Trudeau: All 32 Liberal Senators to Sit as Independents

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by SebC

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

At least those that aren't giving him credit for this are providing their reasons. More than I can say about you, however.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

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

Yeah, it's pretty funny watching some posters try to do as many backflips as possible to adhere to their own partisan beliefs. Oh well, so goes the thought-process of believing the political arean is akin to a hockey arena. Go team!

[jammies]

Rather than looking at the short-term, think about the long-term ramifications if the Senate was no longer split along the lines of party. If the Conservatives followed the Liberals lead (hah!), then the Senate might actually become a legitimate institution separate from the House of Commons and not just a dangly, useless appendage to it.

I like the idea, myself. Independent senators would encourage PMs to find the best candidates, and would discourage appointing political hacks just to control their votes. Obviously it wouldn't be perfect, but it could be a lot better than it is now.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jammies

Rather than looking at the short-term, think about the long-term ramifications if the Senate was no longer split along the lines of party. If the Conservatives followed the Liberals lead (hah!), then the Senate might actually become a legitimate institution separate from the House of Commons and not just a dangly, useless appendage to it.

I like the idea, myself. Independent senators would encourage PMs to find the best candidates, and would discourage appointing political hacks just to control their votes. Obviously it wouldn't be perfect, but it could be a lot better than it is now.

True, but I do get what some people are saying in that the appointments would still be based on those who've demonstrated political allegiance to one party or another in the past. Overall though, it's still a step-forward than the current format.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by rubecube

True, but I do get what some people are saying in that the appointments would still be based on those who've demonstrated political allegiance to one party or another in the past. Overall though, it's still a step-forward than the current format.

Yah, it definitely is still open to abuse. But the PM would lose *some* control over members of the Senate, and if there is one over-riding issue even the partisan should agree on, it's that the office of the PM has far too much power and could do with some curbs.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Ark2

At least those that aren't giving him credit for this are providing their reasons. More than I can say about you, however.

The critics have called this politically motivated, symbolic, and ineffective. But they haven't even tried to show why it might be bad for Canada, or even why it would be bad for the Liberal party. I'd wager that if they had any such arguments, we'd have heard them. But all they've given us is reasons why this move might be less good than it seems.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by rubecube

True, but I do get what some people are saying in that the appointments would still be based on those who've demonstrated political allegiance to one party or another in the past. Overall though, it's still a step-forward than the current format.

I don't have an issue with where their sympathies lie, a wide cross-section of opinion is healthy. Just as long as when they vote they are voting based on what they believe the best for Canada or their region and not because they are funded or being whipped by a political party or the PMO.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

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).

Not quite. It has only happened once (by Mulroney to pass the GST) and even then it isn't a permanent increase. The number of seats must then be allowed to return to the original number through attrition.

[Jacks]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/just...eans-1.2515542

Newly Independent senators seemed to differ from Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau on how much support they'll be able to offer during elections as they try to sort out what it means to no longer be part of the Liberal caucus.

Senators were shocked by Trudeau's announcement that they were no longer part of the caucus. He talked to them shortly before going in front of reporters to explain the move.

Trudeau said the country isn't ready for the years of constitutional debates that would likely be required to make the Senate an elected body or change its composition, but that this is one move he can make to try to bring down the partisan tone of the embattled institution.

James Cowan, who had been the party's leader in the Senate, says the formerly Liberal senators will continue to support Trudeau and call themselves the Senate Liberal caucus.

But when a reporter told Cowan the senators wouldn't be able to fundraise or do anything connected to the party, Cowan seemed unaware.

"He [Trudeau] hasn't said that ... You're saying 'what he said,' [but] that's not what he said to us," Cowan said.

Earlier Wednesday morning, Trudeau told reporters that the senators could remain party members, but that was about it.

"As far as political operatives, these senators will no longer be, you know, Liberal organizers, fundraisers, activists in any form," Trudeau said.

Cowan said they are still the Official Opposition in the Senate and that he will continue to be their leader, something Senate Speaker Noël Kinsella confirmed later in the day.

"They're still our friends and we share their values," he said about Liberal MPs.

"I think not a lot will change. I think that there is a perception perhaps that senators in our party and in the other party are under the control of folks on the other side. That's not been the case in our side. We obviously talk, consult with them and we have had the privilege of being part of their caucus up to now. We won't have that anymore. But we'll continue to talk to them and I suspect that not a great deal will change."

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by SebC

The critics have called this politically motivated, symbolic, and ineffective. But they haven't even tried to show why it might be bad for Canada, or even why it would be bad for the Liberal party. I'd wager that if they had any such arguments, we'd have heard them. But all they've given us is reasons why this move might be less good than it seems.

Who has actually proposed that this is "bad for Canada"? And why are you now building strawmen arguments on top of your ad hominem attacks?

[Jacks]

Few more things to think about:

Will the government now run unopposed in the Senate?
If there is nobody representing any other party in the Senate then there is no Official Opposition.

Who will sit on Senate committee's?
As far as I know committee seats are determined by party numbers same as the HOC. Will the government now have all committee seats?

