na85

Did you read the OP? My criteria was simply not belonging to the party currently forming Government, not any party ever.

Why not? Can you give an example of why (for example) a person who's never been a member of the NDP would let their allegiance to that party override their best judgment when a bill comes up for a vote? In the year 2030, Leader of the Opposition Dom Dulcair says their party will vote against Bill C-23. Our independent Senator has what incentive or reason to vote against this bill rather than deciding in his own way? At least they can't be Whipped. Can you also give an example of a scenario that would develop that would both be worse than the current scenario, and also cannot develop under the current scheme?

Well, suppose that it did pass.

Well, I think the specific selection criteria for this particular thought experiment is mostly irrelevant. Still, in my opinion "significant ties" should mean "having ever been a member of or donated more than $X to" the PM's political party. My opinion is that partisan appointments do more harm than good, and contribute to the breakdown of political discourse that we are all "enjoying" at present.

Pretty much. There already exists an APPOINTED assembly with real power to overturn the legislation of the ELECTED assembly. It's called the Senate.

Not to get in the way of you being edgy and cynical, but I'm not talking about an agreement. I'm talking about a law. One that gets enforced. The point of this thread was to discuss what I consider an interesting hypothetical. The interesting part of the discussion is the ramifications of such a law, not the argument that every single future PM would just ignore it. Any high-schooler can be grimdark and edgy like that. If you didn't want to take part you could have just simply not replied.

I'm interested in opinions: Suppose a law was passed mandating that the PM shall not recommend that the Governor General appoint to the Senate any person who has had significant ties to the PM's party, either federally or provincially. Perhaps an exception might be made for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, but I'm on the fence about that. I think this would be an extremely positive change down the road: Senate seats no longer filled by party hacks as a cushy reward for years spent as an attack dog or political hatchetman/woman Senate no longer a game of "which party can fill more seats so that they can fuck with the Government if they lose an election?" Senate can be filled with a mixture of scientists, engineers, artists, intelligentsia, etc., resulting in a Senate that better understands the issues facing society because it itself represents a pretty good cross-section of society Cliché as it sounds, an independent Senate might actually serve its intended purpose of providing "sober second thought" when unburdened by obligations to toe the Party line Senators can do what's best for the country with clear consciences, rather than what's best for the Government (which I argue are frequently at odds with each other). Honestly I'm having trouble seeing a downside. There will of course be those who say things like "Bah! Artists/Scientists/whoever can't be expected to perform the duties of a Senator! It's difficult, and hard work!" To them I would ask if they truly feel that the current crop of Senators are anything special. I'd go so far as to say the whole batch are merely average people who happened to land a really cushy job. If the PM selects Senators who have inquisitive minds and a demonstrated sense of civic responsibility, I don't see how it could possibly be worse than having the entire Senate stacked with hand-picked yes-men representing only two of the major parties. So. Suppose this law was passed, and never mind the unlikelihood of its passing. What then would be the long-term consequences in your opinion?

Please take your straw man arguments about the open- or closed-mindedness of academics to a different thread.

Complete lock-in for 31 years with no exit clause, leaving Canadian businesses and taxpayers at the mercy of Chinese businesses who don't give a flying fuck about our economy or our environment. Chinese businesses to be given sovereign power over Canadian laws, in secret, behind closed doors. Even were it to be found unconstitutional by SCOC, given that this is an international treaty, it would bear an enormous political cost to Canada if we were to unilaterally withdraw from FIPA. Without a word of exaggeration, I have never been more appalled at the actions of our government in all my 29 years on this Earth. Expert opinions against this treaty: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/02/canada-china-trade-deal-is-too-one-sided/ http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/10/16/China-Investment-Treaty/ http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/commentary/don%E2%80%99t-be-fooled-spin-canada-china-treaty There can be no spin possible on this, even for the most ardent Harper supporters. This is treasonous.

Easily

I actually think this is a pretty good step in the right direction, but I don't feel that it goes far enough. I think electing Senators is a big mistake; as soon as you require Senators to run for office you make them infinitely more susceptible to lobbyists and Special Interests. Irrespective of this, though, I applaud Trudeau's move even though I recognize it as mostly a PR stunt. It'll hopefully generate some meaningful discussion around the issue. To me, the selection process is far outweighed by the calibre of individuals being selected. There needs to be a law preventing partisan appointments.

I won't speak to the Muslim conspiracy, but rest assured there are indeed people within the Government and that of the United States that very much do want to read your emails.

Oh good, more American-style politics. Why has nobody passed a law banning this tripe?

How does the right define itself?

This stuff happened years ago and has been thoroughly mulled-over in the media ever since; I didn't think it was necessary to link it.http://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/article/737502--police-unplugged-corruption-probe-lawyer-says http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2006/11/24/fantino-taskforce.html http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20070518_120122_12740 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/11/19/toronto-police-recordings-eng.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/04/12/fantino-riding-association-resignations.html?ref=rssBy http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2009/12/09/toronto-drug-officers476.html He's never faced the music, but then again you don't get to be chief of the OPP without knowing how to dodge a few land mines along the way. Please quote where I indicated otherwise.

Did you even read what I wrote? Please quote where I implied or suggested we should disregard any media of any kind.

Manufactured autos, parts, electrical and mechanical machinery, paper and other pulp products, plastics, and an awful lot of minerals. Yes, the Ontario economy is not as strong as it was in the 90s and early 2000's. Yes, Alberta continues to benefit from the luck of being founded over top of some oil deposits. But the idea that Ontario is destitute and solely leeching away precious dollars from those oh-so-hard-working Albertans and Québeckers has been created by the Conservative Party propaganda machine. Don't tell me you're drinking the kool-aid?

Agree. In fact I feel that this is indicative of a greater, more widespread trend facing the journalism/media industry as a whole. With the advent of sites like Twitter, Reddit or even services like USENET, anyone with a smartphone and an internet connection can be a 'journalist'. When hundreds or even thousands of people able to present a broad spectrum of viewpoints about a particular topic or event, and those viewpoints can be disseminated instantly across the globe, then reporters are going to start finding their skills not in as much demand in the coming decade.

I don't necessarily disagree on this point, but we should all[/] endeavor to address the substance of each other's arguments, and not the person behind the keyboard.

re's I sympathize with this, and the lack of engagement in our electorate frustrates me as well. However, not every person running around drunk on Canada Day stays home when there's an election. That sort of sweeping generalization doesn't do anything but provide you with a convenient excuse to dismiss the young people you apparently despise. There's no correlation between face-painting and voter turnout.

Yes, let's marginalize the kid's opinions because of his or her age, something s/he has no control over.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/04/pol-cabinet-shuffle-fantino-valcourt.html Without question, this man is a criminal and should be incarcerated. I lived in Ontario when he was with the various police forces there, and he seemingly moved from one scandal to the next, whether it be arresting gays under false pretences or shutting down corruption investigations into Toronto narcotics squads. I am absolutely disgusted revolted by this appointment.

Please explain to us how young people taking pride in their country cheapens your experience.

The level of pedantry you display in this thread is ridiculous. Before the 9/11 attacks, commercial flights were not deemed to be threats, and so NORAD did not maintain active tracks on domestic airliners.In your haste to find something to be upset about you maybe forgot to do some basic research. It probably took a single employee about 8 hours to make that Santa website. NORAD is a large operation, not three guys in a basement. Making a Santa-tracking website is not such a drain on their resources that it detracts from their defense of North America's skies. Stop acting like a child.

How do you figure?