Jump to content

Critics 'stunned and furious' at Liberals rejecting Senate amendment from controversial online streaming bill


Recommended Posts

When I was being admitted to a Catholic hospital quite a while ago, which is sort of a public hospital and funded completely by the government, I was asked what my religion is?   What does that have to do with going into a hospital?  Why would a Catholic hospital ask someone what their religion is?  I have never been able to figure that one out.  Sounds very suspicious.   Like I said, Romanism is a very authoritarian system.   The fact that they are a Catholic founded and somewhat still under the Catholic church, is of concern because Rome considers they have the only true religion.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Government in Canada must be drastically shrunk.  Bill C-11 is another means by which government can force-feed content on Canadians.  

It's not good enough that the CBC and CTV already give us the LPOC's covid disinformation and whitewash all his scandals for him, he needs control of social media too.

Apparently he liked what he saw when NYPost tried to post info about Biden's scandal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blackbird said:

When I was being admitted to a Catholic hospital. quite a while ago, which is sort of a public hospital and funded completely by the government, I was asked what my religion was?   What does that have to do with going into a hospital?  Why would a Catholic hospital ask someone what their religion is?  I have never been able to figure that one out.  Sounds very suspicious.   Like I said, Romanism is a very authoritarian system.

There are many things associated with religious belief that may affect your stay. Are you kosher? Halal? is there any religious practices you may be participating in that will require them to be prepared for it such as mass? Do you believe in bood transfusions?

These days i think they find more diplomatic ways to get to the same answers, but they are kind of relevant. GIving blood to someone who believes that's a sin would be a big deal.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

When I was being admitted to a Catholic hospital. quite a while ago, which is sort of a public hospital and funded completely by the government, I was asked what my religion was?   What does that have to do with going into a hospital?  Why would a Catholic hospital ask someone what their religion is?  I have never been able to figure that one out.  Sounds very suspicious.   Like I said, Romanism is a very authoritarian system.

They wanted to know what kind of rites to give you if you succumbed to a hamster infection ? J/K

When my mom was young the Catholic Church ran most of the hospitals. Publicly funded hospitals weren't a thing 'til the mid-1900's afaik. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There are many things associated with religious belief that may affect your stay. Are you kosher? Halal? is there any religious practices you may be participating in that will require them to be prepared for it such as mass? Do you believe in bood transfusions?

These days i think they find more diplomatic ways to get to the same answers, but they are kind of relevant. GIving blood to someone who believes that's a sin would be a big deal.

Yes, You are probably correct, but if that is the case, they should explain the reason why they are asking.  Would only take a few seconds to say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Yes, You are probably correct, but if that is the case, they should explain the reason why they are asking.  Would only take a few seconds to say that.

Sure. But these are the same people who think if you spend less than an hour in your doctor's waiting room they're being too kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Our MPs need to have more courage, and voters need to have more interest in these things, rather than the smoke and mirrors of partisan shouting matches.  

The problem is almost no one can get elected outside the party. And so your political career ends if you annoy the party. Unlike in places like the UK the PM gets to decide whether you run again under your party banner. The only way they'd get brave would be in a situation where the government had a very slim majority and several or half a dozen of its MPs got together to make demands and negotiate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

PR solves nothing and brings on a number of new problems.  All while pretending to be 'true democracy', which it isn't. And if it was we wouldn't want it - true democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.

So change is not possible? Welcome to Canada. Why be stunned, and furious? Illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, myata said:

So change is not possible? Welcome to Canada. Why be stunned, and furious? Illogical.

It's possible in theory but not in practice. Opening up the charter could solve the problem and that's the old 7 /50 requirement, but in the real world opening up the constitution is almost impossible to pull off.

So the only change we're able to make is to elect better gov'ts and have them stay out of provincial business, and accept the fact every now and again you'll get a dicator like trudeau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

I always thought we were supposed to be a model country of freedoms.  But it appears it is not true.  We don't have as much freedom as the Americans.

I don't think the Senate has much power.   It appears they have even less than I thought.

The first problem is the Senate is unelected.  It is as you just a group of elites that were paid off with a Senate seat.

I thought any new legislation the government wants to bring in MUST be passed by the Senate.   So how can the government ignore any amendments that the Senate makes?   I don't understand how that works.   Doesn't the Senate get the final say?

We are a country of freedoms. Model? Model of what? LOL

Not sure how much authority you thought the Senate had but it has never been anything more than ceremonial.

Laws are no more than rubber stamped. Yes, the senate do and did  suggest changes now and again but, if adopted, they were more to appease the loyalty appointees within the senate.

The Senate is nothing within our government, It is a parliamentary holdover with no authority, all show business and pomp and circumstance.

The senate can do a lot of things but if the government of the day does not like what the senate says or asks so be it. Really, the senate has no actual power.

To me, personally, the senate and all its ancillary costs are a waste of money and time.

 

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of the Senate to taxpayers is astronomical.

"

CBC News has reviewed the Senate's spending over the last six years. Before Trudeau's first election, in the 2014-15 fiscal year, the Senate cost taxpayers $85.4 million a year (or $90 million in inflation-adjusted 2019 dollars).

