Apparently what is going on in the Senate is proving a little too confusing for some of the nation’s more obtuse pundits, so here’s a few points of explanation. John Ibbitson penned a column expressing optimism about the proposed new system of Senate appointments, and yet threw in a number of bizarre concerns that made me wonder. For one, it’s hard to see how they would all come “from Bay Street” when there is a set number of regional seats apportioned. His notion that they should come from “Main Street and the street” is also fairly mystifying because the Senate should be a place for eminent, accomplished Canadians. The House of Commons is for just that – the common people. The Senate has served best when it is a place where people who have achieved excellence can find a new way to contribute to public life in a way that they would not otherwise because they would not think to seek elected office – people like Romeo Dallaire or Kelvin Ogilvie. Ibbitson is also astoundingly obtuse when he calls Senate Liberals “Independents,” and figures that all new senators under this system would also be Independents, when neither statement is correct. Senate Liberals are still Liberals – they just don’t sit in caucus with the Liberals in the Commons so as to give them greater independence, and nowhere was it said that any senator chosen by an arm’s length process had to be an Independent when they could simply choose which caucus to sit in of their own accord. There is nothing wrong with that because there is nothing wrong with parties or with partisanship. Yes, the kind of hyper-partisan tribalism we’ve seen in recent years is a problem, but that’s a function of message control and discipline rather than the actual role and function of partisanship, and the two parties who relied heavily on message control and discipline were dealt blows in the last election, giving pause to those who believe in that kind of system. The Senate has generally always been a less partisan place because they’re not scoring points for re-election, which is half the point. None of this is rocket science, but you wouldn’t know it judging from some of the commentary we’re seeing.

Good reads:

• Michelle Rempel and Denis Lebel are proposing a joint interim leadership bid, and it’s definitely a more exhaustive pitch for what needs to change.
• Candice Bergen is running for interim leadership on setting a “respectful tone,” so Huffington Post lists all of the ways she belittled Trudeau in the last parliament.
• There seems to be a great deal of international curiosity about Justin Trudeau and how he won the election.
• Public sector unions are unsure of where the Liberals stand on the sick leave issue because their fiscal projections used the Conservative sick leave “savings.”
• Yet another story about how legalizing marijuana is going to be difficult. I’m not sure where Trudeau ever said it wouldn’t be.
• Stakeholder groups say that the Liberals need to consult with victims’ families before setting up the inquiry into missing and murdered Aboriginal women.
• Here’s a long-read look into suicides of Afghan veterans.
• Maclean’s has a long-read about the father of Alan Kurdi, the Syrian boy washed up on that Turkish beach, and what has happened since.
• The former Parliamentary Librarian reminds backbenchers they can matter as much as they want to – it’s up to them.
• Michael Den Tandt lists five things that the Conservatives have going for them right now.

Odds and ends:

Here’s a look at some new NDP and Conservative MPs.

Scott Feschuk ponders the constitutional questions of the PM living on the same property as the GG.

The Trudeaus were out trick-or-treating on Saturday night, with Justin and Sophie as Han and Leia from Empire Strikes Back. Awesome.

ICYMI: The PM-designate and his wife rocked a pretty dead-on Han Solo and Leia (on Hoth) last night for Halloween. pic.twitter.com/HvJZBkzU3g

— Monique Scotti (@moniquescotti) November 1, 2015