Keepitsimple Posted November 6, 2013 Report Posted November 6, 2013 (edited) Trudeau told reporters after his party's weekly caucus meeting that he felt it was important for him to give Liberal senators his opinion on the matter. "What the three senators in question did was wrong and we shouldn't be defending them. But at the same time, what Mr. Harper has done is wrong in trying to cover up and hide, and avoid actual accountability on this issue. "So I felt that a strong option, that I was recommending to all senators, was to abstain from voting," Trudeau said. As it turns out, only 7 Liberal senators abstained while 30 voted Nay. Deserving of some attention in the media - yet the headline for the CBC story above was: Liberals abstain on key Senate vote That headline is an outright lie. Is the press giving Trudeau an easy ride? You bet they are. Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-suspensions-don-t-break-opposition-resolve-to-attack-pm-1.2416779 Edited November 6, 2013 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Boges Posted November 6, 2013 Report Posted November 6, 2013 (edited) Sort of a lie by omission but not an outright lie. I think the CBC should change their logo to a pom pom with JT's photo in it because I can't imagine they'll give him any rough ride at all in these 2 years coming up to the election. They'll be his biggest cheerleader. I think voting Nay is for self-preservation. It's clear Harper wants to Senate gone if not to completely change it, this suspension is a first step. Edited November 6, 2013 by Boges Quote
Topaz Posted November 7, 2013 Report Posted November 7, 2013 As it happens, the leader of the Liberal senate talked and answer questions about Liberals voting and he was one of the Liberals that didn't vote. He said they didn't have a chance to win, so each Lib. chose either vote, yes, no or not to vote, as did some Tories. He also said he was disappointed, that the due process wasn't done. Quote
Shady Posted November 7, 2013 Report Posted November 7, 2013 On a side note, had anyone seen Justin's new tv ad? It's hilarious!!! Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted November 7, 2013 Report Posted November 7, 2013 On a side note, had anyone seen Justin's new tv ad? It's hilarious!!! No but I've certainly seen those ridiculous "Economic Action Plan" in the middle of the hockey games that cost the taxpayer millions and that absolutely noone has responded to on their 1-800 number. But I don't find any of that hilarious, just wasteful. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted November 7, 2013 Report Posted November 7, 2013 Sort of a lie by omission but not an outright lie. I think the CBC should change their logo to a pom pom with JT's photo in it because I can't imagine they'll give him any rough ride at all in these 2 years coming up to the election. They'll be his biggest cheerleader. I think voting Nay is for self-preservation. It's clear Harper wants to Senate gone if not to completely change it, this suspension is a first step. If he wants it gone, I wonder why, after stating he would never appoint a non elected senator he went ahead and appointed more than any previous PM. Quote
Topaz Posted November 7, 2013 Report Posted November 7, 2013 On a side note, had anyone seen Justin's new tv ad? It's hilarious!!! You mean the one the Tories are saying something about Justin thinking he should be PM because his dad was but he has no experience etc.? this just show how desperate the Tories are and I'm sure since its Harper the commander, the ads are going to get really nasty because Harper hasn't got anything else to say. The ads are only being shown in certain areas, most Tory riding to keep the bases, I saw online. Quote
Topaz Posted November 7, 2013 Report Posted November 7, 2013 If he wants it gone, I wonder why, after stating he would never appoint a non elected senator he went ahead and appointed more than any previous PM. Remember the Ontario Torry MPP, that was caught on camera saying, if you want something done, create a crisis to fix what you want? Well, to get rid of or reform the senate create a problem to do just that. If you want pipelines and want the public support, transport the oil on trains and have many "accidents" so the public would demand pipelines. I do think though if they had this idea,for the senate it out of control and backfired.. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted November 7, 2013 Author Report Posted November 7, 2013 (edited) If he wants it gone, I wonder why, after stating he would never appoint a non elected senator he went ahead and appointed more than any previous PM. Pretty simple. Two things. As you are aware, he had all intentions of starting to reform the Senate through elections and fixed terms. In his first two minority governments, the opposition would not play ball. Then it looked like the provinces and the courts would put up resistance (that's still the case). With the goodwill of Parliament (the opposition), the Senate COULD have made strides to being reformed but it just did not happen. So - that led to having a Liberal controlled Senate that could block, stall or water down a lot of Conservative initiatives. So instead of leaving a huge number of Senate seats empty - he finally went ahead and appointed a whole whack of them - making them promise to support Senate reform. If he had not appointed Senators, the Senate would have been 40 members short - and still be controlled by the Liberals. As the they say.....the best laid plans... Edited November 7, 2013 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Smallc Posted November 7, 2013 Report Posted November 7, 2013 Pretty simple. Two things. As you are aware, he had all intentions of starting to reform the Senate through elections and fixed terms. Then he was either delusional or crazy. EEE Senate reform done half heatedly in the wrong order is so dangerous it isn't even funny. Quote
