Justin Trudeau Won't Abolish the Senate Because it Favours Quebec

[scribblet]

Well, here you have it, the status quo for Trudeau, with 'improvements' wonder what kind of 'improvements'. I guess as long as they don't affect Quebec... hmmmm Guess he doesn't go for Equal and Elected...

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/26/justin-trudeau-wont-abolish-senate-as-it-benefits-quebec

OTTAWA -- The scandal-plagued Senate has a cheerleader in Justin Trudeau after the Liberal leader said he wouldn't abolish the chamber because it's to Quebec's gain over other provinces to keep the lights on.

"We have 24 senators from Quebec and there are just six from Alberta and British Columbia. It's to our advantage," he told a French newspaper.

"To want to abolish it is demagoguery," he said in a rebuke of NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair's campaign to mothball the place. "We'll have to improve it."

Mulcair responded Sunday that it's not to anyone's advantage to keep the Senate.

"New Democrats believe that all Canadians win if we roll up the red carpet. Justin Trudeau's solution to the Senate scandal is to replace Conservative bagmen, hacks and operatives with Liberal bagmen, hacks and operatives."

Marjory LeBreton, Government leader in the Senate, said the comments are "divisive" and "underscore the Liberal policy on the Senate: the status quo." cont...

[Guest American Woman]

Interesting - but supports his belief that Canada is better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans. "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec... This country - Canada - it belongs to us." http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/22/trudeau-would-rather-have-quebecers-than-albertans-in-charge

In your opinion, do you think he will ever become PM?

[The_Squid]

Triple 'E' was never in the Liberal platform. It was in Harper's though and he has done squat about it. Harper and Trudeau may as well have the same platform for the amount of good Harper's empty promises have done to reform the senate.

[scribblet]

Triple 'E' was never in the Liberal platform. It was in Harper's though and he has done squat about it. Harper and Trudeau may as well have the same platform for the amount of good Harper's empty promises have done to reform the senate.

Sure he has... he introduced legislation in 2006 but that died because the Liberal dominated Senate demanded longer term lengths, along with constitutional change. (which requires provincial consent).

In 2009, he appointed Senators which shifted the balance of Senate power, so after the the 2011 election the conservatives reintroduced introduced their bill, the Senate Reform Act -- but that has yet to pass second reading. So.... the gov't asked the S.C. about the issues on onstitutional requirements for five possible options for Senate reform:

• Fixed-term Senate appointments
• Repealing the property qualifications required to become a senator
• A system in which the federal government consults the provinces, but still appoints senators at a national level
• A system in which the provinces choose their own senators
• Abolishing the Senate altogether

I know triple E was never a Liberal platform, but JT doesn`t want change because of what it would do to Quebec. Poor Quebec... everything has to be in their favour doesn`t it.

A SCOC decision is expected in November.

Edited May 26, 2013 by scribblet

[scribblet]

Interesting - but supports his belief that Canada is better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans. "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec... This country - Canada - it belongs to us." http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/22/trudeau-would-rather-have-quebecers-than-albertans-in-charge

In your opinion, do you think he will ever become PM?

I wouldn`t be surprised if he does make it to PM... there are enough `low information voters`who would vote for a pretty face and hair rather than policy. Not sure if he would make it in 2015 but IMO he will in 2019.

[Sandy MacNab]

Sure he has... he introduced legislation in 2006 but that died because the Liberal dominated Senate demanded longer term lengths, along with constitutional change. (which requires provincial consent).

.... So.... the gov't asked the S.C. about the issues on onstitutional requirements for five possible options for Senate reform....

....I know triple E was never a Liberal platform, but JT doesn`t want change because of what it would do to Quebec. Poor Quebec... everything has to be in their favour doesn`t it.

A SCOC decision is expected in November.

SO, the SCOC will take the easy way out and give Quebec what it wants; the way it has always been done in this wimpy country.

[Loco]

In your opinion, do you think he will ever become PM?

Sadly yes I think he probably will.

