Tuesday, January 31, 2006

The Real Losers

Licia Corbella looks at the real losers from last Monday's election.


  • To be perfectly accurate, CG, they were real losers before the election too.

    By Blogger canukistan, at 2:05 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Bailey, at 2:08 PM  

  • It's nice to see that the Alberta Separatist's are just as intelligent as their Quebec counterparts.

    According to the article:
    "Prince Edward Island, says Hutton, with a population of 138,000 people has the same number of senators -- six -- as Alberta, with a population of more than 3-million people. "

    That's slightly false given that P.E.I. has only 4 Senators. (Catherine Callbeck, Percy Downe, Elizabeth Hubley and one vacancy). It was also nice to see Corbella correct him in the article. Oh wait, she didn't......

    By Blogger Bailey, at 2:10 PM  

  • Holy cow...its like reading the Toronto Star but only really right instead of really left...its amazing how many slants you can get from a simple election. Can someone make all seperatists disapper please.

    By Anonymous gwilliamjr, at 2:25 PM  

  • Wouldn't it be cool if the forces who would rather work to destroy Canada were all relegated to the fringes as they should be?

    Western separation would be, in many ways more dangerous to Canada's unity than Quebec.

    The west seems to move in far greater unity than Quebec.

    If the west suddenly decided to leave Canada, chances are the movers wouldn't have time to pack before it was done.


    By Blogger The Infozone, at 2:53 PM  

  • Well, Hutton not far from the truth on several points, and Bailey, your using symantics when you say Hutton was lying... he might of gotten the number wrong, but it still doesn't change the truth, 6 senators or 4, its still way to many for a province with 130,000 people, and they still have a vote that represents a value 4 x as great as ours in Alberta.

    You laugh and scoff at him, but remember this, sooner than later, a larger number of people will live Alberta and BC than in the east. it's inevitable given the growth parameters and that growths long term sustainability.

    Somewhere down the line, this will become an issue, and how are we to resolve it? The amending formula is quite clear, no less than 7 provinces with 50% of the population to effectuate change, and the base number of MP's is set into the Constitution.

    Hutton wasn't far off when he says that this is merely a postponment. We will have to deal with this. What will happen then, why will PEI sacrifice it's voice, why would Sask, or Manitoba, or Quebec, or any of 7 provinces in this nation give up their position? It will tear the nation into pieces unless something is done about it.

    Beyond that though, if you are all as liberal as you portend, then how can you except the fundamental founding principle of liberalism, which is everyone being equal, being flouted each time an election is held.

    If you live in BC, Alberta, or Ontario, you are a second class citizen come election time.

    How do all of you, as liberals, reconcile that with your principles?

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 2:56 PM  

  • This is all based on the thesis that the Senate is actually important! The Senate as currently constituted is nothing more than a potential speed bump to the Tories implementing contentious legislation. I still don't know how the Tories are going to work with the Bloc and or the NDP!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:16 PM  

  • Was it not the policy of the Reform Party to give every Province, including PEI, an equal number of ten Senators? That would, in population terms, under-represent the two most populous provinces but worsen the over-representation of the Atlantic Provinces. I do not see that would make the Alberta separatists any happier.

    If they do not like equal regional representation or equal provincial membership perhaps the Alberta separatists would like Senate seats apportioned by population? Or is about the same number of seats for Quebec and more Senators for Ontario not the object of the exercise.

    By Anonymous Gary J, at 3:40 PM  

  • "Well, Hutton not far from the truth on several points, and Bailey, your using symantics when you say Hutton was lying... he might of gotten the number wrong, but it still doesn't change the truth

    I don't really think I used semantics in my argument but I do know the difference between your and you're.


    All I'm saying is that if I were going around talking about Alberta separating from the rest of Canada, I'd at least get my facts straight first, particularly if I were getting interviewed for the paper. How am I supposed to take this guy seriously if he doesn't even know how many Senators PEI has?

    Furthermore, how am I supposed to take Corbella or the Calgary Sun seriously if they don't mention that in their article? Is she a closet separatists and wishes to spread lies? This is a fairly simple fact to look up. Doesn't the Calgary Sun have any editors to check these things?

    By Blogger Bailey, at 3:48 PM  

  • Sorry, I type fast, generally because I'm busy, so my spelling and grammer sometimes come out poorly for it. Anyway, she is the editor, so I guess she should be checking herself.

    My point though, is not Hutton, or Licia, who is a devote christian. So make your judgement of her from there.

    What I'm saying is it is an issue, and we can deal with it sooner, or have it forced on us later. No matter how much we duck this question, it's going to come back and bite us in the ass.

    By the way, the reform model was based on the US model, equal representation in the senate, regardless of size of population. Personally, I always like the US style. 2 senators per state. One in the north, one in the south.

