Trudeau: All 32 Liberal Senators to Sit as Independents

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by Slava

So the fact that they were appointed as Liberals means that they're incapable of exercising independent thought and judgement? Interesting.

So the fact that they are all now "independent" means that they have given up all of their former ideals and are now looking at issues from the view of the people they represent, and not those of the party that they have been a part of for years, or that they were under the oppression of the Liberal party and were never allowed independent thought? Interesting.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

So the fact that they are all now "independent" means that they have given up all of their former ideals and are now looking at issues from the view of the people they represent, and not those of the party that they have been a part of for years, or that they were under the oppression of the Liberal party and were never allowed independent thought? Interesting.

Maybe ideal-wise they're still liberals, but at least at this point we have people with no party handcuffs and affiliation. The others are not only constrained by ideals but by a sitting party, and frankly we've seen how that affects them in the senate through the scandals.

Surely removing the parties, while not the great be all and end all, is a good step.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Count me in the "This doesn't change anything camp".

In all seriousness, what difference does party affilitiation do in the senate anyway.

Sure, in the HoC, you take your marching ordes from the party leadership or you don't run for that party/lose your job.

In the Senate, they vote on party lines for the good of the party, not becasue their jobs are at stake, so this doen't change anything.
Sure if this was out of the blue, a few of them might feel like they've been abandoned, but let's be honest here, something like this doesn't happen without discussing it with those guys first, so again, this doesn't change anything.

[OldDutch]

I had read that Harper knows his legal challenge has a slim to none chance of suceeding. It is his own half hearted gesture to say "Hey we tried but those courts..what ya gonna do"

I wouldn't applaud Harper and more than Trudeau. Their both just jockeying each other in an effort to keep this prize pig but appear to look good to avg Canadians.

Right now Trudeau just took the lead, but I am sure Harper will figure out something to apear like he's trying without actually doing anything.

[Jacks]

There is supposed to be a AG report coming out on the Senate soon, makes you wonder if Trudeau isn't just trying to distance himself from any bad news?

Originally Posted by Slava

I actually think that this is a brilliant move towards meaningful reform. It takes the partisanship out of the picture, and that is one of the things that is wrong with the senate. I'm not entirely surprised that Harper supporters are looking for reasons to discredit it, but I would think that most conservatives would be in favour of this step no matter how much it pains them to admit it.

IMO most Conservatives believe that the way to reform the Senate is to make it democratic. Trudeau's "new" plan is to keep appointing which is the opposite of democratic. It's not brilliant and it's not meaningful reform. You can be sure that Senate reform will be part of the next election, once the Supreme Court rules on what he government can and cannot I have no doubt that Harper will move on the file.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

So the fact that they are all now "independent" means that they have given up all of their former ideals and are now looking at issues from the view of the people they represent, and not those of the party that they have been a part of for years, or that they were under the oppression of the Liberal party and were never allowed independent thought? Interesting.

Perhaps instead of giving up their ideals (not sure why anyone would do that), they might actually now have a chance to better live and make decisions by them. They might not be the ideals you share, but how is that a bad thing?

[octothorp]

Interesting. Obviously it's a political move, meant to keep the attention on the Conservative senate scandal, because pretty-much all it does is severe ties between the senators and the rest of the party. Which is a shot at the ties between conservative senators and the PMO. By making this their policy, it ensures that senate reform will be an issue in the next election, and any time the Conservatives bring up this policy, there's going to be the reminder of the scandal. Even if the Conservatives have better ideas about senate reform, they also have so much baggage that it's an issue that they (or at least Harper) cannot win at it. I think that as much as Canadians want massive senate reform, I doubt most trust Harper to implement it.

While I agree that elected senates with term limits should be the goal, there are constitutional roadblocks against that. Separation between senate and the rest of the party is something that could be passed without constitutional challenges, I think. And it would be useful, simply not as useful as a senate overhaul.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Slava

So the fact that they were appointed as Liberals means that they're incapable of exercising independent thought and judgement

No. The fact that they're senators means that they're incapable of exercising independent thought and judgment.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Jacks

There is supposed to be a AG report coming out on the Senate soon, makes you wonder if Trudeau isn't just trying to distance himself from any bad news?

That's Mulclair's theory.

"It's quite interesting to see today that Justin Trudeau sees the merits of something we put on the table on Oct. 23," Mulcair said.
Last fall, the New Democrats had put forth a motion to end partisan activities in the Senate, including participation in caucus meetings. Trudeau voted against it. Ultimately, Mulcair returned to the party's long-held position that the Upper Chamber should be abolished. "The way to deal with the Senate is to eliminate it," he said.

He also said he believes Trudeau's about-face probably has something to do with upcoming AG's report. This report will be nothing but bad news for the Conservatives *and* Liberals.

