Impressive Move by Justin Trudeau

[pierrelebel]

Justin Trudeau removes senators from Liberal caucus

Justin Trudeau has expelled from his caucus every single Liberal member of the upper house and has declared there is no longer any such thing as a Liberal Senator.

The Liberal leader said the former members of the Liberal Senate caucus will sit as Independents, and they will have no formal ties to the Liberal parliamentary machinery apart from through their friendships.

Trudeau's decision will see some lifelong Liberals and key party operators and fundraisers removed from the party's caucus and forced outside its inner circles – a foundation-shaking decision in a business where power is derived from membership in a political club and the ability to access its best back rooms. 

"The 32 formerly Liberal senators are now independent of the national Liberal caucus," Trudeau said. "They are no longer part of our parliamentary team. There are no more Liberal senators. 

"The only way to be a part of the Liberal caucus is to be put there by the people of Canada."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-removes-senators-from-liberal-caucus-1.2515273

I wonder if Harper will have the guts to do the same.

[reallynicestamps]

What happens on paper is not exactly the same as what happens in reality.

Most politically active people know where their municipal councillors stand even though there are nomunicipal  parties in most cities. (My own councillor is Green Party, the previous one was NDP.)

The senators retain thier friendships and their political clout. They almost certainly retain their party memberships.

They may lose certain perks like automatic membership on party committees and some voting rights within the party.

Still, it does look cleaner.

[art-in-the-making]

Still, it does look cleaner.

"here here"

And Justin also gives some insight into the less partisan methods he envisions for selecting senators in the future. (which, it seems, ever more likely he will be doing in the near future)

[valve37]

This morning the RCMP LAID FRAUD AND BREACH OF TRUST CHARGES against former Liberal MP and Senator Mac Harb and former Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau.
In August, Harb resigned, pulling what’s known as “the Lavigne maneuver", named after former Liberal Senator Raymond Lavigne who resigned from the Senate right before his conviction to ensure he wouldn’t lose his $67,600 annual Senate pension.
Harb is currently collecting an estimated $108,000 annual pension from his time as MP and Senator. Brazeau, despite being suspended is still accruing service as a Senator and if he makes it to January 2015 will be eligible for an estimated $32,000 annual pension once he turns 65.
We need to stop this.
Politicians who steal from taxpayers shouldn’t be allowed to collect a generous pension while in prison (as Lavigne did) or any time after for that matter.
The Revoking Pensions for Convicted Politicians Act Bill C-518 is a private members bill put forward by MP John Williamson. It would take away the pension of any MP or Senator convicted of a serious crime, like fraud and breach of trust. And Mr. Williamson worded it so that any politicians charged and convicted after last June (like Harb and Brazeau) would lose their pensions.
However, rumours swirling around Parliament are that Bill C-518 could be defeated later this month.
We can’t let that happen.
That is why the CTF wants to turn the heat up on MPs, urging them to pass Bill C-518.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

A bit tooooooo obvious valve. Mac Harb a liberal that's obvious and Brazeau an expendable conservative that will be the sacrificial lamb for Harper. Meanwhile back at the ranch........what about Duffy and Wallin?

[ilurkthereforiam]

I heard that Trudeau stole this idea from Mulcare.

Are the liberals becoming the new NDP and the NDP becoming the new Liberals?

[stevephinn2012]

"impressive" move ?  more of a move ! He knows more charges are coming and can say they are Not affiliated with the Party !

Well they sure as hell were when they were spending the money.

That's like firing a guy while he is being investigated for murder but when he gets charged you can claim--"well he does not work here so please do not ask me any questions"

I do also notice that ALL the senators have decided to keep the name LIBERAL in their name and they are now sitting as "independent LIBERALS"

Wondering why Harper got so much heat when he IMMEDIATLY kicked the 3 senators under suspicion ( 1 later charge) out of the conservative party ?

It was a good thing for Trudeau but a stupid thing for Harper!

We are not biased at all are we Pierre?  

[art-in-the-making]

Justin Trudeau has done more to reform the Senate in one day than 30 years of Conservative yammering, from Preston Manning's hallucinatory "triple E" crusade of Biblical proportions on thru epic hypocrisy from Stephen Harper, who lowered the bar on ridiculous Senate appointments like no one would have even imagined.

[pierrelebel]

"Wondering why Harper got so much heat when he IMMEDIATLY kicked the 3 senators under suspicion"

Rewriting history, are we? Typical from right wing conservative partisans!

Pamela Wallin Senate travel bill defended by Stephen Harper

OTTAWA — Embattled Tory parliamentarian Pamela Wallin has skirted questions about whether she has a Saskatchewan driver’s licence or health card after she became the latest in a growing number of senators to find her expense claims and living arrangements under close public scrutiny.

Stephen Harper was forced to defend the Saskatchewan senator yesterday after it was revealed Wallin had billed taxpayers $142,190.26 for trips between March 1, 2011 and Feb. 29, 2012.

During another barrage of House of Commons questions about Senate conduct, the prime minister claimed the expenses were perfectly reasonable.

“Her travel costs are comparable to any parliamentarian travelling from that particular area of the country over that period of time,” he said.

“Last year, Sen. Wallin spent almost half of her time in the province she represents in the Senate. The costs are obviously to travel to and from that province, as any similar parliamentarian would do.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/14/harper-defends-sen-wallins-reasonable-350k-travel-budget-aft...

