How will a Conservative government be better?

[Reverend Blair]

RE: How will a Conservati

Just a couple of points...

Your "election" for senators had less than 50% of your population turn up to vote (I think it was something like 47%) and the candidates you put forth were all extremely right wing.

You were a have not province until quite recently. In that time you received transfer payments and other money from the rest of Canada. A lot of that came from Quebec and the Maritime provinces.

Your perception of "your" money being wasted and mismanaged somehow more than the rest of Canada's is not going to have effect, even in an elected senate. The proposal is for a senate where every province has an equal number of seats. You will still not get the influence you want.

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

Thanks for your comments, I try to make logical and rational points. I'm a scientist, I base things on fact, logic and the rule of law.

I'm glad we can agree on the problem, unfortunately agreeing on a solution will prove to be much more difficult.

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

Just a couple of points...

Your "election" for senators had less than 50% of your population turn up to vote (I think it was something like 47%) and the candidates you put forth were all extremely right wing.

You were a have not province until quite recently. In that time you received transfer payments and other money from the rest of Canada. A lot of that came from Quebec and the Maritime provinces.

Your perception of "your" money being wasted and mismanaged somehow more than the rest of Canada's is not going to have effect, even in an elected senate. The proposal is for a senate where every province has an equal number of seats. You will still not get the influence you want.

Obviously you didn't read all his and my responses. What does voter turn out have to do with it? Voter turnout in general is very low. It is due to voter apathy and the sense that votes don't matter.

I've made the point about Alberta receiving money from Quebec and the Maritimes before, and never once was it disputed.

If you look at the current level of money given to the federal government by all citizens, it is true that per capita, Alberta gives more. So in a sense, Albertans are having more of their money wasted.

As for the effectiveness of an elected senate with equal representation of each province, how can you be sure it wouldn't work? How do you know that Albertans would still be unsatisfied?

What sort of influence do you perceive Alberta wants?

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

Just a couple of points...

Your "election" for senators had less than 50% of your population turn up to vote (I think it was something like 47%) and the candidates you put forth were all extremely right wing.

You were a have not province until quite recently. In that time you received transfer payments and other money from the rest of Canada. A lot of that came from Quebec and the Maritime provinces.

Your perception of "your" money being wasted and mismanaged somehow more than the rest of Canada's is not going to have effect, even in an elected senate. The proposal is for a senate where every province has an equal number of seats. You will still not get the influence you want.

The reason the senators were all right wing is because the New Dumbocrats and Liberanos did not put any candidates up for senate election. ( I suspect they knew they did not have to, as they are the only ones who get appointed from Alberta anyway, so why bother going to the people :wink: )

As far as being a have province, I dont' have the stats at my finger tips, but I think we have been paying transfer payments since sometime in the 70's, at least. However, I stand to be corrected by someone with actual dates and reference points. Just seems to me that during Lougheed's time we were paying transfer payments, and that was in the 70's, so if that is the case, that means for at least 30 years. For many, this means that Alberta has been paying transfer payments all their lives, and for those into politics, this means there is a younger group than I that are getting more frustrated and vocal about it. It is not simply a case of a bunch of old white guys any more making these points.

When you said "Your" money, please be clear, I am referring only to the transfer payments, not the basic contributions through the regular taxation methods. When our transfer payment contribution is $12billion and the feds show a surplus of $9billion, it is hard to understand why they needed our $12billion. It sounds very much like Ontario is also starting to question this system.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

Thanks for your comments, I try to make logical and rational points. I'm a scientist, I base things on fact, logic and the rule of law.

I'm glad we can agree on the problem, unfortunately agreeing on a solution will prove to be much more difficult.

There has to be a way to have the west become more a part of this country, instead of feeling somewhat marginalized as they/we do now. I know there have been many ideas floated over the years, but as I see it, if any influence is moved, it will be moved from Ontario, and no one likes to lose influence. I think that the current situation where a lot of the fiscal influence in Canada is moving west scares the hell out of the powerbrokers in Ontario, which is why anything at all do do with re-jigging of confederation is met with so much resistance. I don't expect anything overnight, but surely an equal and elected senate is not out of the question? It would by default give more say, at least, to the regions of this country. That is something I think can be done in a relatively short time, with no fuss, no muss.

 

[Reverend Blair]

What does voter turn out have to do with it? Voter turnout in general is very low. It is due to voter apathy and the sense that votes don't matter.

It shows that there isn't much support for an elected senate, even within Alberta.

I've made the point about Alberta receiving money from Quebec and the Maritimes before, and never once was it disputed.

And I'm still not disputing it. I just find it ridiculous that a province that received payments for so long now complains so loudly now that they are on the other side of the issue.

If you look at the current level of money given to the federal government by all citizens, it is true that per capita, Alberta gives more. So in a sense, Albertans are having more of their money wasted.

So? It is Canada's money, not theirs. Look at it this way...I put all of money into a bank account. Mrs. Rev puts hers into the same account. It gets spent according to who needs what. She thinks my beer and cigarettes are a waste of money, and I think just about everything that she buys is a waste of money. We don't fight about it and we don't bicker over who put more in this month. Why would we, it wouldn't solve anything.

As for the effectiveness of an elected senate with equal representation of each province, how can you be sure it wouldn't work?

We have an example of it not working to our south. The US suffers deadlocks, riders tacked onto bills that they have nothing to do with, and so on. States with smaller populations still feel ignored and unrepresented. Ask the people in Montana or North Dakota about that.

How do you know that Albertans would still be unsatisfied?

What sort of influence do you perceive Alberta wants?

Albertans, at least in everything that they say, seem to feel that they should be represented according to monetary instead of democratic concerns. The basic argument is that because they are presently putting more into the country than they are getting out that they are under-represented.

The other argument they make is that elections are decided in Ontario. Of course elections are decided in Ontario...we live in a democracy and there are more people there. I grew up in Saskatchewan and live in Manitoba, should I be demanding each of those provinces get as many MPs as Alberta has even though our populations are much smaller?

 

[bluealberta]

What does voter turn out have to do with it? Voter turnout in general is very low. It is due to voter apathy and the sense that votes don't matter.

It shows that there isn't much support for an elected senate, even within Alberta.

Rev, this was done during a Provincial election that was already predetermined. There is support for this, but the reality is that the Liberanos do not want to give up their power, so some don't vote. Mayber if the NDP and LIBs had put their candidates in, they would have got some votes too. I doubt that the people who voted NDP or LIB voted for any senator, so the percentage is skewed.

I've made the point about Alberta receiving money from Quebec and the Maritimes before, and never once was it disputed.

And I'm still not disputing it. I just find it ridiculous that a province that received payments for so long now complains so loudly now that they are on the other side of the issue.

If you read my post, you would know we don't generally disagree with transfer payments, but have a real problem with the waste, mismanagement, and corruption that basically flushed some of this money down the toilet.

If you look at the current level of money given to the federal government by all citizens, it is true that per capita, Alberta gives more. So in a sense, Albertans are having more of their money wasted.

So? It is Canada's money, not theirs. Look at it this way...I put all of money into a bank account. Mrs. Rev puts hers into the same account. It gets spent according to who needs what. She thinks my beer and cigarettes are a waste of money, and I think just about everything that she buys is a waste of money. We don't fight about it and we don't bicker over who put more in this month. Why would we, it wouldn't solve anything.

What you and Mrs. Rev do is your business. The transfer payments are money over and above what we put in from regular taxation amounts. Therefor, it is not Canada's money, per se, and it is our money. My family of five put in almost an extra $15,000 towards Canada than you did living in Manitoba. If we put in more, it is ours.

As for the effectiveness of an elected senate with equal representation of each province, how can you be sure it wouldn't work?

We have an example of it not working to our south. The US suffers deadlocks, riders tacked onto bills that they have nothing to do with, and so on. States with smaller populations still feel ignored and unrepresented. Ask the people in Montana or North Dakota about that.

At least there is representation, and one person does not have absolute control over everything like the Prime Minister can in Canada.

How do you know that Albertans would still be unsatisfied?

What sort of influence do you perceive Alberta wants?

Albertans, at least in everything that they say, seem to feel that they should be represented according to monetary instead of democratic concerns. The basic argument is that because they are presently putting more into the country than they are getting out that they are under-represented.

