Boges Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Hey now, who appoints those judges, anyway? Which is why I claim this would be redundant. Regardless, biggest beef with the Senate isn't that it's elected or not anyway. It's that they pretend to have some sort of regional representation. If they truly wanted to stick to the spirit of a Senate they'd have equal number Sentaors for each province. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) but really... why label them... "Bad Men"??? They'd have to be bad, JT fired them. ;-D Edited January 30, 2014 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Regardless, biggest beef with the Senate isn't that it's elected or not anyway. It's that they pretend to have some sort of regional representation. If they truly wanted to stick to the spirit of a Senate they'd have equal number Sentaors for each province. pretend? The current formula is dictated by the constitution... get Harper to change it - chop, chop! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 if if... the audit! Your wishful thinking, hey? but really... why label them... "Bad Men"??? . Does the possibility of former Liberal Senator malfeasance frighten you Waldo? Is there any way at all we can link Chuck Guite into this buntoss? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Does the possibility of former Liberal Senator malfeasance frighten you Waldo? Is there any way at all we can link Chuck Guite into this buntoss? do you have a particular 'former' boogeyman you'd like to flaunt, fret and worry about? Chuck Guite? Your 'desperation' is leading here... not sure what a civil servant (and a decade old matter) has to do with whatever... frightens... you here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 pretend? The current formula is dictated by the constitution... get Harper to change it - chop, chop! Gotta wait on the Supreme Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 It's pretty clear that SCOC will rule against Harper's half-hearted plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 I have been watching the responses from the NDP and PMO. They were completely unprepared and looked it. You would think that with all the high powered folks in the PMO that somebody would have anticipated that move and be ready with a response. I am not particularly a Justin Trudeau fan but he must have some smart people advising him. This was a brilliant political move that is proving to have the support of most Canadians. I remember just after Justin got the leadership of the party, Stockwell Day warned the other members of his party to NOT take Justin very lightly. He warned that to underestimate Trudeau would be a major error. I suggest that the PMO may begin to start listening to Stockwell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Also removes accountability to anyone. They have no mandate of any kind to be there. Not true! Senators are appointed to represent a province/region(depending on the province) as I understand. JT has no ability to change any senators mandate! JT did the most that he can possibly do. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 At first glance, the jury duty thing sounds absurd, but that's actually a good way to view the Senate. It should be a body of citizens that review legislation, equally representing the components of the federation, to ensure that legislation is fair and balanced as well as in the interests of each part of our federation. It's actually worth it's own thread (what happens with the senate now or how do we choose senators now). This thread has pretty much evolved into that now anyways. Why don't you take it up cyber? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Harper stacked the senate to an unprecedented degree. I think you'll find that when the PC party of Mulroney took power the senate was about 95% Liberal. Mulroney, of course, appointed PCs, and it swung the other way, but then after 11 years of Chretien, well, you can be sure he wasnt' stuffing the senate with tories. My point? You people seem to assume that anything Harper does is 'unprecedented' when in reality almost everything he's doing is the same as his predecessors did. You just didn't care or notice or think about it then because you didn't hate THEM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Here you go: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tory-senators-kill-climate-bill-passed-by-house/article4348505/ That was a bill passed against the government's wishes. If you want to go further back, you can find when Liberal senators tried to kill a bill which was actually passed by the government - the conservative govenrment, of course. What, no outrage? I believe the senate also killed an abortion bill Mulroney passed... http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/politics/federal-politics/federal-politics-general/mulroney-stacks-senate-to-pass-the-gst.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 What do the broken promises of another have to do with Harper? Precedent. McGuinty's promises were so clean and clear, and so obviously violated that someone tried to sue him over it. The court basically said it was buyer beware, that politicians lie, get over it, and don't expect the courts to police them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 being 'punted' from the caucus was the most significant hold that any party leader held over his/her caucus members... don't behave, don't "toe the line", don't vote the party line... and you're out of the caucus. That only matters if you have to run for re-election. It essentially makes no difference to a senator. Those newly dubbed Independent Senators are now free to vote their conscience... without the threat of being removed from caucus holding weight/presence. And the action didn't require any form of constitutional upheaval... didn't involve the provinces... didn't involve the federal government to rule. And has no actual effect. The Liberal senators are still Liberal senators, and have formed a Liberal senate group which is another Liberal caucus in all but name. They will continue to vote together, and continue to take their cue from the Liberal Party in the House. Apparently style impresses some, regardless of substance or lack of same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 and if, within the independent selection process, you don't include party affiliation in the decision criteria? If you're looking for the 'best of the best' without factoring party affiliation... what a concept!.? It will NEVER happen. Not as long as humans are involved. Party affiliation is only a sort of descriptive term for ideological beliefs. Everyone has those. Take a totally non-affiliated person who happens to be, say, a dedicated anti-abortion proponent, and guess who they're going to choose for the senate? Or find a 'progressive' type, one of those zealous propants of inclusiveness and defender of the poor. What sort of person will they put in the senate? It all leads to "whoever thinks like me" is who people will want to put into the senate. And I know no better way of doing that than an election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 That was a bill passed against the government's wishes.who cares about the government's wishes? Are they not responsible to the House? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 I think you'll find that when the PC party of Mulroney took power the senate was about 95% Liberal. Mulroney, of course, appointed PCs, and it swung the other way, but then after 11 years of Chretien, well, you can be sure he wasnt' stuffing the senate with tories. My point? You people seem to assume that anything Harper does is 'unprecedented' when in reality almost everything he's doing is the same as his predecessors did. You just didn't care or notice or think about it then because you didn't hate THEM. 59 senate appointments, now that's unprecedented. Esprcially from a man who said he would never appoint a non elected senator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 And has no actual effect. The Liberal senators are still Liberal senators, and have formed a Liberal senate group which is another Liberal caucus in all but name. They will continue to vote together, and continue to take their cue from the Liberal Party in the House. Apparently style impresses some, regardless of substance or lack of same. you can choose to identify/label those Independent Senators any way that gives you personal comfort. Those Independent Senators are now free to vote in any way they so... independently... choose. Clearly, your style vs. substance delineation is predicated upon your interpretation of what "being excluded from caucus" means - from a practical standpoint, care to expand on your interpretation? As you interpret, what are the actual impacts/changes to someone being removed from a party's official parliamentary caucus? Give me some of your substance vs. style. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 It will NEVER happen. Not as long as humans are involved. Party affiliation is only a sort of descriptive term for ideological beliefs. Everyone has those. Take a totally non-affiliated person who happens to be, say, a dedicated anti-abortion proponent, and guess who they're going to choose for the senate? Or find a 'progressive' type, one of those zealous propants of inclusiveness and defender of the poor. What sort of person will they put in the senate? It all leads to "whoever thinks like me" is who people will want to put into the senate. And I know no better way of doing that than an election. its so cute how you tailored your anecdotal choices. The generalized electorate has not shown itself to be particularly astute in voting based on anything more than voting for party based on a perception of its leader, or expressing a pent-up desire for "change" (typically associated with interpreted "screw-ups"). Throw into that mix a party nomination process that clearly hasn't, in all too many cases, resulted in preferred candidates. Leave that for the lower chamber... rise above your resistance to broader thinking and embrace something beyond the status-quo where, on occasion, 'less than preferred' appointments are being made to the Senate. A very precise, prioritized and formalized criteria for Senate appointments could be structured... you could still choose to believe that party affiliation/ideology would trump all other manner of legitimate criteria. The process could also be structured to have "the person(s)" choosing the appointees formally rationalize the appointments against the formalized criteria. You know, be held formally accountable for those appointments based on measuring against the appointment criteria. I'm inclined to think better appointments would be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Looks like the stunt is starting to unravel. Stands to reason that you can't just dictate to lifelong Liberals that sorry, you're no longer a Liberal......and the journalist - Andy Radia is certainly no Tory booster. Justin Trudeau is a little peeved at the senators he removed from the national Liberal caucus on Wednesday morning. Literally minutes after Trudeau said "there are no more Liberal senators" the supposedly independent senators rebranded themselves as the Liberal Senate caucus. Then they went on to tell reporters that they were still Liberal senators. "I’m still a Liberal senator, not independent, Sen. Mobina Jaffer said, according to the Globe and Mail. "We all are members of the Liberal Party of Canada, and we’re all senators, so we’re Liberal senators," Senator Joseph Day said. .....skip "In fact, his leader in the Senate said the following in response to his announcement: 'I'm not a former Liberal. I'm a Liberal and I'm a Liberal senator'. He also said, 'I suspect that not a great deal will change.' That has to be the understatement of the year." The Senators' comments certainly seem to contradict Trudeau's announcement. If the Senate Liberal caucus becomes the Liberal Senate caucus does anything really change? According to Canadian Press, Trudeau's advisers didn't expect that to happen. Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/justin-trudeau-reportedly-furious-senators-using-liberal-brand-153028604.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 By senators being "independents" there would be no reason why the NDP would be against the senate and even help with their own elected/appointed members . Sure the former Liberals senators say there Liberals, just like the Conservative senators are Conservatives BUT when seating and doing business in the senate as senators, they are independent from the Liberal party. Perhaps to shorten the red tape on this, the present seating senators should all be concerned elected and then from this day forward, anyone going into the senate must be on a list, created every four years at elections time, by voters. They don't run under any party, they just put their name as nominee as such. on the voters ballot. Thoughts?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 I think most people are just scratching around the edges and are influenced by the expense scandal that is unfolding - terms like corrupt, political hacks being thrown around. I think it's wise to ask the SC what can be done - and what can't be done with regards to our Constitution. But just as wise would be to reflect on the fundamental purpose of the Senate - whose role was set out over 150 years ago. This rush to "independence" ignores the fact that legislation that comes before the Senate is the result of the platform(s) of the Minority or Majority governments that were duly elected on those various platforms - thus the "guidance" from Parliament. It can't be tinkered with - it has to be re-thought as a whole....and if we end up with something similar, but better...so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 you can choose to identify/label those Independent Senators any way that gives you personal comfort. Those Independent Senators are now free to vote in any way they so... independently... choose. . That was always the case as I understand how the senate works. Nothing has changed in the senate, what JT did was only light of a flash bomb, bunch of smoke and that's it. He's trying to keep the senate around with very little change. This is only cosmetics. Do you sincerely believe that JT would throw away one of the most valuable cash cows for the liberal party????? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) 59 senate appointments, now that's unprecedented. Esprcially from a man who said he would never appoint a non elected senator. Chretien made 75. Trudeau made 81. Big yawn. Edited January 31, 2014 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 59 senate appointments, now that's unprecedented. Esprcially from a man who said he would never appoint a non elected senator.He and no choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.