It would not take long to find the same "Harper defends Duffy..." etc...

[rose-dee]

---

@stevephinn2012 wrote:

Wondering why Harper got so much heat when he IMMEDIATLY kicked the 3 senators under suspicion ( 1 later charge) out of the conservative party ?

It was a good thing for Trudeau but a stupid thing for Harper!

---

Kicking someone out of the party is quite different from cutting the direct political ties between the PMO, caucus, and the Senate.  Trudeau isn't preventing any of those former senators from remaining staunch Liberal party members, although I agree that it may have been rather disingenuous (and perhaps even a little silly) to announce that those senators were now "independents".  

I believe most of the real-life effectiveness of this move will depend on the Liberal leader himself, and whether he can stick to his guns in keeping the senators out of the sanctum sanctorum of elected decision-making. 

Although more cynical critics might see this "instant" senate reform announcement on the part of Justin Trudeau with a jaundiced eye as being just political one-upmanship, if Trudeau does ensure that no senator ever sits in a caucus meeting again, he will admittedly have broken some of the insider power of the senate.  Being at arm's length, in political terms, might as well mean being in Siberia. 

As the saying goes, "knowledge is power", and frankly I've always found it more than a little disconcerting to think that unelected senators have had the privilege of being able to attend (and perhaps participate in) caucus meetings.  Those erstwhile Liberal senators will find it just a little more difficult to get their noses in the trough and know they are safe in doing so without knowledge or control over precisely what the Liberal leader is planning.   

So, all in all, if you can forgive the political grandstanding, IMO this was not a bad move. 

[stevephinn2012]

if they are "independents" as he claims then he should be standing up in Parliament and saying that as independents they are not the official opposition in the senate as independants have no "party" status, and there fore there can be NO leader and again therefore no need for a BONUS to be paid as the leader of the opposition in the senate.

When he does this I "might" believe his story..

[nuvistors]

They are senators.

They  are members of the Liberal party.

Unless the little boy kicks them out of the Liberal party they will always be Liberal senators no matter what the little boy says.

[stevephinn2012]

Trudeau defends embattled Senator Mac Harb

Trudeau said Harb's situation may have involved "an honest mistake or a misunderstanding of the rules."

[art-in-the-making]

Hey doubters!

Why doesn't Steve just follow through on his 20 years of broken promises and set up an independent organization to choose senators as JT has promised.

Anyway, looks like you won't have long to wait for Justin to get voted in and start appointing members to the new non-partisan Senate...

[reallynicestamps]

 frankly I've always found it more than a little disconcerting to think that unelected senators have had the privilege of being able to attend (and perhaps participate in) caucus meetings

A caucus is a private group. It can include anyone they like, elected or unelected. It's not unusual for a caucus to bring in experts to help form policy and opinion.

Back in the day, Stanley Knowles, a long retired MP, not only sat in on NDP caucus meetings, but had a seat on the floor of the House of Commons. Because , respect.

More recently, Senators have been appointed to Cabinet, one recent Senatorial Cabinet Minister got his seat after being defeated  in his attempt to become an MP. PM Harper appointed him to the Senate and then to Cabinet.

[rose-dee]

---

@reallynicestamps wrote:

A caucus is a private group. It can include anyone they like, elected or unelected. It's not unusual for a caucus to bring in experts to help form policy and opinion.

---

That's quite true, but most of those experts don't go from the caucus boardroom back to a permanent seat in an unelected legislature that (at least ostensibly) has final approval over the elected government's bills.  That sort of inclusion seems to me to be just one more cozy level of entitlement and cronyism.

It's not so much an issue in my mind where opposition parties are concerned, since allowing senators to participate in caucus meetings is fairly benign if a party does not form government. 

However, government caucus is, by definition, a policy-making body, and I would rather not have senators -- if the Senate must continue to exist -- so closely tied to the policy planning and decision-making of the elected government.  I believe that sort of power (i.e. knowledge) is not fitting for an unelected legislator. 

I really don't see the need for such tête-à-têtes at the caucus table, other than a sense of historical precedent and an obligation, whether real or perceived, on the part of any government to hand out party favours (not the funny hat kind, the political kind) to its toadies and political money-makers.

From this viewpoint, whether done purely to rack up political points or out of a sincere desire to give Canadians a sense of fairness where the Senate is concerned without having to retool the entire body (not to mention the Constitution), I think Justin Trudeau's move was intelligent and should be welcomed.

[brandeentertainment]

Get rid of the senate ....

IF my tax dollar go toward making a useless commity to choose usless senators I might just pull my hair out

[puckstopshere]

"The 32 formerly Liberal senators are now independent of the national Liberal caucus," Trudeau said. "They are no longer part of our parliamentary team. There are no more Liberal senators. 

They were appointed as Liberals and IMO they are still Liberals.  Paint a skunk green and it still stinks.

Why didn't Justin remove them from the Senate altogether?  Because a) he can't and wouldn't - and b) they are still Liberals. 

All that removing them from caucus does is reduce the number of meetings they have to attend. 

[pierrelebel]

"Why didn't Justin remove them from the Senate altogether? "

NOBODY, even the Prime Minister, has the authority to do that.

[puckstopshere]

"NOBODY, even the Prime Minister, has the authority to do that."

Correct!  Which is why it is a meaningless gesture.  Did he say he would abolish the senate if elected?  Now that would be meaningful.  But then didn't somebody else promise that too?