    I don't really understand the reason behind 10, perhaps it had to do with the current size of the senate. Personally I like two for each.

    Regardless, it's meant to give regional representation, and it works very well in the states.

    I notice though, no liberal has answered my question. Why is that? Why is it so hard to explain the liberal toleration for disparity in representation, but scream for equality under the eyes of the law.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 4:19 PM  

  • You're not supposed to take Corbella seriously any more than you're supposed to take Rick Salutin seriously.

    And an Alberta seperatist? Gimme a break. They cant be taken seriously any of the time. They are for the most part, old far right reformers who are too angry with the slow pace of the east to west power shift.

    No one seems to mention that Harper can strike up a commission to study boundary changes. RE-balance the electoral map and poof BC and AB get two more seats each. As well as re-jigging lots of ridings to elect more conservatives. Much the same way Chretien did in his favour lo those many years ago.

    By Anonymous Colin, at 4:23 PM  

  • Holy shit I cant believe someone could actually say this:

    "My point though, is not Hutton, or Licia, who is a devote christian. So make your judgement of her from there."

    What does her religion have to do with anything? What about all those devout sikhs who vote Liberal come hell or high water?

    Joe just outted himself/herself as a fucking bigot. No better than McLelland of the brownshirts.

    Polishing up the jackboots Joe?

    Take devout christian out of the sentence and substitute Jew. See how that sounds.

    By Anonymous Colin, at 4:28 PM  

  • Licia is a very devout christian, as in she isn't super keen on liberalism at all. I'm not a great fan of Christianity, nor am I a great fan of the Seperation Party of Canada, which seems to be comprised mainly of Christians.
    A fact I know, because I looked into the party once in a moment of pique.

    I'm also not a fan of organized religion in general, so no, I don't like Sikhdom either. That doesn't mean I don't know and like Sikh's, nor does it mean I don't know or like Christians.

    I have a strong dislike of asswipes who twist my words without bothering to answer the question posed, but I'll forgive you as I should have explained myself better.

    Why doesn't the Liberal Party or the NDP scream about disparity in voting rights.

    Answer the question, and I'll remove my Jackboots...

    PS, I correspond with Licia quite often, so I feel no compunction about referencing her Christian beliefs in relation to her article. There's many diehard christians in Alberta that would like to make a "Bushland North" state out of this province. Her comments often reflect her religious sentiments.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 4:59 PM  

  • Why is that? Why is it so hard to explain the liberal toleration for disparity in representation, but scream for equality under the eyes of the law.

    There are several reasons why there has been no answer to this question. First, because Liberalism isn't some sort of utilitarian super-egalitarian philosophy. Liberalism does not mean "the exact same for everyone, all the time."

    Second, the Senate is not a body of representatives. Given your demonstrably poor understanding of Canadian governance it doesn't surprise me that you'd make this mistake, but you have nonetheless. The senate does not represent the electorate, so the amount of representation by province is irrelevant. The senate does not exsit to represent their province either. It's sole purpose is to provide a forum for "sober second thought" free from political considerations. You can argue how effective the Senate is at performing this function nowadays (although that is rarely done with actual facts or knowledge), but to impugne it for being a poor representation of Canada is to demonstrate only your own lack of education on the subject.

    Lastly, nobody has "answered" your query because it really has no relevance given the makeup of the Senate. Senators are ostensibly selected by region, but given the freedom that Senators have to operate in, and their relative lack of visibility, they are much less likely to fall prey to partisanship than even the most independent MP's.

    By Anonymous Joseph Krengel, at 4:59 PM  

  • Licia Corbella is a vile, partisan... well you get the idea. I don't want my post to be erased. I am surprised you bother reading her column. She thinks that all that is Conservative is wonderful and everything is crap. This is typical Licia to run down one party and then say how wonderful HArper or the Connies are.

    CG, everyone one knows the Sun chain is the Conservative party at prayer. Why are you wasting your time with these hopeless partsians.

    By Blogger GritPatriot, at 5:00 PM  

  • "I notice though, no liberal has answered my question. Why is that? Why is it so hard to explain the liberal toleration for disparity in representation, but scream for equality under the eyes of the law."

    Actually, the NDP is calling for the total dismantling of the Senate.

    But far be it from me to let the facts get in the way of a good rant!

    By Blogger freshly_squeezed, at 5:08 PM  

  • Firstly Joesph, the fundamental principle of liberalism is equality, so how you can be liberal without viewing everyone as equal is beyond me.

    Secondly, while the Canadian Senate is not designed as a representative body, the US Senate is, and that is the one I was referring to in relation to the reform proposal of a triple E senate.

    Perhaps you might try putting on your glass' before you read.

