quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

For those of us Canadians, this is a potentially incredible move by Trudeau and the Liberal party.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-removes-senators-from-liberal-caucus-1.2515273

To those non Canadians, our senate is comprised of senators appointed by our prime minister (leader). In the senate we had 32 liberals, 7 independents (please correct me if I'm wrong), and the rest are conservative. In essence, Trudeau (the liberal party leader) made this move because 1) the senate shouldn't be so politicized, it should ideally be comprised of individuals coming to their own decisions about the legislation that come their way from the house of commons, instead of these individuals following their party and what they want. It should be about the people not the party. and 2) It is a smart move politically for the 2015 election as it is a demonstration to Canadian citizens that he is in the running for prime minister with their interests in mind, not necessarily his party's.

Now in rebuttal, the conservative government is claiming this is a smoke screen as the entire senate is undergoing an audit because of several conservative senators abusing tax payer money in various situations. They say that this is a move for Trudeau to distance himself from any potential allegations the audit may put forward about Liberal senators. Whether this is the case or not will remain to be seen once the audit results are finished, so it is a logical possibility and the conservatives aren't entirely wrong to think such a thing.

As for the NDP, the opposition party in the House of Commons, they believe in removing the senate all together. However in October they had the same plan on the table about de-politicizing the senate, but at the time the idea was shot down by both parties. Now it seems that the Liberals are essentially stealing the NDP's thunder as it had been their plan at the beginning. A smart political move in my opinion by the Liberals.

What are your thoughts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
What are your thoughts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

For those of us Canadians, this is a potentially incredible move by Trudeau and the Liberal party.
What are your thoughts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
For those of us Canadians, this is a potentially incredible move by Trudeau and the Liberal party.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-removes-senators-from-liberal-caucus-1.2515273
To those non Canadians, our senate is comprised of senators appointed by our prime minister (leader). In the senate we had 32 liberals, 7 independents (please correct me if I'm wrong), and the rest are conservative. In essence, Trudeau (the liberal party leader) made this move because 1) the senate shouldn't be so politicized, it should ideally be comprised of individuals coming to their own decisions about the legislation that come their way from the house of commons, instead of these individuals following their party and what they want. It should be about the people not the party. and 2) It is a smart move politically for the 2015 election as it is a demonstration to Canadian citizens that he is in the running for prime minister with their interests in mind, not necessarily his party's.
Now in rebuttal, the conservative government is claiming this is a smoke screen as the entire senate is undergoing an audit because of several conservative senators abusing tax payer money in various situations. They say that this is a move for Trudeau to distance himself from any potential allegations the audit may put forward about Liberal senators. Whether this is the case or not will remain to be seen once the audit results are finished, so it is a logical possibility and the conservatives aren't entirely wrong to think such a thing.
As for the NDP, the opposition party in the House of Commons, they believe in removing the senate all together. However in October they had the same plan on the table about de-politicizing the senate, but at the time the idea was shot down by both parties. Now it seems that the Liberals are essentially stealing the NDP's thunder as it had been their plan at the beginning. A smart political move in my opinion by the Liberals.
What are your thoughts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

How many friggin' Parties are there in Canada (Conservative Party of Canada, New Democratic, Liberal, Progressive Conservative, Conservative Party (historical), National Liberal and Conservative Party, Unionist, etc.)?!?!?

Do you really want to increase the amount of political fund-raising and constant campaigning to get closer to matching that of the US?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
How many friggin' Parties are there in Canada (Conservative Party of Canada, New Democratic, Liberal, Progressive Conservative, Conservative Party (historical), National Liberal and Conservative Party, Unionist, etc.)?!?!?
Do you really want to increase the amount of political fund-raising and constant campaigning to get closer to matching that of the US?

There are lots of political parties and given how certain parties were swiftly decimated in the last election, I like it that way.. it gives Canadian voters a much truer voice than what American voters get in the US (only choice is between party bad & party worse), imo..
As far as fund raising goes (unless that has changed recently?), about 2/3 is a per vote subsidy which is again, a truer example of "every vote counts" than what goes on in the US.. in the US now, you have to be one of the 1% & have a lotta 1%er backers to get into politics (tail wagging the dog imo).. I know the concept of a subsidy for the political parties is very alien to Americans, but imo its rewarding politicians for doing what Canadian voters actually want them to do.. they are supposed to be our servants, not the other way around.. & it needs to stay that way..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
The senators are appointed by the Governor General (the queen's representative) on the advice of the PM, Harper in this case. And the term length is 4 years I think, same as those in the House of Commons (the equivalent of your congress) and the prime minister. And technically anyone can make a political party, but there is 3 main ones right now. The Conservatives, The Liberals, and the NDP (more extreme liberals, leaning towards more of a social party) And I don't know enough about the senate to know if they're linked to various regions, but considering they're appointed I'm gonna say no, but I could easily be wrong. And I agree, only time will tell how this works out. Because in my head if all senators are independants, it might still happen that politicized agendas motivate many of the members. But who knows...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

The one "good" thing about a Two Party System, is that it's "easier"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
No, senators up here don't run campaigns, they're not elected, they're appointed. Although I'm not entirely sure what the process is to determine if you wana be a senator.

quote:

And we don't have electoral votes up here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The one "good" thing about a Two Party System, is that it's "easier"

well,.. its easier for 1%ers & Big Corps to lobby and buy the politicians when there are only 2 parties too.. but as it stands now, in the US half the politicians are 1%ers so are already thinking about what works best for their kind.. Many more bad things than good things imo.. however, I don't see any changes possible with the US system, and the gridlock is killing ya..

quote:

