CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Seante Appointments
Kick in the teeth for Canadians  61%  [ 14 ]
Ho hum, business as usual  39%  [ 9 ]
Total votes : 23

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11108
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:17 pm
 


IMHO, This last round of appointments to the Senate are going to piss off more than a few Albertans. The appointment of three from this province and not one of them was chosen by the people of this province in our last election. The precedent was established with Gen(ret'd) Sam Waters, yet again the PM ignored Albertans wishes. Even a nod in the direction of Senate reform with the selection of one off the list would have been at least a bone.

What is the consensus out there about the "House of sober second thought" appointments? Does the Senate even need reforming? Accountability? What? Is it just a "Whiney Westerner" thing?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 10896
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:22 pm
 


I posted about this this morning but it was too liberal for the Mods here so they nuked it, but here it goes again.

PRIME MINISTER Paul Martin appointed nine senators yesterday, handing the NDP its first-ever member in the Upper Chamber and naming two Progressive Conservatives. Among the Liberals appointed yesterday was former Toronto MP and cabinet minister Art Eggleton who stepped aside before last year's election, allowing Ken Dryden to run.

Eggleton was fired from cabinet by former PM Jean Chretien for handing his former girlfriend a government contract.

The opposition parties accused Martin of wooing NDP votes and of thumbing his nose at the Conservatives by appointing two senators from a defunct party.

Martin defended his decision yesterday to appoint three opposition members to the Senate along with six Liberals, including retired Gen. Romeo Dallaire.

"I picked them because they're outstanding Canadians who have a long record of accomplishments," the PM said after a cabinet meeting.

"I think it's up to the leaders of the opposition parties to decide whether in fact they will be welcome into their caucus."

As for the remaining seven empty Senate seats, Martin said he needs more time to fill them.

---

BREAKDOWN

Senate standings:

- Liberal 64

- Conservative 23

- Independent 5

- PC 5

- NDP 1

- Vacant seats 7

The Liberals have no shame


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 10896
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:24 pm
 


As for the remaining seven empty Senate seats, Martin said he needs more time to fill them.

Don't worry Martini will fill them to when the heat dies down on this one.

Lifetime Moneysuckers


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 10896
PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 7:14 am
 


It smells like Eggs 'n' bacon
THIS IS one Easter Eggs story we could do without.

After dithering for over a year, Prime Minister Paul Martin handed out sweet Senate appointments this week to nine lucky Canadians (he has seven vacancies yet to fill). Each gets a salary of $116,000 and a host of tasty perks until age 75. That buys a lot of chocolate!

Most of these goodies went to Liberal faithful, as usual -- like Toronto's own Art Eggleton (more on him in a second). So much for Martin's pledges to end patronage.

Aside from the inspired choice of retired Gen. Romeo Dallaire (the peacekeeping hero of Rwanda whose considerable talents might be better put to use elsewhere), Martin's appointments are transparently political.

Billed as an attempt to reach out to the regions and to the Opposition parties, they're really a slap in the face.

His Alberta picks -- one is a former provincial Liberal leader, surprise, surprise -- don't include any of the folks that the province has democratically elected in unofficial votes. By deliberately snubbing those candidates, Martin has made it clear he has no intention of reforming the Senate.

(Indeed, the PM -- and taxpayers -- would have been better off had he just continued reforming the Senate by attrition: By failing to fill 16 vacancies for this long, he was at least off to a good start in saving our money.)

Meanwhile, the two so-called "Progressive Conservative" appointees, along with the first-ever New Democrat to sit in the Senate, were promptly disowned by their respective party leaders, who noted none are party members.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper blasted this move of Martin's as "machiavellian," while the NDP's Jack Layton, to his credit, said his caucus would refuse any senator because it doesn't believe in such cronyism.

Martin used to say he believed that too. But now he's no different from every PM before him who saw the Upper Chamber as patronage heaven for friends and loyalists.

Which brings us back to Eggleton.

Eggs, once an adequate mayor of Toronto, gave an untendered $36,500 contract to an ex-girlfriend that got him fired as Jean Chretien's defence minister in 2002.

Why, you might ask, would Chretien's successor want to reward him? The answer lies in something Eggs did more recently: In last year's election, he stepped aside to let Martin protege Ken Dryden run in his safe Liberal riding.

You can bet your bonnet that's what scored him the Senate seat. We smell pork -- and it's not our Easter ham.


Liberals have no Shame in what they do.

This is just a old age home for dried up useless Liberals, who wants to bet the beloved Sheila Copps gets one of these.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 512
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:26 pm
 


Regardless of who was put there under the current system what ever gets passed in the House of Commons will make it through the Senate. So in retrospect the appointments are of no real significance. Although if the Senate was to go under a reform, these such things would not happen. I'm a westerer as well as a Concervitive and under the current system could care less about who is appointed. The only way to make the senate anywhere useful & democraticl would be to make them nationaly elected. This is the only way the senate would be ligitamate. It would no longer just be full of the friends of the PM whom ever they are and what ever party they belong to.

