. If you don't want to vote...that is your right? I hope though you wouldn't want to deny others that right if they so choose?
                        Ralph Klein decided the people of Alberta would vote in their selection of senators. Ralph Klein has like this massive majority of votes in this province...so I would say the people support him on this...or am I badly mistaken? Maybe they will give him the heave ho over it?
                        It is interesting to note senator Dan Hay, an Alberta liberal, recently became the house leader in the oppostion? They quoted him as saying it is important to be a senator from Alberta! He said no matter what your political stripe you should stand up for the issues that affect your province! He further added he intended to be a voice protecting the rights of Alberta...specifically mentioning Oil and Agriculture!
                        I also believe Nick Taylor(another Alberta liberal senator) stood up for the rights of Alberta? The trick here is whoever our senators are, they need to be Albertans first...and party men second?
                        Political parties come and go, but your dedication to your home, community, province, country...shouldn't? I can include country because in my mind my country is Western Canada? Have no dedication to any country east of Manitoba.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Whoa now - you're getting a little too much exercise jumping to conclusions. I never said I didn't vote and I wouldn't deny anyone else their right to vote or not vote, as the case may be.

                          Cowman, the vote for the senators was pretty low and it was extremely costly for us. Something to the tune of $750,000 for EACH of the 4 candidates that may never see the Senate.

                          Comment

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