The other argument they make is that elections are decided in Ontario. Of course elections are decided in Ontario...we live in a democracy and there are more people there. I grew up in Saskatchewan and live in Manitoba, should I be demanding each of those provinces get as many MPs as Alberta has even though our populations are much smaller?

So why cannot there be some sort of monetary influence? The Senate issue would solve some of the under representation issue you mention.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

What you and Mrs. Rev do is your business. The transfer payments are money over and above what we put in from regular taxation amounts. Therefor, it is not Canada's money, per se, and it is our money. My family of five put in almost an extra $15,000 towards Canada than you did living in Manitoba. If we put in more, it is ours.

Greedy much?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Rev, this was done during a Provincial election that was already predetermined. There is support for this, but the reality is that the Liberanos do not want to give up their power, so some don't vote. Mayber if the NDP and LIBs had put their candidates in, they would have got some votes too. I doubt that the people who voted NDP or LIB voted for any senator, so the percentage is skewed.

It got the support of less than half of the electorate. The NDP and Liberals didn't put up candidates because they disagreed with the premise. Ottawa had already said no, so all you government was doing was wasting your money.

If you read my post, you would know we don't generally disagree with transfer payments, but have a real problem with the waste, mismanagement, and corruption that basically flushed some of this money down the toilet.

The thing is that I read all of your posts and switch back and forth.

What you and Mrs. Rev do is your business. The transfer payments are money over and above what we put in from regular taxation amounts. Therefor, it is not Canada's money, per se, and it is our money. My family of five put in almost an extra $15,000 towards Canada than you did living in Manitoba. If we put in more, it is ours.

Sometimes you switch back and forth in the same post.

At least there is representation, and one person does not have absolute control over everything like the Prime Minister can in Canada.

So you want to change a broken system by adopting another broken system? Do you have a truck with a blown motor you'd like to trade for my big green truck...it's got a blown motor too.

So why cannot there be some sort of monetary influence?

Because we live in a democracy. If you don't like it, move to Uzbekistan.

The Senate issue would solve some of the under representation issue you mention.

No it wouldn't. The other provinces would vote you down.

 

[bluealberta]

Rev:

I'm not going to repost my post and your answers, it will take the whole page.

To be clear, most of us Albertans understand and do not disagree with transfer payments as a concept. What we disagree with is the waste and mismanagement of the transfer payments.

Do deny the Senate will work without being willing to give it a try does not show much imagination. You don't know it won't work.

The benefit to equal and elected would be that a region could vote as a unit to have their say. If BC, Alta, Sask, and Man all agreed with a certain process, their votes together would probably carry the day. If all the have provinces voted a certain way, that may carry as well.

An equal and elected senate is just one tool to get some sort of representation to areas which have less population than other areas. The present system is nothing but an old folks patronage home, so why not try something that resembles what the original intent of the Senate was? If we are not willing to try, then let's just abolish the whole damn thing, because it is a waste of time, money, and real estate. Besides, let's make ex-Liberals who couldn't get elected actually have to go find some sort of real job.

 

[Reverend Blair]

To be clear, most of us Albertans understand and do not disagree with transfer payments as a concept. What we disagree with is the waste and mismanagement of the transfer payments.

A lot of what you consider waste and mismanagement is not considered to be such by the rest of the country. It's a pretty safe bet that much of Canada considered the money you used to get to be wasteful and poorly managed too.

Do deny the Senate will work without being willing to give it a try does not show much imagination. You don't know it won't work.

I'm not saying the Senate doesn't need reform, I am saying that you are proposing reforms which we've seen to be extremely ineffective and problematic in other places, most notably the United States.

Someplace on the internet (here?) I put up one idea for reform. There are many other ideas out there. There are also those who would just abolish the Senate altogether. Your party is pushing reforms that are 20 years old and will most likely make things worse instead of better.

The benefit to equal and elected would be that a region could vote as a unit to have their say. If BC, Alta, Sask, and Man all agreed with a certain process, their votes together would probably carry the day.

It will break down into party loyalties, same as always. The costs will be enormous because the elections, we will introduce another level of corruption and lobbying to our political system. It will not solve your problems, but it will cause new ones.

