Pat Martin Doesn't Get This Whole "Parliament" Thing

NDP MP seeks to shut down government

As MPs returned to Ottawa after the 2011 federal election, NDP leader Jack Layton must have been worried that one of his new MPs would do something very, very stupid.

He probably couldn't have imagined that it would be one of his veteral MPs who would do something stupid.

Questions abounded whether or not Layton's deluge of first-time MPs would know how Parliament works. Instead, it seems to be Winnipeg Centre MP Pat Martin who doesn't understand. And he's been there going on 14 years!

Martin's comical blunder revolves around a bill he plans to introduce in the House of Commons that could deny funding to the Senate, by requiring Parliament to vote on a separate supply motion for the Senate.

“We may not be able to abolish the Senate by constitutional amendment, but we can cut off its blood supply,” Martin declared. “We might not be able to get rid of it, but we don’t have to fund it.”

Actually, they do.

As a long-time Parliamentarian, Martin must understand full well that, in order for bills passed by the House of Commons to become law, they must also be passed by the Senate.

If the Senate cannot function due to lack of funds, cannot examine bills, and cannot vote on them, nothing passed by the House of Commons can become law. Nor could the government pass budgets or anything of the like.

It would actually lead to a shutdown of government.

Fortunately, Martin doesn't stand even a remote chance of passing such a bill -- or any other bill -- without support from the Conservative Party. He even knows this. He isn't even introducing this bill out of good faith. He's introducting it purely as part of a point-scoring endeavour.

“It will force the Conservatives to stand and vote to support the Senate, which is kind of delicious given the grief it is causing them lately,” Martin remarked.

Martin is risking a shutdown of the Parliamentary process in order to score political points. Incredible.

Normally, Martin wouldn't be any where near this irresponsible. In fact, in previous years Martin has been a champion of such basic and fundamentally democratic principles as ensuring that bills are examined by committee, even if he opposes them.

The NDP's ascension to Official Opposition seems to have brought out something previously unseen in Pat Martin: an undemocratic streak that would risk an effective shutdown of Parliament in pursuit of political advantage.

Does Olivia Chow Actually Understand How Parliament Works?

Olivia Chow says Tory Senators should be working to pass legislation... when there is no legislation to pass

Following sightings of some Conservative Senators on the campaign trail, Trinity-Spadina MP Olivia Chow is crying dirty pool.

Chow has even taken to posting "Not Wanted" posters in her riding featuring photos of Senator Mike Duffy campaigning for Tory candidates. She's calling for NDP supporters to photograph campaigning Senators and send the photos to her campaign.

Chow insists that taxpayer dollars should not pay Senators to campaign for their Party's candidates.

“Why should taxpayers foot the bill for this?” Chow mused. “The Senators should be working to pass bills to help people instead of campaigning. ...These people are supposed to be passing important bills for all Canadians.”

Which, frankly, makes one wonder if Olivia Chow has any idea whatsoever what happens in Parliament when an election is called. The first thing that happens is that Parliament is adjourned. That means that any bills that have not yet been passed by the Senate and received Royal Assent die on the order paper.

Simply put, the Senators couldn't be working to pass bills that help people, because there are no longer any bills to pass.

If Chow were more noted for her thoughts on Senate reform, one would expect Chow to offer some kind of idea on how to make passing bills during election time a possibility: such as any bills that have passed the committee stage, and all their readings in the House of Commons to continue being debated in the Senate during an election.

Then again, as Mrs Jack Layton, Chow's idea of reforming the Senate is to abolish it. So we should expect no such suggestions.

This is unfortunate because Chow actually has a very good point. It's not right that Senators -- representing any party -- should be able to campaign on the public dime.

“This is not right and it is not fair,” she complained. Again, she's actually right about that.

There are two clear solutions: the first is that Senators should stop receiving paycheques once an election is called; paycheques that should not resume until after the election is over. Likewise, all the perks that come with being a Senator, including their travel and hospitality allowances, should be suspended.

But there's a better reform yet: Canadians could also be deciding which Senate candidate to vote for, as these Senators could potentially be worrying about an election campaign of their very own.

That's yet another reform that Olivia Chow seems to have no time for. But for largely-empty complaining, she seems to have all the time in the world.

The Conservative Senate Caucus Isn't Big Enough For Richard Neufield

Richard Neufield breaks Senate election promises

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has waited a long time to establish a Conservative majority in the Senate. He may have to wait a little bit longer, as Richard Neufield has pretty much written himself a ticket to be kicked out of the Conservative Party caucus.

Appointed by Harper on condition of supporting the Conservative Party's Senate reform agenda, Neufield has gone partially back on the deal, reneging on his promised support for Senate elections.

"Before I came here, I only thought about it when it was brought up in newspaper articles, or someone was ranting and raving about the Senate when they talked about elections," Neufield explained while speaking in the Senate chamber. "But I thought we should have an elected Senate."

If Neufield had principled reasons to change his mind about Senate elections, that would be one thing. Instead, what Neufield offered is a collection of the same lame excuses offered by individuals like Jack Layton and Stephane Dion.

Among them: suggesting that all the Conservatives do is disparage the Senate. (Not a credible argument against electing the Senate.)

"It is time to quit kicking the Senate. It is time to start talking about the good things we do," he insisted. "I do not think you can just continue to rant about how terrible the Senate is without telling people what the Senate does, what is has done and the good work that it does."

Moreover, Neufield attempted to espouse the benfits of the appointment process, but did so very unconvincingly.

Aside from arguing that he could not get elected to sit in the Senate -- an argument previously offered by the late Sister Peggy Butts (a Chretien appointee).

