Trudeau: All 32 Liberal Senators to Sit as Independents

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by 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.

Senate is essentially lifetime appointment vs city council which is elected. Add in the fact that senators are chosen by party vs city council and I'm actually thinking this is a bad idea. Human being naturally gravitate to circles influence. I'd rather the influence be overt than hidden

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

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!

It's not a case of being "not so fond" of this move. It's a case of not buying Trudeau's grandstanding at face value.

If he should win the next election, Trudeau will appoint senators friendly to him. You can guarantee that. It's how the Senate works, and that won't be changed by pretending Liberal senators are independents any more than Alberta trying to elect its senators did.

Harper has often spoken of wanting to reform the senate. So why doesn't Trudeau simply express that he's willing to work with the government and see if they can put a package together that achieves real reform and which Canadians would accept? The answer is already written in your own post: Partisanship. He doesn't want to work with the government any more than the government wants to work with him. He wants to score points for his party. It's all just part of the game.

[Devils'Advocate]

My reason for opposing the Senate in totality is because of the gridlock we see south of the border. If the senate didn't rubber-stamp almost everything and was for the most part a symbolic expensive figurehead and instead we elected them and gave them some real legislative powers, I think we'd have problems when the HoC is primarly party A and the senate primarily party B. Nothing would get passed, nothing would get done. And I think we would see COMPLETELY watered down bills like the mess of a system that is "Obamacare".

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Senate is essentially lifetime appointment vs city council which is elected. Add in the fact that senators are chosen by party vs city council and I'm actually thinking this is a bad idea. Human being naturally gravitate to circles influence. I'd rather the influence be overt than hidden

Again, I haven't come to a conclusion of my thoughts on this yet. I'm asking questions more so for the ideas/answers than to say you're wrong.

However, you basically described exactly how the judiciary works. The Supreme Court of Canada doesn't have justices that are clearly Conservative, or clearly Liberal, but make their decisions based on the law. R v Bedford was a unanimous decision striking down prostitution laws where 6 of the justices were appointed by Harper and 1 by Mulroney. Also the one that was appointed by Mulroney was made Chief Justice by Chretien. It appears that the judiciary seems to be impartial to political ties, so in theory couldn't the Senate as well?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It's not a case of being "not so fond" of this move. It's a case of not buying Trudeau's grandstanding at face value.

If he should win the next election, Trudeau will appoint senators friendly to him. You can guarantee that. It's how the Senate works, and that won't be changed by pretending Liberal senators are independents any more than Alberta trying to elect its senators did.

Harper has often spoken of wanting to reform the senate. So why doesn't Trudeau simply express that he's willing to work with the government and see if they can put a package together that achieves real reform and which Canadians would accept? The answer is already written in your own post: Partisanship. He doesn't want to work with the government any more than the government wants to work with him. He wants to score points for his party. It's all just part of the game.

Senate reform is dead in the water because Canadians have absolutely no desire to open up the constitution and try to get the provinces to agree. Its amusing to me that you accuse Trudeau of grandstanding when Harper has done nothing but grandstand on the issue! He talks about reform, and has gone on to appoint 59 senators! Class appointments to like Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin! But go on, tell me again how Harper is a beacon of light on this particular issue.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Again, I haven't come to a conclusion of my thoughts on this yet. I'm asking questions more so for the ideas/answers than to say you're wrong.

However, you basically described exactly how the judiciary works. The Supreme Court of Canada doesn't have justices that are clearly Conservative, or clearly Liberal, but make their decisions based on the law. R v Bedford was a unanimous decision striking down prostitution laws where 6 of the justices were appointed by Harper and 1 by Mulroney. Also the one that was appointed by Mulroney was made Chief Justice by Chretien. It appears that the judiciary seems to be impartial to political ties, so in theory couldn't the Senate as well?

The Senate is not/will not be made up of people whose careers are made by being just/fair. In fact, senators often made their careers in politics specifically before becoming senators. I just don't see those lines/organization dissolving simply by removing title I guess. Maybe that would change in the distant future, but I'm thing that's many generations away

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Senate reform is dead in the water because Canadians have absolutely no desire to open up the constitution and try to get the provinces to agree. Its amusing to me that you accuse Trudeau of grandstanding when Harper has done nothing but grandstand on the issue! He talks about reform, and has gone on to appoint 59 senators! Class appointments to like Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin! But go on, tell me again how Harper is a beacon of light on this particular issue.