The Red Chamber was allocated $114 million for the 2019-2020 fiscal year. That's a 33.4 per cent increase in just five years' time.

The Senate is spending millions more on research, office, travel and living expenses, information technology (IT), human resources and media relations — and it has hired dozens more full-time bureaucrats.

Senate committees are travelling more; the natural resources committee undertook a cross-country tour in the spring while studying Bill C-69, for example. That has led to tens of thousands of dollars in new costs for the upper house."

The cost of the Senate has soared in the last five years | CBC News

Meanwhile the Senate is unelected and therefore cannot be said to be democratic.  It does not even protect the regions or provinces in the same sense the American Senate does by having two Senators from each State of the Union.

So what exactly is the purpose or value of the Senate in Canada for the vast amount of money we are paying for it, particularly if they do not have the power to amend any legislation put forward by the governing party?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, I am Groot said:

The problem is almost no one can get elected outside the party. And so your political career ends if you annoy the party. Unlike in places like the UK the PM gets to decide whether you run again under your party banner. The only way they'd get brave would be in a situation where the government had a very slim majority and several or half a dozen of its MPs got together to make demands and negotiate.

You're not wrong, but it's still a voter problem.  I look back at Michael Chong as a good example - where he took a principled stand and had overwhelming popularity in his riding.  They couldn't kick him out of the party because he as popular and would win his next election in Centre Wellington regardless of his stripes, so they kicked him out of cabinet instead. 

More guys like him throughout the party would make it a way more multi-lateral affair, rather than politics just being partisan bullshit and the PM's office forcing it down the pipeline.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

So what exactly is the purpose or value of the Senate in Canada for the vast amount of money we are paying for it, particularly if they do not have the power to amend any legislation put forward by the governing party?

Well this has been debated many times of course. And there have been two attempts to open the constitution to address that. Meech lake and Charlottetown both tried to open the constitution for senate reform and both crashed badly, seriously damaging the gov'ts that proposed them. 

Remember the 'Triple E senate"?  Elected, effective and equal?

The senate does play SOME role. The senate was prepared to shoot down trudeau's emergency powers declaration.That's why he cancelled it. THe senate can slow down the legislative agenda by sending bills back to the house - there's only so many days to get legislation done in the house and if it gets wasted that means the gov't has to do fewer things than it wanted to.  They can also criticize much like an opposition. 

In short - it's better to have them than not but not by all that much. The senate could be much much more effective.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So the only change we're able to make is to elect better gov'ts and have them stay out of provincial business, and accept the fact every now and again you'll get a dicator like trudeau

Will it be good enough for the evolution though? Has "look we just can't" ever been?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, myata said:

Will it be good enough for the evolution though?

Which evolution?

16 minutes ago, myata said:

 

Has "look we just can't" ever been?

Oh hell yes. "Look we just can't" has been a reality for many peoples over many years.  That's why they get so excited when politicians say 'yes we can" to something they were told they can't have, but it always turns out to be followed by "well actually we couldn't".

Thus politicians have learned instead of saying 'we just can't" they tend to say one of the following:

"Sure we can!!!  Later!!"

" Well the challenge with that ... HEY LOOK AT THE SQUIRREL!! Awwww he's so cute, look at this little guy/...."

"that's a great question. Just before i answer that though, I should mention i've decided to invade southeast Asia."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

You're not wrong, but it's still a voter problem.  I look back at Michael Chong as a good example - where he took a principled stand and had overwhelming popularity in his riding.  They couldn't kick him out of the party because he as popular and would win his next election in Centre Wellington regardless of his stripes, so they kicked him out of cabinet instead. 

More guys like him throughout the party would make it a way more multi-lateral affair, rather than politics just being partisan bullshit and the PM's office forcing it down the pipeline.  

Sure. But how many MPs have the voter name recognition and popularity he enjoyed? Even with them you have a hard time. Just ask Jane Philpott. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the liberals have rejected one of the senate's amendments. What happens to the bill now? It's my understanding it's imperative the bill passed by the senate (with ALL its amendments) have exactly the same wording as the bill passed by the house (and vice versa) to become law. Shouldn't it have to go back to the senate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well they will eventually send  back to the senate what they are willing to do. Some of the changes may be accepted some may not.

If the senate wishes they COULD refuse to pass it without all of it's changes - but that pretty much never happens. The senate is seen as more of a 'recommendation' house than a 'second vote' house so to speak.' Although they were prepared to shoot the gov't down over the emergency act for example.

IF the senate and house can't come to an agreement on a bill, then they COULD hold a conference on the matter but nobody really does that anymore.

So usually what happens is the senate recommends changse, the gov't agrees to some of them. the senate says 'close enough' and lets it go through. They know they are not elected and the parliament is. They are the house of sober second thought, not a seperate governing body.

They have the power to not let a bill through entirely unless they get the changes they want but that is almost unheard of.