 

[no1important]

RE: How will a Conservati

Wasn't it Mulroney who increased the senate, btw just so he could pass the GST? here

If that is not being a dictator to ensure bill passed I do not know what is.

I would support eliminating the Senate as I do not think it will ever be reformed under Tories or Liberals.

My beef with the senate is New Brunswick, Nova Scotia have 10 senators, each and PEI has 4 and Newfoundland has 6 when BC and Alberta have more population than those provinces but only have 6 senators, each?????? That makes no sense.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

Wasn't it Mulroney who increased the senate, btw just so he could pass the GST? here

If that is not being a dictator to ensure bill passed I do not know what is.

I would support eliminating the Senate as I do not think it will ever be reformed under Tories or Liberals.

My beef with the senate is New Brunswick, Nova Scotia have 10 senators, each and PEI has 4 and Newfoundland has 6 when BC and Alberta have more population than those provinces but only have 6 senators, each?????? That makes no sense.

The senate has been missused by all parties over the years. I would support the elimation of it too, under the current format.

Your comments about representation in the senate are also correct, I believe. The supporters of senate reform use these numbers to point out another way the west gets marginalized. 30 for the Maritimes to 12 for BC and Alberta makes no sense, if your numbers are correct.

Either the senate has to be reformed or it should be abolished.

 

[bluealberta]

The Rev said:

"A lot of what you consider waste and mismanagement is not considered to be such by the rest of the country. It's a pretty safe bet that much of Canada considered the money you used to get to be wasteful and poorly managed too. "

Most of Canada would say the HRDC boondoggle, the EI surplus, the foundation hidden money, the gun registry, and the now basically confirmed corruption with ad agencies is waste and mismanagement. Even if the gun registry has done some good, a premise I dispute, to go from the original cost of $2million to $2billion has to be mismanagement.

It is beyond belief that with these past examples of mismanagement and waste, the Liberals now expect us to trust them on a day care progam and Kyoto, that start in the billions of dollars each. Maybe they can get each of these to the trillion dollar mark before they are done.

Can you provide some examples of the waste you assume we had way back when we actually received payments from Canada? It must have been before my time, and I've been voting since the early 70's.

I guess if you say it fast enough you either igonore it or it doesn't sound so bad to some people.

 

[no1important]

RE: How will a Conservati

Here is another link here

Nfld- 6 senators
PEI- 4 senators
N.B- 10 senators
N.S.-10 senators
Quebec-24 senators
Ontario-24 senators
Manitoba, Sask, Alta, BC - 6 senators each
Nunavut, NWT and YK - 1 senator each

total 105 senators.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

Here is another link here

Nfld- 6 senators
PEI- 4 senators
N.B- 10 senators
N.S.-10 senators
Quebec-24 senators
Ontario-24 senators
Manitoba, Sask, Alta, BC - 6 senators each
Nunavut, NWT and YK - 1 senator each

total 105 senators.

So, 21 west of Ontario plus the north. 30 in the Maritimes. Yup, thats fair.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

Here is another link here

Nfld- 6 senators
PEI- 4 senators
N.B- 10 senators
N.S.-10 senators
Quebec-24 senators
Ontario-24 senators
Manitoba, Sask, Alta, BC - 6 senators each
Nunavut, NWT and YK - 1 senator each

total 105 senators.

Checked out your link. Only three times has the senate blocked or vetoed a bill, all by a liberal controlled senate. Of course, this was not politically motivated, now, was it :wink:

Reform it or abolish it, I don't care which, but don't leave it as is.

 

[no1important]

RE: How will a Conservati

The senate either must go or be reformed to reflect the population on an proportional basis. I also think if it is kept they should be elected not appointments for party hacks.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

The senate either must go or be reformed to reflect the population on an proportional basis. I also think if it is kept they should be elected not appointments for party hacks.

Agree 100%. It is another form of political corruption when you think about it. Not only do these folks get a great annual salary for doing basically nothing, but then they get a pension we get to pay for. It may not be outright theft, but if the ad agencies are being investigated for getting money for doing nothing..........

 

[The Gunslinger]

I don't think the senate should be reformed by population. Then the West and the Maritimes just become vassals of Ontario and Quebec. I would give an equal number of senators per province (2-5?). And one each for the territories.