Not because he's good for Can or even Que, but because political loyalties, spin and the Cdn public willingness to be led around like a mindless flock of sheeple insted of voting with intelligent thought IMHO

[Sandy MacNab]

I wouldn`t be surprised if he does make it to PM... there are enough `low information voters`who would vote for a pretty face and hair rather than policy. Not sure if he would make it in 2015 but IMO he will in 2019.

Is the phrase "low information voters" another way of saying "politically correct dreamers"?

[Sandy MacNab]

Sadly yes I think he probably will.

Not because he's good for Can or even Que, but because political loyalties, spin and the Cdn public willingness to be led around like a mindless flock of sheeple insted of voting with intelligent thought IMHO

Canada has far, far too many politically correct lefties who will vote with their gonads - actually their minds are incapable of "intelligent thought".

[BC_chick]

Here is what JT said in context:

"I think an elected Senate is a terrible idea," he said.

"If you all of sudden have a legitimate Senate that exercises the full extent of its powers — as opposed to one that understands that it's less legitimate than the House of Commons because it's not elected — you're transforming our system in very, very negative ways.

"Not to mention that all of sudden Alberta with only six senators who are elected is much weaker than Quebec, that has 24 senators that would be elected. It would unbalance so many things that we just have to focus on making it a better quality Senate rather than trying to change the Senate."

So within context JT says elected senators would be a bad idea because Alberta would not get proper representation and somehow gets spun as anti-Alberta?

Incroyable.

ETA - I don't necessarily agree with JT on this issue, however, I don't recall ever voting for a politician who fully shared every single one of my views. In the last election I thought Layton deserved a chance and I voted NDP, but this upcoming election JT is the strongest candidate and he'll be getting my vote in spite of his views on this issue.

Frankly, Harper did nothing but throw a bone to the masses when it came to the senate so it's ironic to see such indignation coming from his supporters.

Edited May 27, 2013 by BC_chick

[waldo]

So within context JT says elected senators would be a bad idea because Alberta would not get proper representation and somehow gets spun as anti-Alberta?

Incroyable.

I'm floored that the original linked SUN article and those Harper Conservative partyzans linking/spinning it have played so... liberally... with what Trudeau actually said - go figure!

[scribblet]

Your quote is from February, this one is from this week:

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/26/justin-trudeau-wont-abolish-senate-as-it-benefits-quebec

Trudeau said clearly:

"We have 24 senators from Quebec and there are just six from Alberta and British Columbia. It's to our advantage," he told a French newspaper.

"To want to abolish it is demagoguery," he said in a rebuke of NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair's campaign to mothball the place. "We'll have to improve it."

Clearly he wants to keep the status quo as it's to Quebec's advantage.

This is why Mr. Harper has gone to the S.C. for a ruling before putting forward further legislation, clearly Quebec will not sign on to anything that doesn't give them an advantage.

[BC_chick]

He's not deviating his idea from the quote he made before. Both times he says he's against elected senate because it's not representational. Once he says it's unfair to Alberta and another he says it's in Quebec's favour.

You can spin all you want, but he has elaborated on the idea in the past when he discussed the matter in more than a soundbyte (in my quote). He is clearly against the idea because it's not representational.

While many are in disbelief that he's alienating the Quebec vote by saying things like this, CPC'ers are busy telling us the opposite.

Edited May 27, 2013 by BC_chick

[Bryan]

He's not deviating his idea from the quote he made before. Both times he says he's against elected senate because it's not representational. Once he says it's unfair to Alberta and another he says it's in Quebec's favour.

You can spin all you want, but he has elaborated on the idea in the past when he discussed the matter in more than a soundbyte (in my quote). He is clearly against the idea because it's not representational.

No. In the most recvent interview, he's clearly against senate reform because the current makeup of the senate gives more power to Quebec, and that's how he wants it to stay.

[The_Squid]

Sure he has... he introduced legislation in 2006 but that died because the Liberal dominated Senate demanded longer term lengths, along with constitutional change. (which requires provincial consent).

