Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Canadian Politics / Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Last post by wilber on Today at 07:39:48 pm »
=> so confident you are! Wait now waldo, isn't a fundamental aspect of being a Senator one that presumes upon a Senator being an independent decision maker... cause, like, uhhh... elections challenge that fundamental premise as an election would link an elected/nominated Senator to a "constituency"; one making said Senator an accountable representative.

=> c'mon member wilber, given your so confident claim, given those reform proposals of the 80s/90s & given the more recent Harper Conservative failed/stalled forays into Senate reform, why have no other provinces taken up this Alberta lead? Things that make one go... hmmmmm, hey!

=> waddbout the relatively recent introduced 'independent Senate appointments process'? Assuming you're even aware of it, what's your concern(s) with it... what's your beef with it man? Why is your boy O'Foole and the CPC so against it?

Ya waldo, political appointments are sure to be more independent than elected representatives. Why do we bother with elections at all. Liberals aren't interested in Senate reform, they prefer the present patronage system.

What about the "independent Senate appointments process" ? Only two of the five members will actually be from the area concerned and their recommendation is not binding on the PM. And of course it is a process cooked up by the present government without the provinces signing off on it. Lot of window dressing here. Anything but leaving it to voters.

2
Canadian Politics / Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Last post by waldo on Today at 07:19:28 pm »
There is absolutely nothing that says the provinces can't request senators of their choice, selected by the method of their choice. Any federal government which rejects those requests wants nothing other than to use the Senate as its own tool.

=> so confident you are! Wait now waldo, isn't a fundamental aspect of being a Senator one that presumes upon a Senator being an independent decision maker... cause, like, uhhh... elections challenge that fundamental premise as an election would link an elected/nominated Senator to a "constituency"; one making said Senator an accountable representative.

=> c'mon member wilber, given your so confident claim, given those reform proposals of the 80s/90s & given the more recent Harper Conservative failed/stalled forays into Senate reform, why have no other provinces taken up this Alberta lead? Things that make one go... hmmmmm, hey!

=> waddbout the relatively recent introduced 'independent Senate appointments process'? Assuming you're even aware of it, what's your concern(s) with it... what's your beef with it man? Why is your boy O'Foole and the CPC so against it?
3
Canadian Politics / Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Last post by wilber on Today at 02:55:04 pm »
guys, guys... even before the waldo might choose to engage on the pro's vs. con's of an elected Senate, youse guys are 'out of touch'... you're jumping ahead of just one of the fundamental issues that must still be resolved. As it stands, this "Alberta only approach" is one still subject to constitutional reckoning. For both sides that question the legitimacy of provinces holding candidate elections/nominations for Senate appointment, each side holds to existing constitutional amending formulas that they respectfully interpret to either allow, or alternatively, disallow these provincial "aspirations". Ultimately, as has occurred in regard other Senate reform attempts, it is expected the Supreme Court of Canada will need to review/rule. But why would any of this get in the way of Conservative Prime Ministers (Mulroney & Harper) hell-bent on appointing candidates nominated by the province of Alberta?

obviously when Harper's attempts to first abolish the Senate... then reform the Senate... went nowhere, this Alberta "end-around" is simply another means to attempt to, without constitutional review on its legitimacy, introduce a path towards an elected Senate.

There is absolutely nothing that says the provinces can't request senators of their choice, selected by the method of their choice. Any federal government which rejects those requests wants nothing other than to use the Senate as its own tool.
4
Canadian Politics / Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Last post by waldo on Today at 01:02:52 pm »
Do you disagree with choosing Senators based upon an election?  How is that a bad idea?
Why do you have a problem with provinces choosing the way their senators are appointed?

guys, guys... even before the waldo might choose to engage on the pro's vs. con's of an elected Senate, youse guys are 'out of touch'... you're jumping ahead of just one of the fundamental issues that must still be resolved. As it stands, this "Alberta only approach" is one still subject to constitutional reckoning. For both sides that question the legitimacy of provinces holding candidate elections/nominations for Senate appointment, each side holds to existing constitutional amending formulas that they respectfully interpret to either allow, or alternatively, disallow these provincial "aspirations". Ultimately, as has occurred in regard other Senate reform attempts, it is expected the Supreme Court of Canada will need to review/rule. But why would any of this get in the way of Conservative Prime Ministers (Mulroney & Harper) hell-bent on appointing candidates nominated by the province of Alberta?

obviously when Harper's attempts to first abolish the Senate... then reform the Senate... went nowhere, this Alberta "end-around" is simply another means to attempt to, without constitutional review on its legitimacy, introduce a path towards an elected Senate.
5
General Discussion / Re: Cancel Culture Culture
« Last post by Black Dog on Today at 11:44:01 am »
The point though is whether this is something that our public schools should be instilling in our children?

I don't think students should be warped into the same political ideology of their teacher or the political leanings of the party in power in a given province, whether right or left.  Nobody on the left wants their kids turned into Trump supporters and no parent on the right wants their kids to become a Marxists because their teacher told them it was the best ideology and Trump sucks.

There is an argument to be made of making our young students into good citizens, which simply means knowing some history (good and bad and everything in between), the basics of how our government works (civics) etc.  Playing the national anthem in the morning.  The same things an immigrant needs to know in order to pass a citizenship test.  You can let students debate, just don't have the teacher lead kids to have one opinion or another.  Teach kids about residential schools, then let them debate.