If Trudeau wins government in the next election who will introduce government bills in the Senate? I think the Government House Leader does this now right?

What happens to the Official Opposition offices and staff?

Also, isn't booting half of your caucus something that should be discussed with the party prior to doing it? Shouldn't a change this drastic be given a democratic vote by the party members? We aren't talking about one bad apple being kicked out, this is literally half of the caucus.

I get the feeling Trudeau just came up with this idea and hasn't really thought it through. Obviously the majority of these Senators will still support Liberal policy and will be Liberals in everything but name but they have now pretty much been neutered of any meaningful power to oppose the government.

[smoothpops]

This is a little off topic, but does anyone even remember which senate member they voted for in the last election? I'm a political junkie (did poli sci at uni) and i remember going to vote, voting for the federal party and leaving the senate section blank as none of those people campaigned, i had no idea what they stood for and figured if i voted them based solely on party affiliation, then how is that different than the PM appointing them based on party loyalty? Also, from my understanding the PM takes our election results as a recommendation and can still appoint whomever he/she wants from a short list of names, so between this and voter apathy, the whole "elected alberta senators" is a giant scam, in my opinion. Having said that, i do believe the senate just needs to be massively reformed and can be an effective second sober thought, especially if omnibus bills are going to be the trend going forward. todays move could be the first real step in that direction, and really could take some of the wind out of Harper's sail, seeing as he's been trying to reform the senate (but not really) for the last 25 yrs

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by smoothpops

This is a little off topic, but does anyone even remember which senate member they voted for in the last election? I'm a political junkie (did poli sci at uni) and i remember going to vote, voting for the federal party and leaving the senate section blank as none of those people campaigned, i had no idea what they stood for and figured if i voted them based solely on party affiliation, then how is that different than the PM appointing them based on party loyalty? Also, from my understanding the PM takes our election results as a recommendation and can still appoint whomever he/she wants from a short list of names, so between this and voter apathy, the whole "elected alberta senators" is a giant scam, in my opinion. Having said that, i do believe the senate just needs to be massively reformed and can be an effective second sober thought, especially if omnibills are going to be the trend going forward. todays move could be the first real step in that direction, and really could take some of the wind out of Harper's sail, seeing as he's been trying to reform the senate (but not really) for the last 25 yrs

One of the main problems that I have with an elected Senate is that the parties get to pick and choose who will get to run. If they also have term limits, then they will be even more under the control of the party leader than they are now, as they need the approval of the leader to sign the nomination papers. This is hardly the recipe for an independent body that is supposed to supply a "sober, second thought".

Besides, when you step back and look at the whole democratic system, you see that the people who are good at getting elected are politicians. Does anyone really think that the solution to solving the problems with the Senate is more politicians?

[Bunk]

Politics, as they say, is the art of the possible. This is what's possible for Trudeau to do to signal the kind of substantive reforms he would try to under as PM - one of those longer term being (presumably based on this) a senate that doesn't break along party lines. That could be a more productive and independent upper chamber.

[Slava]

Despite what people might think of his motives, the reality is there is no downside to this that I can see. Having senators who are unencumbered by partisanship would actually let them provide the sober second thought that the upper chamber is supposed to.

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by 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

Are you really Aaron Gavey?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Despite what people might think of his motives, the reality is there is no downside to this that I can see. Having senators who are unencumbered by partisanship would actually let them provide the sober second thought that the upper chamber is supposed to.

You're not that naive, Slava. If the house as a whole was non-partisan, then you'd have a point. but as long as it is appointed by Liberal and Conservative PMs - and don't pretend that these "independents" are anything other than Liberal senators - nothing's really changed.

[You Need a Thneed]

Now only if we can get the entire House of Commons to be non partisan.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You're not that naive, Slava. If the house as a whole was non-partisan, then you'd have a point. but as long as it is appointed by Liberal and Conservative PMs - and don't pretend that these "independents" are anything other than Liberal senators - nothing's really changed.

I guess I am that naive though! Look at me personally: I'm not a card carrying anything but I'm a small 'l' liberal. To someone like you, I probably am a Liberal, or maybe even a 'Flaming Liberal' in the context of this board! I know that to some of my Liberal friends (just humour me and agree that more than one exists in Calgary), they think I'm quite conservative. I also note that someone like First Lady who has run for a party and then run for city council talked about how freeing it is because there are no party constraints. There is a huge difference.

Perhaps the thing I find most interesting though is that libertarians and predominantly conservatives have talked for years about free votes in the HOC, but now a Liberal takes that to the next level in the Senate and suddenly they're not so fond. I guess partisanship will now stand in the way of removing partisanship!

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I haven't decided what I think of this yet.

However in terms of a non-partisan I don't think it would happen overnight but I don't see why I can't work.

Municipal politics are non-partisan. Imagine if the Nenshi was running as a Liberal or on the NDP ticket. Would he get re-elected?

The judiciary which is appointed by Premiers and the Prime Minister are non-partisan.

Why can't the Senate be?

Perhaps I'm naive. I realize that this isn't 100% foolproof, but I don't see why we can't make this work.

Again I don't know if we SHOULD, just that we could.