    Regardless of whether it is meant to be a representative body, or a place of "sober second thought", given it's make up of partisans, and given that it is meant to take in to account the sentiments and positions of law as it relates to the position or sentiment of the people. It is sorely lacking.

    I did not directly impugn the senate, nor do I suggest that there isn't some good work done by our Senators.

    This does not in any way change the fact that there is disparity in the voting mechanism we currently employ, and that disparity has been entrenched in our Constitution.

    How are you to reconcile that?

    It goes beyond the Senate, and that was my point.

    It goes to the very design of the commons, and the seat distribution which makes it up, based on representation in a Constituancy... which is very unequal.

    My overall point is that while a majority of the population is unaware of the differences in what constitutes a constituancy, they will eventually. when that happens, Canada is going to have problem.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 5:17 PM  

  • Well... fair enough on the NDP call, they are singing out for proportional rep. as well... so I guess they are true liberals.

    Good call.:)

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 5:18 PM  

  • Hey GritPatriot,

    We should have mentioned the Liberal Party is also the real losers too. Goes to show that Fear doesn't win the day.
    Seems like your high profile candidates for leadership are dropping like flies. They don't want to be part of a sinking ship.
    Face it, moderate policies will always win the day, lefties like yourself will always be sitting on the sidelines(maybe you could be the waterboy?)

    At least CalgaryGrit is centre left and shows a moderate side; it's too bad there aren't alot of them around because the Liberal Party might actually recover.

    By Blogger Fighting for Democracy, at 6:57 PM  

  • joe calgary:

    don't confuse liberalism with Liberalism. one is based on principles, while the other, well..

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:49 PM  

  • I'm an American (hence my tag), and the triple "E" Senate does not work well at all. It was devised when there was a much smaller population disparity towards the states, at a time when it was thought to be important for all ex-British colonies (yes, including the ones way up north), to join the Union. Right now, we have a situation where California has something like fifty times the population of several states, getting close to the Ontario-PEI ratio. And I don't think anyone particulary cares now if Delaware or New Hampshire were to leave.

    Also, before the Civil War, the Senate was used to keep the slaveholders overrepresented in Congress, despite the lower population of the South. Its now mainly used to divert as much federal pork to empty, rural areas as possible.

    Not that the Canadian version is much better. I think the NDP should be making more of their pledge to abolish it.

    By Anonymous an American, at 8:05 PM  

  • Just out of curiousity, could the provincial boundaries be redrawn to make more equal units? Partition Ontario into five provinces, make one Prarie and one Atlantic province, maybe its best to leave Quebec alone. Would this solve the problem and how easy it would be to do this?

    By Anonymous an American, at 8:07 PM  

  • Joe, I didnt misrepresent your words. I posted them exactly as you put them down.

    You quite clearly demeaned Corbella based upon her religion. Whether or not you like her religion is completely beside the point. It also doesnt matter that you "investigated" her religion before opting not to embrace it.

    You use fancy words to try and dance away from the fact that you have a hate on for devout christians. That's bigotry buddy. Plain and simple.

    Try this:

    Irwin Cotler is a Jew. That's all you need to know about him.

    I'm not a christian but I sure can see bias when it is so clearly defined by the writer.

    Corbella is blindly partisan, surely you can do better than to attack her faith. But hey, shows what type of person you are.

    By Anonymous Colin, at 8:27 PM  

  • An American

    The Canadian Senate is a pointless and useless institute. It has virtually no power and exists just for show. At anytime a PM can stack the senate and get legislation passed. The fact that separatist traitors use it as an argument for separation shows just how weak their position is.

    The traitor in this article is essentially trying to hold the rest of the country hostage. So as long as we have a conservative western centered government, western separation is suspended. As soon as we democratically elect a liberal government, the west is no longer 'in', separation is a go once again.

    It really is too bad that we stopped hanging traitors in this country. Oh Louis Riel, you ruined it for the rest of the scum.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:28 PM  

  • "Licia is a very devout christian, as in she isn't super keen on liberalism at all."

    1. I'm a devout Christian.
    2. I'm extremely small-l liberal.
    3. Anyone who says the two aren't compatible can go to hell, in the literal, metaphorical, figurative and every other sense of the phrase.

    By Anonymous matthew, at 12:25 AM  

  • Corbella says

    "Let's hope Harper's planned reforms will quell Hutton's barely smouldering dream.

    Otherwise that dream just might become Canada's nightmare."

    What a load of bunk. Take a politically irrelevant fringe group and use them to suggest that Harper better shift more power to Alberta or else we will take our ball and go play somewhere else.

    Thanks for reminding me why I never read the Calgary Sun.

    By Blogger Psychols, at 2:54 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home