I agree with you about the never ending campaigns.. I know someone that gets practically daily political calls (recorded and auto dialed) to vote for this or that (from all the various levels of govt), not to mention letters etc.. eshhhh.. that would drive anyone batty!..
That's one nice thing about Canadian politics.. its only 2 months of campaigning once an election is announced.. it doesn't consume your entire life.. [:)]

quote:

The Senate of Canada (French: Sénat du Canada) is a component of the Parliament of Canada, along with the House of Commons, and the monarch (represented by the governor general). The Senate is modelled after the British House of Lords and consists of 105 members appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister.[1] Seats are assigned on a regional basis, with each of the four major regions receiving 24 seats, and the remainder of the available seats being assigned to smaller regions. The four major regions are Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces. The seats for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut are assigned apart from these regional divisions. Senators may serve until they reach the age of 75.
The Senate is the upper house of parliament and the House of Commons is the lower house. This does not, however, imply that the Senate is more powerful than the House of Commons, merely that its members and officers outrank the members and officers of the House of Commons in the order of precedence for the purposes of protocol. Indeed, as a matter of practice and custom, the Commons is by far the dominant chamber. Although the approval of both houses is necessary for legislation, the Senate rarely rejects bills passed by the directly elected Commons: between 1867 and 1987 the Senate rejected a little less than two bills per year.[2] Moreover, members of the Cabinet are responsible solely to the House of Commons; the Prime Minister of Canada and the rest of Cabinet stay in office only while they retain the confidence of the Commons; Senators are not beholden to such control. Although legislation can normally be introduced in either house, the majority of government bills originate in the House of Commons. Under the constitution, money bills must always originate in the House of Commons.

quote:


It sounds like Trudeau would rather they be elected, though. That's what I was getting at. If they are to be elected by the People, then, how is that going to be done?

quote:


I know. We do down here, though. That comment had to do with the number of Parties in the system. While it certainly is simpler doing it the way Canada does it, simpler doesn't necessarily mean better (nor does it necessarily mean worse, either).

quote:


so it seems to me you have 105 landed gentry who are appointed by the QUEEN OF ENGLAND (NOT elected by actual Canadians) who get to have a say in how the country is governed. Hmmmm. Seems like the stupidest thing I've ever heard for a country that is supposed to be independent and democratic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
From Wiki:

quote:

The Senate of Canada (French: Sénat du Canada) is a component of the Parliament of Canada, along with the House of Commons, and the monarch (represented by the governor general). The Senate is modelled after the British House of Lords and consists of 105 members appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister.[1] Seats are assigned on a regional basis, with each of the four major regions receiving 24 seats, and the remainder of the available seats being assigned to smaller regions. The four major regions are Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces. The seats for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut are assigned apart from these regional divisions. Senators may serve until they reach the age of 75.
The Senate is the upper house of parliament and the House of Commons is the lower house. This does not, however, imply that the Senate is more powerful than the House of Commons, merely that its members and officers outrank the members and officers of the House of Commons in the order of precedence for the purposes of protocol. Indeed, as a matter of practice and custom, the Commons is by far the dominant chamber. Although the approval of both houses is necessary for legislation, the Senate rarely rejects bills passed by the directly elected Commons: between 1867 and 1987 the Senate rejected a little less than two bills per year.[2] Moreover, members of the Cabinet are responsible solely to the House of Commons; the Prime Minister of Canada and the rest of Cabinet stay in office only while they retain the confidence of the Commons; Senators are not beholden to such control. Although legislation can normally be introduced in either house, the majority of government bills originate in the House of Commons. Under the constitution, money bills must always originate in the House of Commons.

so it seems to me you have 105 landed gentry who are appointed by the QUEEN OF ENGLAND (NOT elected by actual Canadians) who get to have a say in how the country is governed. Hmmmm. Seems like the stupidest thing I've ever heard for a country that is supposed to be independent and democratic. Trudeau sounds like he's on the right track. Sounds to me like the Senate needs to be replaced with something that is a more democratic institution that actually represents Canadians. And Canadians think politics in the U.S. is weird. Maybe Canadians should start by ending the Constitutional monarchy and removing the QUEEN OF ENGLAND as the head of state. Imperialist and politically backward. Truly. [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

While they are technically appointed by the Governor General/Queen's representative, it's the PM who ultimately gives her/him input on which senators to choose. The PM has much more influence over the process than you think, but I agree it is extremely stupid, it makes no sense, and since our country's inception the senate has been a hot issue of debate about whether it should be changed and such. Why nothing has changed until now still boggles me. But even though we have a governor general, the queen or the english don't influence anything we do in our country. Removing the governor general at this point would just be a move to spite the queen of england, hardly something that needs doing when they aren't causing any issues themselves. It's the process and the people involved that are the problem, not the people who granted us our independence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The one "good" thing about a Two Party System, is that it's "easier"

well,.. its easier for 1%ers & Big Corps to lobby and buy the politicians when there are only 2 parties too.. but as it stands now, in the US half the politicians are 1%ers so are already thinking about what works best for their kind.. Many more bad things than good things imo.. however, I don't see any changes possible with the US system, and the gridlock is killing ya..

Nah, not any more difficult. Lobbyists buy both sides, and probably closer to all politicians than I'm comfortable with, so it doesn't necessarily matter which party they are from.

quote:

I agree with you about the never ending campaigns.. I know someone that gets practically daily political calls (recorded and auto dialed) to vote for this or that (from all the various levels of govt), not to mention letters etc.. eshhhh.. that would drive anyone batty!..
That's one nice thing about Canadian politics.. its only 2 months of campaigning once an election is announced.. it doesn't consume your entire life.. [:)]

2 months of campaigning? I can't even imagine how nasty that would get in the US, if that was the time limit.