[Major Major]

I'm a bit confused how Senate appointments are made and whether or not this would effect that. The PM and GG appoint new senators to replace those in their way out, and they pick senators (in theory) who best fit the job, or do they pick someone from the party of the outgoing senator?

senators also do a lot of fundraising for their party. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this, there is when senate appointments are bought with fundraising, ie. Duffie. Maybe this is a way to prevent that from happening should Trudeau become PM in the future, which frankly I think is inevitable. Or at least this is lending towards the optics that a senate scandle wouldn't happen on his watch. I don't know, it's very interesting though.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Perhaps instead of giving up their ideals (not sure why anyone would do that), they might actually now have a chance to better live and make decisions by them. They might not be the ideals you share, but how is that a bad thing?

How so? Once appointed, a senator holds his or her seat until they retire. What repercussions have they ever had to fear if they didn't tow the party line? None that I can think of, so I am not sure how this changes anything.

I think most Canadians either want to see the Senate abolished or require democratic election. Trudeau's solution does neither and really just keeps things more or less the same.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

How so? Once appointed, a senator holds his or her seat until they retire. What repercussions have they ever had to fear if they didn't tow the party line? None that I can think of, so I am not sure how this changes anything.

I think most Canadians either want to see the Senate abolished or require democratic election. Trudeau's solution does neither and really just keeps things more or less the same.

Well without following the party they get kicked out of caucus and lose funding. That's the issue.

If Trudeau is pre-emptively distancing himself, that is a whole other issue and should be easy to spot. If he is really genuinely trying to remove partisan influence though I think its great.

[Aarongavey]

I like this move. I am tired of Harper's never ending support of a partisan Senate. He has had 8 years to get a question to the Supreme Court, nothing in Parliament prevents a Prime Minister from asking the SCC a reference question. Harper just got addicted to appointing his friends to the Senate, this at least provides for a non-partisan Senate to look at bills objectively and gets rid of Harper appointing his friends like Duffy.

Hard to be suprised that Harper would be against independent thought in the Senate, he does not even want his own caucus to exercise independent thought as elected members of Parliament.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maur...hers-1.2513665

Saskatoon MP Maurice Vellacott gave notice of a motion aimed at preventing the government from muzzling backbenchers by blocking their private members' bills and motions. The motion would reform the current system, in which a handful of MPs on a Conservative-dominated sub-committee get to decide which private members' business will be put to a vote in the House of Commons. "That kind of muzzling is a blight on democracy," Vellacott said in a written statement, calling the process "arbitrary,"
"capricious" and open to political interference.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I think most Canadians either want to see the Senate abolished or require democratic election. Trudeau's solution does neither and really just keeps things more or less the same.

Both of which require constitutional changes. Canadians might want change, but do they want it bad enough to risk another episode of constitutional wrangling (especially while a separatist party is in power in Quebec)? As well, do they trust Harper, Trudeau, or any other politician enough to give them the mandate of a senate overhaul? That's not something any party should undertake without a serious majority. Canadians might have more appetite for small changes that can be undertaken without constitutional changes.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Major Major

I'm a bit confused how Senate appointments are made and whether or not this would effect that. The PM and GG appoint new senators to replace those in their way out, and they pick senators (in theory) who best fit the job, or do they pick someone from the party of the outgoing senator?

Neither, really. The PM picks senators, almost always from his party or with similar ideology - nothing to do with "best fit" for the job but rather "will do what the PM wants", and asks the GG to appoint them. I've never heard of the GG not appointing the senator the PM recommends.

Some of the most egregious abuses of this power, at least in my mind, have been when the Senate resists passing a bill so the PM adds seats to the Senate and appoints enough members from his own party to get majority control (the Liberals and Conservatives have both done this).

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well without following the party they get kicked out of caucus and lose funding. That's the issue.

Funding for what? They don't need to campaign for re-election. They are paid a salary and are given an expense account. What funding do they receive from the Liberal party?

If Trudeau is pre-emptively distancing himself, that is a whole other issue and should be easy to spot. If he is really genuinely trying to remove partisan influence though I think its great.

Considering that Trudeau voted against ending partisan practices in the Senate last October, I am having a difficult time believing the sincerity of this. An empty gesture by an empty suit.

[SebC]

It's not at all suprising that a Calgary forum is unwilling to give Trudeau credit where credit is due.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

sorry Slava I think that the fact that they're not sitting in the caucus meetings is irrelevant. These people have been liberals forever. and there are these things called phones.

This is a cosmetic statement at best.

Agreed. We'll see just how "independent" these Senators really are if Trudeau should ever win an election and require their support to pass bills.

But hell, as far as political grandstanding goes, this is impressive.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by SebC

It's not at all suprising that a Calgary forum is unwilling to give Trudeau credit where credit is due.

It's not at all surprising that you add absolutely nothing to a political topic but ad hominem attacks.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Funding for what? They don't need to campaign for re-election. They are paid a salary and are given an expense account. What funding do they receive from the Liberal party?

Considering that Trudeau voted against ending partisan practices in the Senate last October, I am having a difficult time believing the sincerity of this. An empty gesture by an empty suit.

I'm assuming that they've been cut-off from caucus research, etc.? I don't really know how all that works to be honest, so I could be totally wrong.