Ubique


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11108
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:41 pm
 


poopy poopy:
paul martin needs a bullet to the head!that would wake this country up!


Unacceptable. You should be ashamed.


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9874
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:26 pm
 


indeed this type of talk will not be tollerated


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 43
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:14 pm
 


The Senate is irrelevant! :(


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Boston Bruins


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11907
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:00 am
 


Why will free speech not be tolerated Canadaka? Is it because he makes a remark that offends you personally? People on this site have said a lot worse about other nations leaders, even wishing death to people who post on this site.
Once again freedom of speech only applies if I agree with what you say. The hypocrosy on this site amazes me. By the way Poopy, maybe not in the head as I can't see that doing too much damage, maybe right in the arse!


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 435
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:35 pm
 


Ok, an elected Senate sounds great and all but that would just make it a second House of Commons. It would annulate the Senate's purpose, wich is to provide a perspective on issues wich is outside of that of the people. A good Senate reform would be one wherest the members are appointed by the leader of their respective party, and a specified amount for each party based on their standings in the House of Commons. In this way debates could go on in the Senate without democratic concerns, and alternate perspective suggestions could be passed on to the political parties.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11108
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:39 pm
 


Virgil Virgil:
...A good Senate reform would be one wherest the members are appointed by the leader of their respective party, and a specified amount for each party based on their standings in the House of Commons...


You want the percentages in the HoC to be reflected in the Senate? So if for example the NDP is the ruling party and forms a majority government, then they should get the most seats in the Senate too? Selected by the party leader to boot. Isn't that making it a second HoC too?

Virgil Virgil:
...In this way debates could go on in the Senate without democratic concerns, and alternate perspective suggestions could be passed on to the political parties.


How does "democratic concerns" hinder healthy debate? How "alternative" would those suggestions be if they came from the people the party leader selected and placed in the first place? I'd be thinking not very.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 435
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:49 pm
 


$1:
Virgil wrote:
...A good Senate reform would be one wherest the members are appointed by the leader of their respective party, and a specified amount for each party based on their standings in the House of Commons...


You want the percentages in the HoC to be reflected in the Senate? So if for example the NDP is the ruling party and forms a majority government, then they should get the most seats in the Senate too? Selected by the party leader to boot. Isn't that making it a second HoC too?



If the Senate were to not reflect the standings in the House of Commons then it should not be able to negate the latter's actions. But since we would be looking for "alternate perspectives", then it would most likely be a better idea to have the number of Senators nominated per party be equal and, as I said, disable the Senate's supposed ability to discontinue bill's passed by the HoC.

$1:
How does "democratic concerns" hinder healthy debate? How "alternative" would those suggestions be if they came from the people the party leader selected and placed in the first place? I'd be thinking not very.


Democratic concerns may hinder a debate in a fashion that parties may fear making certain suggestions in the event that it causes them votes in the proceeding election. And no I don't think I have much support beyond that as far as why alternate perspectives are even necessary, but was that not the original purpose of the Senate? To provide perspectives outside of democratic concerns?


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11108
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:22 pm
 


So why not keep Senators from affiliating with a party? If they were accountable solely to their electorate, then they would have to represent those people who elected them. They would be rising or sinking strictly on their own merit. By keeping the Senate's ability to sink bills, wouldn't it then keep alot of the BS out and reflect what the people want, not what the ruling party desires?


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 New York Rangers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1625
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:50 pm
 


SprCForr SprCForr:
So why not keep Senators from affiliating with a party? If they were accountable solely to their electorate, then they would have to represent those people who elected them. They would be rising or sinking strictly on their own merit. By keeping the Senate's ability to sink bills, wouldn't it then keep alot of the BS out and reflect what the people want, not what the ruling party desires?


There's the problem right there "ruling party". That's bullshit. When an election is called you elect a representative who should be there for you, not his party. Basically, by creating an elected Senate as you've proposed, we are fixing a problem in the HofC which is that it has become party dominated. MP's should be representing their constituencies, not their parties. Why not fix what's broken rather than trying to band-aid the problem with an elected Senate.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11108
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:20 pm
 


Let the HoC remain as it is. The party in power represents the trend or direction the country as a whole will take. MP's represent their constituants through their party. Let the Senate represent the people without being constrained to that platform. Then you'd have the ability to vote for a party you like and yet have a check in place by voting for a Senator that doesn't answer to a Party. Spread out across the country, wouldn't this better represent what Canadians want?

e.g. Your district prefers the direction that the Tories are headed and votes them in, yet your district (and the majority of the other districts too) is in opposition to one of it's platforms, say SSM. So the Tories are in power, yet wouldn't be able to ram through a bill prohibiting SSM.

The ruling party certainly couldn't ignore it. Well, they could at their peril I guess, but the bill still wouldn't pass. The Senate gains the moral authority of representing the people without the ability to propose legislation.

Before anyone gets bent out of shape, I just used SSM/Tories as an example. I am in no way well read on this stuff. Is there a flaw in this approach that I'm not seeing?

Edit: Doh!, I just saw this thread:

http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?nam ... sc&start=0

I'll use that one. Maybe a mod could join these two or something.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.