However - they can often delay things so that the bill dies on the order paper  when parliament is shut down in between sessions. In that case the gov't has to decide if it wants to reintroduce it and fight the same fight or if it wants to look at amendments that might help it get through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They have the power to not let a bill through entirely unless they get the changes they want but that is almost unheard of.

Why is this, pretty much all of it, such a tortured, convoluted imitation of a clear and transparent democratic process that was actually thought through and can work? A house of majority employees of a Central Committee with sort of, quasi independent imitation of checks and oversight not really though. I don't want to guess anymore, done thing. If it looks and smells like it doesn't make sense, it cannot make any sense, then may be it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well they will eventually send  back to the senate what they are willing to do. Some of the changes may be accepted some may not.

If the senate wishes they COULD refuse to pass it without all of it's changes - but that pretty much never happens. The senate is seen as more of a 'recommendation' house than a 'second vote' house so to speak.' Although they were prepared to shoot the gov't down over the emergency act for example.

IF the senate and house can't come to an agreement on a bill, then they COULD hold a conference on the matter but nobody really does that anymore.

So usually what happens is the senate recommends changse, the gov't agrees to some of them. the senate says 'close enough' and lets it go through. They know they are not elected and the parliament is. They are the house of sober second thought, not a seperate governing body.

They have the power to not let a bill through entirely unless they get the changes they want but that is almost unheard of.

However - they can often delay things so that the bill dies on the order paper  when parliament is shut down in between sessions. In that case the gov't has to decide if it wants to reintroduce it and fight the same fight or if it wants to look at amendments that might help it get through.

Thank you, that clears things up a bit.  Although I would prefer the senate stick to their guns on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, myata said:

Why is this, pretty much all of it, such a tortured, convoluted imitation of a clear and transparent democratic process that was actually thought through and can work? A house of majority employees of a Central Committee with sort of, quasi independent imitation of checks and oversight not really though. I don't want to guess anymore, done thing. If it looks and smells like it doesn't make sense, it cannot make any sense, then may be it doesn't.

Well of course it makes sense. But no matter WHAT model you choose, there are going to be serious pros and cons.

It was done this way originally to remove the 'populism' from the upper house. If you elect senators then they have the requirement to 'look good' to the people to get reelected. As we've seen in the states that can lead to shenanigans. Being appointed for life with no term limit means you can freely stab whomever appointed you in the back if they do something bad.

So that's good right? Unelected for life is best!

Oh - but wait, that means they weren't chosen by the people and the lower house was. Soooo- we really need to defer to the lower house a bit as senators because only they can claim to have an actual mandate from the people. So we can't just block bills we don't like. We COULD do that if we were elected tho.

So elected is better right? Or.... :)

So that's pretty much how all of our politics goes. Every model is an exercise in compromise. If there was an obvious clear solution that was best everyone would be using it.

Right now the senate we have is MODERATELY effective at doing something about really bad bills like this. They've held it up - Trudeau wants to prorogue the house and if he does that delay means the bill has to be introduced from scratch and may suffer the same fate if it's not altered.

I think it would be better if senators were elected for longer terms rather than appointed for life but like i said that comes with issues too.

Every system does lean on the people sooner or later to make good decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, suds said:

Thank you, that clears things up a bit.  Although I would prefer the senate stick to their guns on this one.

I think we all would, and depending on the changes they may. However - as i noted it's always got to be in the back of their minds that while they DO have the authority to do what they believe is best for Canada, the liberals have an actual mandate from the people and they do not. And if the people don't like the bill they can always vote them out and vote in a gov't that will scrap it.

SO i doubt they'll be adamant.  However - they COULD send it back again with additional minor tweaks and stall it more. That does send a message to the libs and to the press, it's embarassing.

At the end of the day, justin is considering proroguing parliament to get away from the questions about china so it's very possible  the bill will die on the order table. Then the libs will be forced to reconsider it anyway. It boils down to how badly they want it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I think we all would, and depending on the changes they may. However - as i noted it's always got to be in the back of their minds that while they DO have the authority to do what they believe is best for Canada, the liberals have an actual mandate from the people and they do not. And if the people don't like the bill they can always vote them out and vote in a gov't that will scrap it.

SO i doubt they'll be adamant.  However - they COULD send it back again with additional minor tweaks and stall it more. That does send a message to the libs and to the press, it's embarassing.

At the end of the day, justin is considering proroguing parliament to get away from the questions about china so it's very possible  the bill will die on the order table. Then the libs will be forced to reconsider it anyway. It boils down to how badly they want it.

  1. Liberals reject senate amendment limiting the scope of CRTC powers over online content (in particular, including the EXCLUSION of social media content from the bill).
  2. "After the bill passes, the government will issue a policy direction to the CRTC on how to implement the legislation. It has refused to make that document public until after Bill C-11 becomes law."

Does this sound familiar to anyone? It sounds a lot like the Canadian version of 'you have to pass the bill in order to see what's in the bill'. Or rather in this case.... what the liberals true intentions are. If I were a senator, i would not pass this bill. No Canadian should support this bill. This is not what I would call open or transparent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...