I think people in Canada know extremely little about their country, both good and bad.  It's pathetic.  Canadians know more about the US than Canada.  If you don't know anything about your country it's harder to feel connected to it and the other people that live in it.  If you feel you don't share anything with other Canadians across the country you will have less national unity.  On the other hand you don't want to be spreading false narratives and slanted propaganda to people just to build a sense of nationalism.  Just teach kids the facts of history and I think they will come to connect with their country more.  If they don't that's their choice too.

I think it's important to feel like you're a part of the national family that is Canada, and in order to do that we need to listen to the stories of everyone in this country so we understand each other more.  I like learning about the refugee stories of different immigrant groups too, it makes me understand why they came to Canada, and gets rid of the "othering" thoughts we tend to do when we don't understand somebody.  What are the stories of the Quebecois?  Different indigenous groups?  People on the east coast?  If you still don't like each other well that's fine but at least you understand them.

The idea that history is an objective set of facts would be rejected by most historians. History is as much about the production of narratives as it is about past events. The mere act of choosing which "facts" to teach is itself a subjective and biased action. That's why teaching critical thinking matters.

Also, if you're gearing your education system with the express purpose of promoting national unity through creating shared historical narratives, congrats, you're doing a propaganda.

6
Canadian Politics / Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Last post by wilber on Today at 11:42:20 am »
timed in association with Alberta municipal elections to be held this fall, Alberta's UCP/Kenney brought in legislation to also allow Albertans to, once again, vote to nominate candidates for Senate appointment - currently there are 2 vacant Alberta Senate positions. To date, Alberta is the only province to hold elections to nominate candidates for Senate appointment (previous related legislation expired in 2016)... in total over time, Alberta has had 5 of it's elected/nominated Senators appointed - 1 by PM Mulroney & 4 by PM Harper.

of course, CPC/O'Toole has jumped on the opportunity to once again push for 'elected/nominated' Senators... vowing to appoint elected/nominated Alberta senators while encouraging other provinces to take up Alberta's lead and do the same. It appears the CPC/O'Toole are a tad hesitant to resurrect the failed Harper attempt/want to introduce an elected Senate to Canada; something that would require the agreement of seven provinces representing 50% of the population to implement an elected Senate:



Why do you have a problem with provinces choosing the way their senators are appointed?
7
Canadian Politics / Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Last post by the_squid on Today at 11:36:39 am »
timed in association with Alberta municipal elections to be held this fall, Alberta's UCP/Kenney brought in legislation to also allow Albertans to, once again, vote to nominate candidates for Senate appointment - currently there are 2 vacant Alberta Senate positions. To date, Alberta is the only province to hold elections to nominate candidates for Senate appointment (previous related legislation expired in 2016)... in total over time, Alberta has had 5 of it's elected/nominated Senators appointed - 1 by PM Mulroney & 4 by PM Harper.

of course, CPC/O'Toole has jumped on the opportunity to once again push for 'elected/nominated' Senators... vowing to appoint elected/nominated Alberta senators while encouraging other provinces to take up Alberta's lead and do the same. It appears the CPC/O'Toole are a tad hesitant to resurrect the failed Harper attempt/want to introduce an elected Senate to Canada; something that would require the agreement of seven provinces representing 50% of the population to implement an elected Senate:

Do you disagree with choosing Senators based upon an election?  How is that a bad idea?
8
Forum Administration / Re: Marking posts as "dumb"
« Last post by waldo on Today at 11:36:27 am »
it has been brought to the waldo's attention that the oversight on this additional member squiggy dumb tag is simply, "per the squiggy norm"! ... the waldo's crack research team advises that, in line with the squiggy forum registration date, the cowardly weasel drops ~1.4 dumb tags per day!

waldo, is that a lot?
9
Canadian Politics / Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Last post by waldo on Today at 11:25:24 am »
timed in association with Alberta municipal elections to be held this fall, Alberta's UCP/Kenney brought in legislation to also allow Albertans to, once again, vote to nominate candidates for Senate appointment - currently there are 2 vacant Alberta Senate positions. To date, Alberta is the only province to hold elections to nominate candidates for Senate appointment (previous related legislation expired in 2016)... in total over time, Alberta has had 5 of it's elected/nominated Senators appointed - 1 by PM Mulroney & 4 by PM Harper.

of course, CPC/O'Toole has jumped on the opportunity to once again push for 'elected/nominated' Senators... vowing to appoint elected/nominated Alberta senators while encouraging other provinces to take up Alberta's lead and do the same. It appears the CPC/O'Toole are a tad hesitant to resurrect the failed Harper attempt/want to introduce an elected Senate to Canada; something that would require the agreement of seven provinces representing 50% of the population to implement an elected Senate:

10
General Discussion / Re: Cancel Culture Culture
« Last post by the_squid on Today at 11:21:04 am »
Maybe a chicken and egg question. Is Canada a decent country because of its people or are Canadians a decent people because of their country?

I think institutions that are set up to attain decent results, whether on purpose or by accident, make the country a decent place.

For instance, compare our elections with American elections…. 

Elections Canada, the faceless bureaucrats who follow rules set out by parliaments of the past, ensure fair elections and that they are fairly equal across the country as well as the districts being as fair as possible under the rules.  Very little drama in our elections, other than the results.

USA?  Gerrymandering, unequal voting rules between states, states that try to suppress minority voting, etc, etc.

This is a case where the institution set out by past parliaments have resulted in making Canada a decent country.  Are there people that are actively trying to cheat at elections?  Of course.  Not every person is decent.  The institutions have to be robust enough to withstand those pressures. 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10