PIK Posted November 7, 2013 Report Posted November 7, 2013 Pretty simple. Two things. As you are aware, he had all intentions of starting to reform the Senate through elections and fixed terms. In his first two minority governments, the opposition would not play ball. Then it looked like the provinces and the courts would put up resistance (that's still the case). With the goodwill of Parliament (the opposition), the Senate COULD have made strides to being reformed but it just did not happen. So - that led to having a Liberal controlled Senate that could block, stall or water down a lot of Conservative initiatives. So instead of leaving a huge number of Senate seats empty - he finally went ahead and appointed a whole whack of them - making them promise to support Senate reform. If he had not appointed Senators, the Senate would have been 40 members short - and still be controlled by the Liberals. As the they say.....the best laid plans... Facts mean nothing. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Keepitsimple Posted November 7, 2013 Author Report Posted November 7, 2013 Then he was either delusional or crazy. EEE Senate reform done half heatedly in the wrong order is so dangerous it isn't even funny. The first item was fixed terms which bounced around forever.....and he had hoped that some/most of the provinces would agree to have elections for senators. The winner(s) would then be appointed by the PM in order to abide by the Constitution. I still don't understand why the provinces (other than Alberta) couldn't agree to go along. Instead of arbitrary appointments by the PM resulting in the Raymond Lavignes and Mike Duffys, Canadians would elect their own Senators. Seemed like a reasoanble plan and we'd be way further ahead today. Quote Back to Basics
Smallc Posted November 7, 2013 Report Posted November 7, 2013 The plan was half hearted and poorly thought out. A fixed term is the worst thing to have first, and it has to be done right...so says the Quebec Court of Appeal. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted November 7, 2013 Author Report Posted November 7, 2013 The plan was half hearted and poorly thought out. A fixed term is the worst thing to have first, and it has to be done right...so says the Quebec Court of Appeal. Can't really argue - because it got nowhere. Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted November 7, 2013 Report Posted November 7, 2013 As it turns out, only 7 Liberal senators abstained while 30 voted Nay. Deserving of some attention in the media - yet the headline for the CBC story above was: Liberals abstain on key Senate vote That headline is an outright lie. Is the press giving Trudeau an easy ride? You bet they are. Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-suspensions-don-t-break-opposition-resolve-to-attack-pm-1.2416779 clearly your thread distraction attempt is so painfully evident! Did your claimed article title ever exist... ever? I checked out your ridiculous thread yesterday... but couldn't be bothered to highlight that your linked article didn't include your claimed title. You obviously realized your own error as you've subsequently edited your OP, with the only change being one made to the link address... but it still doesn't fit your claimed title narrative! clearly you were so desperate to change the channel; so desperate to the point you feel a need to make a distinction between abstained votes and nay votes! Really? but hey now, let's have a look at that Harper whipped vote! Let's see the extent of Harper vindictiveness. Let's see the full brazen "due process" level that Harper Conservatives adhere to! Quote
PIK Posted November 7, 2013 Report Posted November 7, 2013 (edited) Remember the Ontario Torry MPP, that was caught on camera saying, if you want something done, create a crisis to fix what you want? Well, to get rid of or reform the senate create a problem to do just that. If you want pipelines and want the public support, transport the oil on trains and have many "accidents" so the public would demand pipelines. I do think though if they had this idea,for the senate it out of control and backfired.. So harper is running around derailing trains to get his pipeline?? Man you are losing it. Edited November 7, 2013 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
PIK Posted November 7, 2013 Report Posted November 7, 2013 And for the women of the country, you can sit down with justin himself and get advice for only $250. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/07/hey-girl-whats-my-favourite-virtue-justin-trudeau-invites-women-to-250-mansplaining-event/ Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
g_bambino Posted November 7, 2013 Report Posted November 7, 2013 If he wants it gone, I wonder why, after stating he would never appoint a non elected senator he went ahead and appointed more than any previous PM. Because circumstance and the constitution required it. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 7, 2013 Report Posted November 7, 2013 (edited) [H]e had hoped that some/most of the provinces would agree to have elections for senators. The winner(s) would then be appointed by the PM in order to abide by the Constitution. Wonderful: some senators "elected" and others appointed; "I have more legitimacy than the unelected Honourable So-and-so!" Ugh. I still don't understand why the provinces (other than Alberta) couldn't agree to go along. Not everyone thinks elections are the solution to everything. [ed.: c/e] Edited November 7, 2013 by g_bambino Quote
bleeding heart Posted November 7, 2013 Report Posted November 7, 2013 Wonderful: some senators "elected" and others appointed; "I have more legitimacy than the unelected Honourable So-and-so!" Ugh. Yeah, sounds pretty messy, to be generous. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.