Argus Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Of course, we know the whole appointments process is 'non partisan' because the shiny pony says it is, right? So clearly this latest group is very representative of Canadians and their views on how the country should be run. Let's see, uhm, Art Historian, Human Rights Activist, Francophone Rights Activist, Womens rights activist, Native rights activist, Asian rights activist, Conservationist... Boy, there's a group of rigid conservative ideologues for you! Bound to give Trudeau all kinds of trouble in the future! They'll sure make sure he doesn't stray too far to the left on fiscal policy issues and that he's not running up the debts too high! http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/meet-canadas-nine-newest-senators-five-women-and-four-men-all-non-partisans-who-applied-for-entry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Activists need to be removed form government and schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Ooh, is this were you provide more 'proof'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) Our school needs teachers to teach writing math and such, not activists that are there to brainwash the kids and bitch how tough they have it. And we need more male teachers. Edited October 28, 2016 by Michael Hardner multiple spelling and grammar corrections Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 uhhh, what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 I was assured that all these appointees were non partisan. Are you saying they are not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 3 hours ago, overthere said: I was assured that all these appointees were non partisan. Are you saying they are not? They ARE at least according to the link in the OP. They have no party affiliation. The author of the OP seems to be confusing partisanship with ideology. Theres a pretty big difference. Traditionally the senate has been loaded up by full on card carrying party members and stooges. The new selection process is certainly a step up. And we saw in the thread about supreme court judges... nobody has provided a single reason why any of those appointees are not qualified to do the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) Is that what it comes down to are they qualified......sure they are qualified ....everyone that applied is qualified....But the question should be are they the best people for the job.....DO you want activists in the job.....is it partisanship or ideology do we want any of them having the final say to all our futures laws and policies.....How about someone with a level head and can make good solid decisions based on facts.....do I want some partisan hack in there NO I do not, do I want some hard core ideology hack in there ....No I don't ....I want someone in the center.... Are we on the right track....I really like the fact the liberals are doing this.....I was expecting some better choices....is all. Edited October 28, 2016 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 So prove they aren't the best people for the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 They are the best people for the job, given who the PM is. I think that's the point of the OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 When you look at their way of thinking, they are far from conservatives and where is the regular joe, are we not allowed to be in the senate or only the elitist left. Because that is what we need for some common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) On 2016-10-27 at 10:04 PM, Smallc said: So prove they aren't the best people for the job. . The PM claimed they were the best possible candidates, its up to him to prove their qualifications. What he did was pick some trendy leftists. You really think he would pick someone that didn't conform to his trendy leftist concepts? The entire exercise was subjective. . Is it different than picking patronage appointments, i.e., old past their prime politicians or failed candidates or policy hacks owed a favour, maybe but to pretend these picks did not meet the prerogative consideration of His Royal Highness Justin is crappola.. All the word activist means to me is someone who is claimed to be active. Yah right. If that is the qualification it means anyone who eats a lot of fibre qualifies. Raisin bran eaters. Loading the senate with too much fibre will cause bill passage blockage. It will prevent bills from being passed. Do we need a proctologist to explain this further? Edited October 29, 2016 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 In other words, you can't do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) On 2016-10-27 at 6:27 PM, Army Guy said: Is that what it comes down to are they qualified......sure they are qualified ....everyone that applied is qualified....But the question should be are they the best people for the job.....DO you want activists in the job.....is it partisanship or ideology do we want any of them having the final say to all our futures laws and policies.....How about someone with a level head and can make good solid decisions based on facts.....do I want some partisan hack in there NO I do not, do I want some hard core ideology hack in there ....No I don't ....I want someone in the center.... Are we on the right track....I really like the fact the liberals are doing this.....I was expecting some better choices....is all. What better choices? Lay it out here for us and explain why your choices would be better. Edited October 29, 2016 by WestCoastRunner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 Do I really have to spell it all out.....A job open comes up at a hospital, it is at the under 16 neo natal unit counseling office.....where these young women go for advice about their condition, one candidate has worked in the neo natal unit at another hospital, another Candidate is an activist for the pro life.....which one do you think is the better pick......Activist, or the well rounded, open minded person.... At some point these activists are going to have to make decisions on bills and laws that go against their former activist roles, their decisions are going to effect ALL Canadians ......Are they qualified Yes they are .....Are they best choice NO they are not..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2016 2 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said: What better choices? Lay it out here for us and explain why your choices would be better. Tell you how I'd do it if I really wanted to have a representative body. I'd create a list of professions and organizations where you could presumably expect people to be able to understand a variety of complicated issues, and have the judgement to deal with them: ex-generals, ex chiefs of police, ex judges, or present judges who want to move over, scientists, doctors, religious figures, senior union leaders, people who used to be senior bureacrats. I'd have representatives of farmers, forestry workers and fishermen, and those who were high up in business. Then I'd have those groups decide who should represent their interests in the senate. Filling the senate with a bunch of political activists and agitators from the Left is hardly representative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted October 30, 2016 Report Share Posted October 30, 2016 5 hours ago, Argus said: Tell you how I'd do it if I really wanted to have a representative body. Or... you just abolish the senate. The ndp has the correct position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2016 7 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said: Or... you just abolish the senate. The ndp has the correct position. Yes, but like many if not most NDP positions it ignores reality. You CAN'T abolish the senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted October 30, 2016 Report Share Posted October 30, 2016 New Zealand abolished their senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2016 26 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said: New Zealand abolished their senate. New Zealand didn't have our constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 30, 2016 Report Share Posted October 30, 2016 New Zealand is also a unitary state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted October 31, 2016 Report Share Posted October 31, 2016 Canada has changed its constitution in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 31, 2016 Report Share Posted October 31, 2016 Sure has - still not a unitary state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 31, 2016 Report Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) They seem like a decent bunch. Actvists are often experts in their field. Only 2,700 people applied which sounds like a small pool. I would prefer provincial elections to determine the lists presented to the PM but that would have the downside of favouring politicians. However, over time, the current system could evolve to pick people in a more systematic fashion from various walks of life. Edited October 31, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 31, 2016 Report Share Posted October 31, 2016 The guys appointed today sound solid enough: Gwen Boniface, the first woman appointed as commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police and the first female president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Tony Dean, an internationally recognized professor at the University of Toronto's School of Public Policy since 2009. Sarabjit S. Marwah, retired vice-chairman and chief operating officer of Scotiabank. Lucie Moncion, chief executive officer of the Alliance des caisses populaires de l'Ontario. Kim Pate, executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and part-time professor in the University of Ottawa's faculty of law. Howard Wetston, counsel with Goodmans LLP and adjunct professor of law at the University of Toronto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.