"The appointment process is quick and cheap," Neufield explained. "You can have regional representation and do all kinds of things. You can get a cross-section of the people that you want in this place."

The problem with this being that the appointment process allows the appointment of whatever cross-section of people any individual Prime Minister wanted in the Senate -- but not necessarily the cross-section the Canadian people want.

While Neufield has announced he's still in support of term limits, it isn't enough. The motivation for Neufield's change of position isn't clear, forcing one to resort to the default position in such cases: suspecting that Neufield's change is mere opportunism.

Richard Neufield isn't playing with the rest of the team, so it's time for him to sit in the bleachers. Stephen Harper has waited four years for a narrow pluarlity in the Senate. He can wait a few more months.

Extreme Agendas = Favouring Abolition of the Senate

BQ, NDP both favour abolishing Senate

Speaking at a recent panel discussion on the topic of Senate Reform, Bloc Quebecois MP Nicole Demers, NDP MP David Christopherson, Liberal Senator James Cowan and Conservative Senator Hugh Segal all discussed the topic of Senate reform.

Two of those individuals -- Demers and Christopherson -- weren't interesting in talking about Senate reform at all. Rather, they were more interested in talking about Senate abolition.

"My party is against senate reform, my party is for the abolition of the senate," Demers insisted. "There is no way the senate can be reformed unless you reopen the constitution and to do that, you need the goodwill of 10 provinces. We know you won't get the goodwill of 10 provinces so it just makes no sense."

Demers knows full well that if she had her way, no consitutional talks could attract the good will of Quebec.

Pierre Trudeau learned the hard way about the folly of attempting to have good faith constitutional discussions with a separatist. Rene Levesque learned the hard way that wasn't going to fly indefinitely.

Christopherson echoed Demers preference for abolition.

"It's a holdback from another era and its time to eliminate it," he added. "The government is bringing in legislation that's just nibbling at the edges and is probably going to do more harm than good."

He insisted that piecemeal Senate reform would make the ill effects of Senate reform entrenched.

It actually wouldn't. Rather, if particular Senate reform bills really did more harm than good, Parliament would be able to repeal the legislation. Unlike a constitutional amendment -- the repeal of which would require another constitutional amendment.

Funny how that escaped Christopherson's notice.

But, then again, it should be no surprise that parties with extreme ideological agendas would oppose a house of sober, second thought that would derail their agendas.

For the Bloc Quebecois, abolishing the Senate means there would be one less house of government that would have to approve of any negotiated agreement on Quebec separation, should they ever manage to win a referendum.

(The odds continue to remain against it.)

For the NDP, the Senate would merely be another source of opposition to a far-left waffle-driven hidden agenda. It would make it remarkably easy for minority governments -- which the NDP would certainly have to settle for, if it ever managed to govern federally at all -- to hammer their legislation through a weak opposition, should such a government be so fortunate.

Cowan made his objection to senate reform a little more transparent. He argues that legislative means of Senate reform are unconstitutional.

"It can't be done by act of parliament because we have the constitution and you can't change it without consent from the provinces," he insisted. "We know Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia ... are not in favour of an elected senate and they are ambivalent about the proposal for a limited term."

But clearly Cowan has misunderstood the nature of Canada's Constitution. Canada's Constitution is a British-style Constitution with written and unwritten elements -- and that the written elements of Canada's Constitution are not limited to the British North America Act.

(For example, many Canadians don't know that the Magna Carta is part of the written body of work that makes up Canada's Constitution.)

Segal hit paydirt on this particular detail when he noted the number of public institutions that aren't covered by the Constitution at all.

"Many of the things we have in our system, cabinet ministers, political parties, they aren't mentioned in the constitution," Segal explained. In fact, some of the basic parts of Canada's political institutions -- like the office of Prime Minister -- aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

Rather, many of these things have come about as Constitutional convention -- part of the unwritten element of Canada's Constitution.

In fact, the current Senator selection process -- under which both Cowan and Segal were appointed -- is a matter of convention. Under the Constitution, Senators are to be appointed by the Governor General, acting on behalf of the Queen.

At a purely ceremonial level, this continues to be the case. But constitional convention has since defined the right of selection to belong to the Prime Minister.

That convention could be expanded to require that the Prime Minister appoint Senators chosen by their constituents via an election.

Canadian democracy is badly in need of Senate reform. Although individuals like James Cowan may insist on standing in the way, it remains the only means of ensuring that parties with extreme agendas don't manage to seize control of the country.

Abolishing the Senate would make the advancement of such single-minded extreme agendas easier. It's one of the best reasons why anyone who favours abolishing the Senate should be viewed with suspicion.

If You Don't Like It, Elect It

NDP objects to appointment of high-rolling Tory donor to Senate

The Conservative caucus in the Senate has remained stable, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed BC Lions owner David Braley to the upper chamber.

Braley joins Conservative Senator Jacques Demers among the roster of sporting figures who seem to have no business whatsoever in the Senate.

The Liberal Party and the NDP quickly vented their outrage at the appointment, noting that Braley donated $99,000 to the Conservative Party prior to the ban on corporate donations.


“It appears that the reason why he was appointed was because of close to $100,000 worth of donations to Conservatives in recent times,” complained Liberal MP Marlene Jennings. “I think it shows Mr Harper’s extreme cynicism, with regards to Parliament, the value of our constitutional parliamentary democracy, and to Canadians in general.”

One would think it were the first time that a party crony had ever been appointed to the Senate. One would think that the Liberals hadn't done it before, dozens of times.

Braley himself hasn't been shy about his donations to the Tories. It's no secret.

“There’s nothing wrong with donations," he insisted. "I was supporting what I believed in and it worked.”

“There’s no question. I had a very strong inclination toward the Conservative Party,” he concluded.

Paul Dewar took the point on the issue for the NDP.

“You can’t just keep appointing Conservative friends to the Senate and say you are doing things differently,” he said.

The problem for Paul Dewar and the NDP is that Harper and the Conservatives would very much like to do things differently. Unfortunately, the opposition insists on playing games with Senate reform. When Conservative bills are passed in the House of Commons, the formerly-Liberal-dominated Senate holds it up. When the legislation is introduced in the Senate following the Conservative achievement of a plurality, the opposition muses about blocking it in the House of Commons.

The David Braley appointment is cronyism. There's no doubt about it, and even Braley himself seems to implicitly admit it.

But there's clearly a method to this: Prime Minister Harper clearly intends to provoke enough outrage about his own partisan appointments that public support for Senate reform -- term limits, and advisory elections -- will strengthen.

It's a far-superior option to the NDP agenda on the Senate. The NDP wishes to abolish the Senate rather than see it reformed. For whatever purposes they want to abolish it, it isn't quite clear.

If Harper and the Conservatives can successfully make the status quo in regards to the Senate intolerable, a great many Canadians will thank him for the gift of a stronger democracy.

All they have to do is pay the price first.

Elect It!

Tories introduce Senate election billConservative Party introduces senate election legislation

As promised long ago, the Conservative Party has begun to move forward with its Senate reform agenda.

And the road to Senate reform will begin in the Senate, as the Tories opted to introduce their legislation there.

The bill will allow all of Canada's provinces -- not merely Alberta -- to elect Senators-in-waiting. The decision abour whether or not to actually hold the elections will remain up to individual provinces, but Canadians will no longer have to wait for each province to pass individual legislation.

Senator Bob Runciman is particularly excited to have this legislation before the Senate.

"It boggles the mind that one of the world's greatest democracies appoints people to a House of Parl iament, considering that as we stand here we have troops in Afghanistan fighting and dying to support a budding democracy," Runciman announced.

With a plurality in the Senate, the Conservatives will still face some challenges in passing this legislation: notably, bringing Progressive Conservative and independent Senators onboard to vote for it.

But should this bill pass in the Senate, the Liberal caucus in the House of Commons will have a very difficult time justifying opposing a Senate reform bill that will have already won the approval of the Senate itself.

New Game on Senate Reform Set to Begin

 Conservatives determined to reform Senate, Liberals seem determined not to

The governing Conservative Party is set to re-introduce their Senate reform legislation -- pushing, for the time being, for term limits on Senate appointments.

Rumours had recently abounded that the Conservatives and the ever-recalcitrant Liberals had struck a deal on the length of those term limits; the Conservatives had been holding out for eight-year term limits, while the Liberals have been insistent on a longer period, like twelve years.

It's not an altogether unreasonable preference.

Yet reports that the government and the Liberals had reached a deal have turned out to be premature.

Yet the Liberals must know that now that the Conservatives have a plurality in the Senate -- with a majority likely to follow later in the year -- they won't be able to count on a Liberal majority in the Senate to head off the Conservatives' Senate reform legislation.

In short, they know that they will have to oppose this legislation in the House of Commons. The facade of the Liberal Party being in favour of Senate reform won't be able to hold up.

But as Minister for Democratic Reform Steven Fletcher points out, while the Liberal Party is content to live in the past -- they've certainly been more than comfortable with the current form of the Senate, especially when they enjoyed majorities in that house -- this legislation is part of a campaign of rebuilding the Senate for the future.

“Our government does not believe that appointing senators for terms of up to 45 years is consistent with a 21st century democracy,” Fletcher recently said.

Rarely has the case for senate reform been stated so clearly, and with the Liberal Party reevaluating their approach in the face of a Conservative plurality in the Senate, rarely have the sides been so clear.

Glorified Backbenchers?

One more reason to elect the Senate

In an article appearing in the London Free Press, the suggestion is floated that ehc new Senate, in which the Conservative Party holds a plurality, may not be all that different from the old Senate.

Conservative Senate leader Marjory LeBreton insisted that opposition bills will be treated fairly, but that government bills will also be subject to less "filibustering" in the Senate.

Progressive Conservative Senator Elaine McCoy, however, objects to the notion that the Senate would simply push the government's legislation through the upper chamber.

"That's a very odd attitude for a senator to have, that's a backbencher's (attitude)," McCoy grumbled. "I'm not sure that the new senators are being oriented to anything other than that sort of obedience."

Of course, if McCoy wants Senators to be empowered to exercise such judgement, that's just another reason why the Senate needs to be elected.

Canadians have the right to exercise their own judgement on any official who would claim to exercise any kind of significant judgement on their behalf -- especially as far as the legislative process is concerned.

Whether or not McCoy understands this notion will not be seen until Conservaitve legislation on Senate elections is voted on by the Senate.

Stephen Harper's Senate Master Plan

Harper may democratize Senate by making it more controversial than ever

As any political thinker who has ventured anywhere near the topic of the Senate knows, Senate reform is an extremely tumultuous topic in Canada.

With Prime Minister Stephen Harper's governing Conservative Party finally taking control of the Senate, it's about to get much worse.

Part of the increased controversy will have to do with Senate committees, and how Harper may intend to use them. Where these committees were once obstacles to Senate reform, for example, they will now become tools of it -- at least according to Tom Flanagan.

"When the two reform bills are reintroduced –- one to limit senatorial terms to eight years, the other to provide for consultative elections –- the government doesn't have to worry about the bills being held up in committees," Flanagan wrote in a recent op/ed in the Globe and Mail.

Flanagan notes that Harper could even appoint four to eight additional Senators (the Constitution actually allows for this) in order to claim an outright majority in the upper chamber, as opposed to a slim plurality.

Flanagan was optimistically cautious about this potential move.

"Invoking Section 26 would be risky, because the opposition would paint it as another tricky power play," Flanagan warned. "But it would also showcase Mr Harper at his strategic best – using power politics not just to confound the opposition but to democratize the Canadian Constitution."

Flanagan's plan also involves something mused about by Chantal Hebert: legislating from the Senate, even on the matter of Senate reform.

Harper could legislate on almost any matter from the Senate -- exempting financial matters.

"In the future, Harper will also have the leisure to use the Senate as a safe launching pad for legislative initiatives that might be dead on arrival with the opposition majority in the Commons," Hebert wrote in a recent op/ed in the Toronto Star. "Both houses would still have to concur for those to become law but it could be good politics to use the more hospitable Senate to showcase them, especially in the lead-up to an election."

Nothing would provoke Harper's critics to declare his use of the Senate to be undemocratic -- using the appointed Senate to legislate, and transforming the elected House of Commons into a chamber of sober second thought.

But Harper's answer to those charges would be simple: if the Senate is undemocratic, then let us democratize it.

After all, in an elected Senate -- even one elected through "consultative" elections -- majorities would prove just as elusive as in the House of Commons.

"A look at the fractured federal political landscape suggests that, far from acquiring more control over the legislative destiny of its agenda, the Conservative government would almost certainly have had to give some up," Hebert wrote. "Sheer logic dictates that achieving a government majority in an elected Senate would be no easier than securing one in the Commons, and certainly harder than crafting one through patronage appointments."

If the amount of power that Harper himself would surrender, as well as the influence that could be lost by Western Canada, is at all dissuasive to Harper, he doesn't seem to be showing it. He continues to promise Senate reform.

Then again, the key part of promising such reforms is delivering on them. If Stephen Harper's Master Senate Plan is anything like that hinted at by Tom Flanagan and Chantal Hebert, the proof will be in the pudding -- and Canadians won't taste it until it's delivered.

Michael Ignatieff & The Art of Stop Gap Senate Reform

Ignatieff proposes alternate Senate reform package

With Senate reform predictably becoming a hot topic following the appointment of a new batch of Senators -- as it always does -- Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has offered his own version of Senate reform proposals.

Ignatieff believes that 12-year term limits should be substituted for the proposed 8-year term limits, and that a public service appointment commission should oversee the selection of Senators.

"I'd even go as far as to limit the prime minister's prerogative to appoint senators," Ignatieff suggested. "That is, I'd pass (appointments) through a public service appointment commission, so we scrub it and get the best possible appointees."

At face value, this isn't such a bad idea. There should be some kind of process to vet or confirm any appointment the Prime Minister makes to any position.

The problem for Ignatieff is that his predecessor, Stephane Dion, opposed any "piecemeal" or incremental reforms as irresponsible. He had argued that incremental reforms would have unforeseeable consequences (while evidently overlooking the notion that sweeping reforms would have sweeping unforeseeable consequences).

One wonders what unforeseeable circumstances the establishment of a public service commission to approve the Prime Minister's Senate appointees would have.

But what remains evident is that if the Prime Minister could be compelled to appoint Senators approved by such a commission, he could just as easily be compelled to appoint Senators chosen by citizens via an election.

All that is necessary is for provinces to enact such legislation.

That would be a real reform, as opposed to a mere piecemeal reform. All that is needed is the political will to make this happen.

Poirier Makes the Smart Call

Poirier appointment planned to eliminate by-election

When Stephen Harper's new batch of Premiers takes their place among the members of Canada's upper chamber, one of them -- New Brunswick's Rose May Poirier -- will be absent.

Poirier's appointment won't take effect until February 28th. There's a reason for this.

Poirier is one of two sitting provincial legislators -- the other being Ontario MPP Bob Runciman -- to be appointed as one of Harper's newest batch of Senators. Her appointment will take effect later in order to eliminate the need for a by-election in her riding of Rogersville-Kouchibouguac.

New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham must call an election by September 27, 2010.

"Being in close proximity that we are to the next general election on September 27, if the appointment would have been made, effectively, then a byelection would have needed to be called," Poirier explained. "I think that's an unnecessary expense for the taxpayers of New Brunswick."

Bob Runciman's constituents in Leeds-Grenville won't be so fortunate. As Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty doesn't have to call an election until October 10, 2011, they will have to endure a by-election to fill Runciman's place in Queen's Park.

The upside is that at least they will have representation in the interim betwen Runcman's appointment and that election. Poirier's constituents will not -- an unfortunate downside.

Conversely, Runciman's appointment to the red chamber will deprive Queen's Park of its strongest voice for Senate reform.

The delay in Rose May Poirier's appointment taking effect is a shrewd fiscal move. Although Bob Runciman is a worthy appointee to the Senate, his is not so much. This, sadly, is the kind of thing that will happen when active legislators are appointed to the Senate.

Red Chamber Turns Blue

Stephen Harper makes five new appointments to Senate

Stephen Harper finally made his expected Senate appointments toay, as his party finally put itself in the driver's seat in the upper house.

Bob Runciman, Vim Kochhar, Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, Elizabeth Marshall and Rose-May Poirier will all be joiing the Conservative Senate caucus.

While Harper's last batch of Senators -- featuring among them former Montreal Canadiens coach Jacques Demers (who admitted he knew nothing about politics) -- was considered by many Canadians to be sub-par. This particular batch is much, much better.

Bob Runciman is an outspoken advocate of Senate reform. He even introduced a recent bill that would empower the government of Ontario to hold elections for Senate nominees. (The bill was defeated by the McGuinty Liberals.)

Vim Kochhar will add another member to the Conservative Aboriginal Caucus. He's a successful aboriginal businessman, and is also a Trustee of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu is a feirce advocate of victims' rights in Canada. He will almost certainly bolster the Tories' anti-crime agenda, and should lend additional credibility to the Conservatives' crime agenda.

Elizabeth Marshall is formerly the Auditor General of New Brunswick.

Rose-May Poirier is a former Cabinet Minister with portfolios dealing with Local Government, Aboriginal Affairs and Human Resources.

That's a very promising batch of Senators -- and a marked improvement on blatantly partisan appointments like that of Doug Finley.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Dan Shields - "He Is Tightenng His Grip"

Russ Campbell - "Interesting Timing for Bob Runciman's Senate Appointment"

Curiosity Cat - "Welcome to the Harper Senate Majority, Courtesy of Michael Ignatieff

Liberal Party Position On Term Limits Not Altogether Unreasonable

Longer term limits not a bad idea

With speculation regarding Stephen Harper's five upcoming Senate appointments still rife, it was only a matter of time until speculation regarding a Senate reform package began.

According to The Hill Times the Conservative Party is planning to introduce a Senate reform package that will feature elected Senators and term limits.

Liberal Democratic Reform Critic Marlene Jennings explains that while her party opposes eight-year term limits, as outlined in previous Conservative legislation, they would support a longer 12-year term limit.

Further elaborating on the Liberal objection to the legislation, Jennings notes that a Prime Minister serving two or more full-year terms could potentially end up appointing every Senator in the chamber.

There's nothing at all unreasonable about objections to that.

Jennifer Smith, a political scientist at Dalhousie University, offers some objections that are far from reasonable. In fact, many of them are just plain silly.

In particular, Smith seems to object to the notion of elected Senators.

"It violates the spirit of the Constitution because clearly the understanding is the Prime Minister will appoint whomever is elected," Smith insisted. "That would compromise the power of the Crown to appoint whomever it wishes to the Senate, subject to the specifications outlined in the constitution itself. That's what the constitutional issue hinges on as far as I'm concerned."

But Smith seems to be pretending that constitutional convention hasn't changed this already.

In the most formal sense, the Prime Minister doesn't even make Senate appointments. On a constitutional basis, the Crown, as represented by the Governor General, makes the actual appointments. Canada's independence from the British Empire and the reduction of the Governor General from an office of Royal oversight to a largely ceremonial office has instead empowered the Prime Minister to make the actual selections for the Senate.

Simply put, the Crown cannot appoint anyone it wishes to the Senate -- consitutional convention prevents it.

Smith also seems to be confused about the Senate's role in terms of policymaking.

"Certainly an elected Upper House is going to give you some regional representation, there's no doubt about that, but I'm very doubtful that it's going to give you sober second thought because sober second thought is something a second House does, vis à vis what comes to it from the first," Smith continued. "Sober second thought is not what people who run in big provincial wide elections want to engage in, they think they're more important than that. They want to engage in policymaking, not in reviewing what other policymakers have proposed."

Of course, the Senate actually does engage in policymaking. The constitution allows Senators to intitiate legislation in the upper chamber. The primary exception is that Senators may not attempt to legislate on fiscal matters.

Moreover, Senators can amend non-fiscal legislation and send it back to the House of Commons.

Jennifer Smith seems to be confused about the specific policymaking powers of the Senate.

Marlene Jennings, meanwhile, can't seem to resist the urge to finish her thoughts to the Hill Times on a disingenuous note.

"[Senate reform] needs a substantive and honest debate, and that's not what we're getting from the Conservatives." she concluded.

The problem with this, of course, is that the Liberal Party, particularly under Stephane Dion, argued that the purusing Senate reform on a piecemeal basis risked introducing unintended consequences into the matter, and that broad reform would be preferable.

Dion never seemed to want to admit that this was a silly argument -- that the unintended consequences of broad reform would be broad in scope, and the unintended consequences of incremental reform would be narrower in scope, and easier to correct.

The Liberal Party position on term limits is actually very reasonable. But that doesn't mean that their contributions to the Senate reform debate have been substantive or honest. More often that not, they've been precisely the opposite.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Hatrock's Cave - "Solberg on Prorogue and the Senate"

Stageleft - "A Waste of Parliamentary Time and Taxpayer Money"

Harper Bizarro - "Caution: Tories Appearing to Work"

They Perpetually Just Do Not Get It, Over and Over Again

Winnipeg Free Press columnist makes excuses for Joan Fraser

In October of this year, Liberal Senator Joan Fraser precipitated one of the most embarrassing episodes in the history of the Canadian Senate when she attempted to hold Manitoba Minister of Justice Dave Chomiak and Alberta Minister of Justice Alison Redford in contempt of Parliament.

Fraser claimed that Redford and Chomiak had misled the Senate when they attended a press conference with federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson before going to the airport.

Eventually, less vengeful heads prevailed.

But a recent recap by Mia Rabson gives Fraser far more credit than she deserves:

"In October, Manitoba Justice Minister Dave Chomiak was lambasted by a Liberal senator for his appearance at a Senate committee.

Joan Fraser asked for Chomiak and Alberta Justice Minister Alison Redford to be admonished, even held in contempt of Parliament, for saying they had to leave before the hearing was finished to catch a plane.

It was true, but they went to a pre-planned press conference before they left for the airport, something they didn't mention to the committee and that, Fraser, alleged, was misleading and disrespected Parliament.

At the press conference, federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson accused the Senate of delaying passage of a bill eliminating the use of two-for-one credit for convicted criminals for time served in jail before their trial. Chomiak and Redford were at the committee hearing pleading with senators to pass the bill unamended.

Contempt of Parliament is a rare but serious allegation, used when someone prevents Parliament from doing its work. It could carry a jail term, though most often those held in contempt are simply asked to apologize.

I felt Fraser's charge was an example of just how tense the situation is in the Senate these days. The Conservative government has repeatedly accused unelected Liberal senators of thwarting the will of the people by not simply passing legislation from the elected House, no questions asked.

Liberal senators are weary of being on the one hand accused of not working hard enough, and on the other of being told not to do their work and simply push through government bills without review. Having two provincial justice ministers getting into the act was more than Fraser and other senators were willing to tolerate.

Nevertheless, Chomiak was spared any time in Senate jail. Speaker Noel Kinsella ruled Fraser's point of privilege had no merit. He said the two ministers were there voluntarily, had been told they would testify for an hour, and had scheduled their day accordingly, Kinsella said.

'Once this premise is accepted, the subsequent events do not appear unreasonable,' he said in his ruling."

If only it were so simple.

Of course, the Liberal Senators were not being told "not to do their job". Rather the Liberal Senators in question were taking ideological liberties with a matter with which the House of Commons, Provincial Justice Ministers, and provincial governments, cumulatively representing all of Canada's political parties, supported the bill to abolish two-for-one sentencing provisions.

Rather, the Liberal Senate caucus was being told to do its job, and respect the judgment of Canada's elected officials -- not to hold up vital legislation on purely ideological grounds.

Moreover, Joan Fraser's attempt to punish Dave Chomiak and Alison Redford in front of the Senate had nothing to do with "misleading the Senate", and had everything to do with silence voices that were criticizing her caucus' stand on that issue.

Joan Fraser is only one of a number of Canadian politicians who simply don't understand the issue of crime for what it really is. But it seems like she isn't alone. It's fairly evident that Mia Robson doesn't get it either.

Another Reason Why that Conservative Senate Majority Can't Come Fast Enough

Precisely what does Anne Cools think she needs to "think about"?

With the Conservative Party on the verge of a Senate majority -- following the upcoming retirement of a number of Senators, and the inevitable appointment of Conservatives to take their place -- Canadians should be asking them if such a Senate majority is necessary, or even desirable.

The truth is that, based on how the current Liberal majority tends to act, a Conservative majority is both necessary and desirable.

The recent ongoing episode regarding the Senate and Conservative MP Joy Smith's anti-human trafficking bill is a splendid example of this.

The bill is currently being held up in the Senate. The culprit seems to be independent Senator Anne Cools, backed by the Liberal caucus.

The bill, which seeks to set a five year mandatory minimum sentence for cases of human trafficking involving children, will be proclaimed before the Olympics, when human trafficking in Vancouver is expected to spike considerably.

"We have to protect our children," Smith insisted. "These people in the Senate think they are the fountain of knowledge against all the experts."

But Senator Cools seems to think that there's actually something to think about regarding this bill.

"It's such an infantile statement it needs no answer." Cools retorted. "It stands on its own ignorance."

The truth of the matter is that the very notion that an anti-human trafficking bill needs to be subject to any amount of "investigation and thought" is itself infantile. It sends the message that Cools either doesn't understand how dangerous and immoral a crime like human trafficking is, or that she simply lacks the moral and ethical maturity to act against it.

As it turns out, Cools' objection to the bill is the same as that offered by NDP MP Libby Davies -- an ideological opposition to mandatory minimum sentences.

"I do not believe that mandatory minimum sentences will cure either the problems of the criminal justice system or the social problems that cause these offences," Cools insisted. "This is a deep matter, and these are deep questions that need serious attention from government and I would admit, deep study in this place."

It apparently just doesn't occur to Anne Cools that those who traffick other human beings simply belong in jail, for as long as it's possible to keep them there.

If Joy Smith's bill has any deficiency at all, it's that the mandatory minimum sentence is too lenient. The mandatory minimum should be life in prison.

It seems that the Conservative Party understands this, and that the current crop of Liberals in the Senate simply doesn't. The retirement of each and every one of them -- and a Conservative majority in that chamber, to be followed by reform -- cannot come soon enough.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Maria S Nunes - "Senator Anne Cools Needs to Know How a Connection is Made"

Democracy: Coming Not-So-Soon to a Senate Not-So-Near You

Doug Finley forecasts incremental changes for the upper chamber

After Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed 27 Senators in less than a year, one may consider it to be ironic to find one of his new Senators -- moreover, the most blatantly partisan Senator he has to date appointed -- discussing the topic of Senate reform.

Yet former Conservative Party President Doug Finley did precisely that recently, as he noted that it would be small changes that would eventually make Parliament's upper chamber more democratic -- changes that would not require constitutional amendment.

"I'm told a number of changes could be made to the Senate without opening the constitutional grab bag," Finley insisted. "Individual provinces can tell Ottawa how they want to be represented. Personally, if we can get to the point where we have elected senators, I believe we would be where we have to go."

Of course, whether or not elected Senators will be part of that for all of Canada's provinces.

In Ontario, Conservative MPP Bob Runciman recently introduced a bill to have Ontario's Senate nominees elected. His bill was defeated during a Queen's Park sitting in which only 36 members bothered to show up.

A Liberal MPP present argued that Ontario had no role to play in Senate Reform, a suggestion that flustered Runciman.

"To say that the largest province in this country, the most populous province in this country, doesn't have a role to play in this is just bizarre," Runciman said, and noted that he plans to make Ontario's role in Senate reform an issue during Ontario's next election.

For his own part, Finley says that he firmly believes in the importance of the Senate. It's the importance of the Senate that demands it be reformed.

"I believe strongly in the traditional senate role -- sobre, second, independent thought," he continued. "But I believe in an elected Senate. If I have to legislate myself out of a job or run as a candidate, I would be more comfortable with that."

It's big talk coming from a Senator appointed by a Prime Minister who swore he would never appoint Senators -- even if political reality has forced him to do so.

Hopefully, Doug Finley is sincere about Senate reform. That's more important than ever during a time in which Canadians have begun to doubt the sincerity of Stephen Harper on this matter.

Listening Yet?

Liberal Senators draw ire of prairie Premiers

As Joan Fraser and the Liberal party's senate caucus plot their next move regarding their controversial ammendments to a bill that would abolish 2-for-1 sentencing provisions, they may want to consider a joint press release written by he Premiers of BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

In the press release Alberta's Ed Stelmach, Saskatchewan's Brad Wall and BC's Gordon Campbell reiterate their support for the bill to abolish these sentencing provisions. They add their voice to Manitoba Premier Gary Doer, who had previously voiced his displeasure over the matter.

“Our provinces all agree that eliminating the two-for-one credit would help our provinces fight organized crime and keep our communities safe,” said Wall.

“Albertans expect a system that represents their values and instills confidence,” added Stelmach. “Double credit for time served doesn't work for Alberta."

“Criminals should not be able to manipulate the justice system to their advantage by getting extra credit for time in remand,” Campbell said. “The amendments proposed by this unelected Senate water down the strength of Bill C-25."

Previously, Doer had suggested that the matter helps demonstrate the case made by those who call for the abolition of the Senate.

"We believe the Senate should be abolished — and if we ever saw a case for the Senate being abolished, we just saw it last [Wednesday] evening," Doer fumed. "Elected people in the legislatures of the country, elected people in ... Parliament should be making decisions."

As noted previously, support for Bill C-25 came from across Canada, from across partisan boundaries. Stelmach governs Alberta as the leader of the Progressive Conservative party. Wall governs Saskatchewan as the leader of the Saskatchewan party -- Sasktachewan's primary conservative party (a Progressive Conservative party remains registered but doesn't field candidates in elections). Campbell governs BC as a Liberal, and Doer is the outgoing NDP Premier of Manitoba.

If Canadians needed any further indication of precisely how unresponsive an institution the Senate has become, this particular issue certainly presents it.

With its current Liberal majority, the Senate doesn't seem to care what the people of Canada, their elected representatives, or the provincial governments of Canada have to say on this issue.

They plan to go their own way, and drag the rest of the country along with them. They just aren't listening.

Gary Doer predictably toed the (rather frightening) NDP party line on abolishing the Senate. Canadians clearly don't favour this option -- numerous polls have demonstrated the Canadian preference for an elected Senate.

But in the absence of an elected Senate, perhaps other reforms should be considered. Legislation allowing provincial governments to summon their Senators before the legislature could at least improve the responsiveness of Senators to the constituents they're expected to represent.

Better still would be legislation allowing provincial legislatures to dismiss Senators deemed to have insufficiently represented their constituents -- perhaps with a 75% vote.

Such reforms could at least force Canada's Senate to listen to the people they're expected to represent. As recent episodes have shown, Senators like Joan Fraser simply aren't listening.

The Privilege to Waste Your Time

Joan Fraser sites undefined privileges in complaint

More details have emerged over the faux-outrage surrounding Alison Redford and Dave Chomiak's exit from a Senate Committee on a justice bill eliminating the two-for-one bill regarding time served.

Liberal Senator Joan Fraser recently demanded that Redford, the Attorney General of Alberta, and Chomiak, the Attorney General of Manitoba, face contempt of Senate charges because they attended a press conference with federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson before going to the airport.

They had told the committee that they needed to be excused so they could catch their flight.

“Ms Redford misled the committee about the reason for curtailing its hearings," Fraser complained. "She left the committee with the clear impression the reason why she and Mr Chomiak were leaving ... was to catch planes west.”

“Misleading committees is a serious matter,” Fraser added, and later complained that "Our privileges have been breached."

One may wonder precisely what privilege Fraser is talking about. Considering that Redford and Chomiak were scheduled to be before the Senate committee for one hour, and instead spent an hour and ten minutes at the committee, it would seem that the privilege that was "breached" was either some imagined privilege to set the schedules of ministers of the crown, or the privilege to waste their time.

Either that, or Fraser can't appreciate Redford's tact. After all, "we have to catch our flights" is a more polite way to terminate a conversation than "you're clearly wasting our time".

Of course, one knows that Fraser's objection really has nothing to do with misleading a Senate committee. Instead, this is an attempt at a vengeance burn, pure and simple. Fraser is angry that her amendments to the bill in question -- granting 1.5 for one time served -- are being criticized.

At least one Senator present wasn't prepared to tolerate Fraser's obvious attempt at silencing criticism of the Liberal Senators' ideological wrangling.

"It does not matter whether they wanted to go to McDonald’s for a hamburger or they needed to go the restroom or whatever," countered Bert Brown.

As the only elected Senator in the chamber, Brown has a moral authority on this particular matter that Fraser would do well to consider. Likewise, Redford can speak with a similar authority.

“I’m at a loss. We see what goes on in jails and in the courts. People don’t have confidence in the system. The Senate is not in touch with the real world,” said Redford. “I’m an elected official. People voted for me. The idea of the Senate holding a provincial minister in contempt. What can they do? We have a serious problem here. This is like Disneyland.”

There may be another important motive underlying Fraser's move -- drawing attention away from the fact that the Attorneys General from each Canadian Province, including governments from each of Canada's federal political parties (no, the Bloc Quebecois doesn't count) supported the bill in question.

Fraser cannot pretend that the government's outrage over the matter is purely partisan. Conservative, NDP and Liberal provincial governments approved of abolishing two-for-one sentencing provisions. Nor can Liberal justice critic Dominic LeBlanc.

As pitiful as this matter truly is, it may be a good opportunity to consider another possible reform for the Senate.

The Liberal Senate caucus has yet to explain themselves on this matter. As Dave Rutherford notes, they claim that abolishing the two-for-one sentencing provision is unconstitutional, but they won't explain how or why.

Perhaps the Senate should be reformed to allow provincial legislatures to summon Senators before them to explain themselves. They could finally be required to explain the alleged unconstitutionality of the bill in question, aside from their own say-so.

At the very least, the Alberta legislature would be able to use such powers to summon Joan Fraser to explain how it is she thinks she can dictate the schedule of a provincial Minister.

They Perpetually Just Do Not Get It, Thredux

Senate Liberals amend crime bill

Canada recently came very close to finally closing a loophole many criminals were using to shorten their time in prison. That is, until, the Liberal party's Senate caucus used their majority in the Upper Chamber to amend the legislation.

A portion of the bill that would have abolished two-for-one sentencing provisions for time served prior to trial. Instead, the bill will allow for judges to grant 1.5 days for every day served prior to sentencing, with two-for-one sentencing permitted under extreme circumstances.

According to Liberal Senator Joan Fraser, the Senate simply exercised its prerogative to exercise "sober second thought".

"The whole point of having the Senate is for the Senate to give, as John A Macdonald said, 'sober second thought' to legislation that has been passed by the House of Commons," she inisted. "There's no point in giving sober second thought if it does not include the right to make such corrections as the Senate deems appropriate."

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, for his own part, isn't buying that.

"It's very disappointing," said Nicholson. "There's nothing wrong with this. This bill is perfectly constitutional -- we've looked at it very carefully. It has support of attorneys general from coast to coast. The idea that a couple of Liberal senators have a better idea on these things, I completely reject."

While Fraser and her Senate colleagues were second-guessing the time to second-guess the judgement of politicians who can actually be held accountable by their constituents, they also found time to try to find Manitoba and Alberta Justice Ministers Dave Chomiak and Alison Redford in contempt of the Senate for attending a press conference before flying out of Ottawa.

As justice issues continue to be vaulted to the forefront of the political agenda in Ottawa, the predominance of old ideologies on the topic of criminal justice remains as strong as ever in the Senate, where Liberal Senators seem to be intent on fighting "prison overcrowding" by doing whatever is necessary to ensure that criminals don't have to serve their time as mandated by the court.

Joan Fraser and her colleagues seem to think that they know better than everyone -- even as criminals continue to exploit two- (now one-and-a-half-) for-one sentencing provisions by doing things such as declining bail.

At some point enough has to be enough. Perhaps this recent abuse of prerogative will finally spur Canadians to stand up and overwhelmingly demand an elected Senate so that Senators can no longer impose yesteryear's ideologies without ever having to defend themselves in an election.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Rick Newman - "Senate Shenanigans"

Joseph Uranowski - "Conservatives Say 'No' To Checks and Balances"

So Garth, Could You Take This Up With Your Party?

Turner opposes Harper on Senate appointments, supports Harper on elected Senate

In perhaps the most unshocking turn of events since Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed nine new Senators, former Conservative and Liberal MP Garth Turner announced that he was disappointed in Harper.

More encouraging, however, was the reason why.

"I'm also disappointed in Mr Harper," said Turner, but noted the importance of Senate reform. "I support him on that."

"I think we either need an elected Senate or an abolished Senate," he added.

"Overall, it's a very costly institution that has nothing but a ceremonial role," he continued. "Nobody should be sent to Ottawa who hasn't been sent by the people."

Since he was booted from the Conservative party caucus, very few people should be surprised that Turner is "disappointed" in Stephen Harper. But for Turner to be disappointed in Harper in regard to Senate reform is a welcome change from some of the more blatantly partisan complaints Turner has raised since becoming a Liberal.

Turner's disapproval of Harper's appointmentss unsurprisingly and rightly focused in on Doug Finley.

"He's a political player," Turner said of Finley, whom he also described as "bare-knuckles political operative."

But Turner also noted that the Conservatives most certainly aren't the first party to make such a blatantly partisan appointment to the Senate.

"I know this is not just a Conservative thing," he noted. "Liberals have done it in the past too."

Naturally, however, there is one other forum in which one hopes Turner could take up the cause of Senate reform: namely, with his colleagues in the Liberal Senate caucus.

After all, the House of Commons passed the term limits bill. It's the Liberal Senate Caucus who are holding up the bill, often under the guise of the same specious excuses offered by Stephane Dion.

One more MP who supports Senate reform would be a welcome addition to the Liberal caucus in the minds of many Canadians. It may not even be a stretch of the imagination to suggest that he may be a better alternative to Dufferin-Calderon Conservative MP David Tilson, who offered an unfitting defense of Harper's appointments (even the blatantly partisan ones).

"They're all distinguished canadians," he insisted. "They're all worthy of the job."

As Garth Turner would almost surely remind Tilson, they may not necessarily be any less worthy as many of the appointees who came before them. But that doesn't mean that there weren't many, many better candidates for those jobs.

As Turner would also remind Tilson -- as well as the Premiers of the provinces not currently electing Senators -- the Canadian citizenry may be much better poised to identify those individuals.

Perhaps he could even convince his own party's Senators.