In 2009, he appointed Senators which shifted the balance of Senate power, so after the the 2011 election the conservatives reintroduced introduced their bill, the Senate Reform Act -- but that has yet to pass second reading. So.... the gov't asked the S.C. about the issues on onstitutional requirements for five possible options for Senate reform:

• Fixed-term Senate appointments
• Repealing the property qualifications required to become a senator
• A system in which the federal government consults the provinces, but still appoints senators at a national level
• A system in which the provinces choose their own senators
• Abolishing the Senate altogether

I know triple E was never a Liberal platform, but JT doesn`t want change because of what it would do to Quebec. Poor Quebec... everything has to be in their favour doesn`t it.

A SCOC decision is expected in November.

Sorry, I missed the part about the "triple E".... When did that happen?

Plus Harper appointed plenty of senators without holding elections. Remember Wallin, Brazeau and Duffy? Remember them?

[BC_chick]

No. In the most recvent interview, he's clearly against senate reform because the current makeup of the senate gives more power to Quebec, and that's how he wants it to stay.

And there we have it. JT's spokesman on the forum, clarifying comments for us.

Um, actually, no, this soundbyte can be taken to reiterate his views as he has stated before, or taken as you imply.

So on the one hand we have a different manner of expressing the same view, on the other, we have the telepathic interpretation of an avowed CPC supporter.

Oh, decisions, decisions.

Edited May 27, 2013 by BC_chick

[The_Squid]

This entire topic is a smokescreen by party hacks to hide from what has been happening with Duffy and the PMo corruption.

Edited May 27, 2013 by The_Squid

[BubberMiley]

I guess if you have little respect for the voting public and consider them all "low information", you'll think you can feed them any out-of-Context lie and they'll believe it.

[Keepitsimple]

Sorry, I missed the part about the "triple E".... When did that happen?

Plus Harper appointed plenty of senators without holding elections. Remember Wallin, Brazeau and Duffy? Remember them?

What would you expect him to do? In 2006, the Liberal dominated Senate refused to support changes to Senate terms. Strike one. Then the provinces - with the exception of Alberta, refused to go along with elections for the Senate. Strike two. Harper made a promise not to appoint Senators based on trying to get these things done. So waht's he to do - nothing?....and leave a Liberal dominated Senate in place that clearly was/is against anything but the status quo?

[scribblet]

What would you expect him to do? In 2006, the Liberal dominated Senate refused to support changes to Senate terms. Strike one. Then the provinces - with the exception of Alberta, refused to go along with elections for the Senate. Strike two. Harper made a promise not to appoint Senators based on trying to get these things done. So waht's he to do - nothing?....and leave a Liberal dominated Senate in place that clearly was/is against anything but the status quo?

What I said too. What was he supposed to do, leave all the positions open for the next gov't to fill... I think not.

[scribblet]

He's not deviating his idea from the quote he made before. Both times he says he's against elected senate because it's not representational. Once he says it's unfair to Alberta and another he says it's in Quebec's favour.

You can spin all you want, but he has elaborated on the idea in the past when he discussed the matter in more than a soundbyte (in my quote). He is clearly against the idea because it's not representational.

While many are in disbelief that he's alienating the Quebec vote by saying things like this, CPC'ers are busy telling us the opposite.

Clearly you are doing the spinning. There's no mistaking or taking out of context what he said, it's there in B/W. Nice try though, keep on spinning.

[BubberMiley]

Clearly you are doing the spinning. There's no mistaking or taking out of context what he said, it's there in B/W. Nice try though, keep on spinning.

Then explain how the two JT quotes provided contradict one another. She showed that he doesn't believe the Senate should be more powerful than it is, which is a point you would rather pretend he never made. If you don't understand that, perhaps you're one of the low-information voters you were talking about.

[Boges]

I can see another attack ad brewing over this.

[Bryan]

I can see another attack ad brewing over this.

So can I. Justin is writing the CPC's entire next campaign for them.

[BubberMiley]

I agree. There are still a lot of conservatives who think Romney's "you didn't build that" strategy was a good one.