Deflect, deflect, deflect. I never said Harper wasn't grandstanding on the issue. And even if he is, that doesn't change the fact that Trudeau is doing the same.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Deflect, deflect, deflect. I never said Harper wasn't grandstanding on the issue. And even if he is, that doesn't change the fact that Trudeau is doing the same.

I'm not deflecting at all? You said he wouldn't talk reform because of partisanship and I think its because its a non-starter. I have no idea how thats deflecting?

Frankly it seems that whenever you get caught in a sticky position you accuse me of deflecting. Its pretty tiresome.

[Bobblehead]

I've noticed that you see people's political tendencies in many topics but there are often rational give and take discussions.

But the moment a topic explicitly becomes political many people immediately wrap themselves in their chosen parties' flag. Suddenly, instead of discussing the pros and cons of ideas, it becomes ongoing attacks about how other positions are wrong.

In these politically polarized day any ideas that gives people a chance to be free from political dogma is a step in the right direction.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I've noticed that you see people's political tendencies in many topics but there are often rational give and take discussions.

But the moment a topic explicitly becomes political many people immediately wrap themselves in their chosen parties' flag. Suddenly, instead of discussing the pros and cons of ideas, it becomes ongoing attacks about how other positions are wrong.

In these politically polarized day any ideas that gives people a chance to be free from political dogma is a step in the right direction.

I wish I could thank this 10,000 times.


What are your thoughts on a non-partisan Senate?

1: I think it should be non-partisan.
2: I like that idea, but I don't think it's practical.


Justin Trudeau kicked all the senators out of his caucus making them non-partisan.

1: That's just grandstanding, Harper knows better. Trudeau? Really? What a ######.
2: Harper said he'd do senate reform and then did everything he said shouldn't be done with the Senate. Harper is pure evil and needs to be removed.
1: Haper is a saint and doesn't get enough credit, Trudeau is young and nieve.
2: Harper is the reason our environment is in the state it's in, he's destroying science in this country. Won't somebody think of the children.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I wish I could thank this 10,000 times.

What are your thoughts on a non-partisan Senate?

Justin Trudeau kicked all the senators out of his caucus making them non-partisan.

Oooooh, I like this game! I'm better at offering my opinion in point form than open format political debate. (politics really aren't my thing) :P

I would like the Senate to become non-partisan, but part of that would also be that none of the Senate members were appointed to the Senate in the first place. Having non-partisan members would let the Senate do their job; give legislation a review from a second House. However, if they have been appointed to the post it is less likely to be for what they bring to the table, and more likely that it is a reward for service, or for being a supporter of the current party in power.

Although they are considered non-partisan by the party, I have read articles (god knows where...it was a long day) that have those in the Senate saying they consider themselves Liberal Senators. This feeds back into my thoughts above....the only way to truly have a non-partisan Senate is to get rid of everyone appointed to the post, otherwise they will still primarily identify with the party that placed them there. So, while it is good optics for Trudeau and the Liberal party to say this, unless all of the current appointments are punted and the appointment system re-jigged (which I believe requires the oh-so-hard-to-make constitutional changes), then it will be pretty much business as usual.

....so maybe I select all of the above for these questions? :P

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I've noticed that you see people's political tendencies in many topics but there are often rational give and take discussions.

But the moment a topic explicitly becomes political many people immediately wrap themselves in their chosen parties' flag. Suddenly, instead of discussing the pros and cons of ideas, it becomes ongoing attacks about how other positions are wrong.

In these politically polarized day any ideas that gives people a chance to be free from political dogma is a step in the right direction.

In this case, the focus might shift to regionalism, since that is how senators would identify. And I don't think that's a bad thing, it's probably closer to the original intent of the senate. Since caucusing is still necessary in some regard, it might be better to caucus along regional lines rather than ideological. I think as long as there's a left and right caucus, there will always be strong partisanship.

[crazy_eoj]

Don't think this has been posted yet: