Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[observor 69]

Let's try an analogy:  :-\


But the Buick Enclave is a sweet vehicle. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Two interesting bits in this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081211.wPOLsenate1211/BNStory/politics/home

Harper to fill Senate vacancies

STEVEN CHASE

Globe and Mail Update
December 11, 2008 at 11:22 AM EST

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper will fill all 18 vacancies in the Senate with Conservative appointees before year's end, sources say.

The decision appears to be at odds with the Tory Leader's promise to only appoint elected senators to the unelected chamber.

But the Conservative move is motivated in part by the worry that the alliance between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois alliance could topple Mr. Harper's minority in early 2009 and stack the Senate with their own choices, a government official said.

"We remain committed to Senate reform, which means elections for senators. [But] as long as the Senate exists in its present form, Senate vacancies should be filled by a government that Canadians elected, not a government that Canadians rejected."

The Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the separatist Bloc, have not backed down from talk of ousting the Conservative government when Parliament resumes in early 2009.

The Tories want to avoid the possibility that the 105-member Senate gets filled with members opposed to Senate reform -- or with separatist leanings.

"The Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition has indicated it plans to fill the Senate with coalition members and this includes the prospect of appointing senators who do not believe in Canadian unity," the official said.

"The democratically elected government will fill the Senate before the end of the year. And only senators who support our senate reform agenda including senate elections will be chosen."

The Prime Minister's move comes after he tried to nail down a meeting with newly minted Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff in an effort to prevent his government from being defeated over its coming budget.

Sources said Mr. Harper phoned Mr. Ignatieff within hours of the Liberal Leader's warning that the Conservatives will be defeated if the Prime Minister doesn't shelve partisan attacks or if he fails to compromise on the budget.

Mr. Harper phoned to congratulate Mr. Ignatieff on his acclamation to the party's leadership Wednesday and invited him to a get-together. A spokesperson for Mr. Ignatieff said the leader neither accepted nor declined the offer.

Mr. Ignatieff later told the CBC that Mr. Harper asked to meet about the budget and parliamentary business, and that he'd be willing to meet with the Prime Minister.

"I made it clear I don't want to get into secret negotiations or backdoor deals," Mr. Ignatieff said.

"I'm there to listen to the Prime Minister because he's the Prime Minister of Canada. And then we'll decide what we have to do from there."

Mr. Ignatieff said earlier that he was open to supporting the government if the budget is acceptable, potentially scuttling the plans of a Liberal-NDP coalition to take the reins of power. But he adopted a substantially more forceful tone than his predecessor, Stéphane Dion, maintaining that the coalition option is still viable while also criticizing the Prime Minister for raising national tensions in a fall economic statement that, among other things, proposed to remove voter subsidies from political parties.

"I am prepared to vote non-confidence in this government. And I am prepared to enter into a coalition government with our partners if that is what the Governor-General asks me to do," Mr. Ignatieff said.

"But I also made it clear to the caucus this morning that no party can have the confidence of the country if it decides to vote now against a budget it hasn't even read."

While Mr. Harper was seeking a meeting, other Conservatives criticized Mr. Ignatieff. On Tuesday, Conservative campaign manager Doug Finley sent out "emergency" fundraising letters calling Mr. Ignatieff's acclamation a "stunning and unprecedented demonstration of Liberal contempt for our democratic rights."

When asked how the government can ask for co-operation from a leader it deems illegitimate, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said it was an internal matter for the Liberals.

When the Liberals prevented the defeat of the Conservatives last spring by sitting on their hands through repeated confidence votes, the Conservatives mocked them in the House of Commons.

But Mr. MacKay said he didn't envision a repeat of those tactics.

"We're in a very different circumstance today as a country," he said. "The global economic crisis has everyone, I think, re-examining priorities."

Mr. Ignatieff was acclaimed during a caucus meeting and a consultation among party officials, defeated candidates and other Liberals. He is now considered the interim leader, and will be confirmed at the party's convention in May.

His ascension was welcomed by Liberal MPs, who suffered through a recent election in which the party posted one of its worst results in history. Mr. Ignatieff acknowledged he has much work to do to rebuild the institution, particularly in rural Canada and the West.

"I want us to reach out and hope that Western Canadians forgive and forget, to be very blunt, some of the errors that the party has made in the past."

Mr. Ignatieff took a standoffish approach to meeting Mr. Harper, first suggesting he has no plans to negotiate with the Prime Minister, but ultimately leaving the door open.

"I think that after having lost the confidence of the House, after having triggered a national crisis, after having raised tensions between groups in Canada, it's not up to me to reach out a hand. It's more up to the Prime Minister," he said.

"But I want to add something: I'm a responsible elected official, and I want to do the best for my country. I will do all that I can to get my country out of this crisis."

He also called the Prime Minister's earlier actions "divisive, spiteful and unproductive."

With reports from Brian Laghi, Campbell Clark and Jane Taber
--------------------

The interesting bits are:

• A Harper spokesperson says: "The democratically elected government will fill the Senate before the end of the year. And only senators who support our senate reform agenda including senate elections will be chosen;" and

• Ignatieff says: ”... no party can have the confidence of the country if it decides to vote now against a budget it hasn't even read."

There are, currently, 87 senators. Three are Progressive Conservatives (one each was appointed by Clark, Mulroney and Martin), six are independents of various sorts (three of whom were appointed by Mulroney, two by Trudeau and one by Martin), 20 are Conservatives and the remaining 58 are Liberals. Adding 18 Conservatives would bring the balance to:

• Conservatives: 38
• Independents: 6
• Liberals: 58
• Progressive Conservatives: 3

Fourteen senators have served more than 20 years in the Senate; 19 have served for five years or less (Jim Munson was appointed by Jean Chrétien on 10 Dec 03).

 

[a_majoor]

Say, most of us could become Senators:

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=1433

So Why Should There Be An Observer In the Senate?

Well, if Chucker and Brian in Hespeler are actively “lobbying” to become one of the PM’s 18 new appointees, I suppose there’s no harm in playing the game. I think I can make a case for my appointment in the Senate:

  1. I meet the minimum qualifications for appointment. Such qualifications are listed here on the Parliamentary website. I’m well over the minimum age, I own my own dwelling, and even in these recessionary times my net worth is still well over four grand.
  2. I have practical life experience. Education at UBC and McGill, temp work at various government departments and the Canadian Forces — that equals a better-than-average understanding of how government works.
  3. I have youth on my side. I estimate that I’m good for 30-plus years of service, which means I can be an effective thorn in any government Jack Layton might lead.
  4. I don’t hate Liberals. Which means I can work with the current majority without the urge to denounce them, which can get awkward at Christmas parties.
  5. I can be just as lecherous as Ted Kennedy, without the embarassment of being married. No, wait, that’s the wrong Senate . . .
  6. I have mastered the art of tuning into the alpha wave. This means my brain can be active while giving the illusion that I’m paying attention to long-winded orations, a talent learned well with college lectures and church sermons, and useful during Chamber sessions.
  7. I can strengthen the intellectual dexterity of our Quebec members. This is because my French (I admit this freely) hasn’t expanded beyond the necessity of buying groceries or booing the Leafs. Which means Quebec senators get to exercise their English when trying out a new speech in front of me.
  8. I have a defensible record. Like the Chucker, I have never written anything on this blog that I would be ashamed of, or at least can’t defend.
  9. I know how to operate a Flip Mino. Which means I can make better speech videos than, say, Stéphane Dion’s crew.

Y’know, properly speaking, I should challenge some other Blogging Tory to list their potential qualifications. Damian, for example . . .

 

[a_majoor]

If politicians were paid for success (and this applies to us as well)...


Edgelings.com - http://pajamasmedia.com/edgelings -

Turning Around America — A Modest Proposal

Posted By edgelings On December 12, 2008 @ 3:41 pm In Uncategorized | 12 Comments

The stock market and economy are in the dumps largely because of mistakes made by the boobs, scoundrels and narcissists who govern us. Let us list them:

1. Federal Reserve
2. Congressional overseers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
3. Federal Accounting Standards Board
4. Securities and Exchange Commission
5. Treasury Department
6. A standing U.S. president whose appointments have been the worst since Warren Harding’s
6. An incoming U.S. president who could easily announce (but won’t) that, in light of the financial and economic troubles, he has decided to delay his tax hikes until 2011.

To these boneheads we now add Rod Blagojevich and his bribe scandal, which lends weight to the idea that government has never been run by poseurs, windbags, sociopaths and self-dealers to the extent that it is today. Washington has become a sort of Hollywood for ugly people.

Call me a dreamer, but I propose a simple fix to this problem. Pay politicians more. Give these takers the chance to become rich legally.

Here is how. Let’s put every elected federal official and appointee and bureaucrat on a stock option plan. The value of these options would be tied to the health and wealth of America. Half the options would vest over two years so as to spur politicians to make immediate changes. The other half would vest over 20 years, so politicians could build a framework for enduring success and be rewarded for it.

The options would gain or lose value based on these criteria:

1.    Noninflationary GDP growth
2.    Job growth
3.    Vitality of the small-business sector
4.    Wealth growth of American households in all four socioeconomic quadrants
5.    Educational achievements of American K-12 kids versus the world
6.    Health and longevity of Americans
7.    Prevention of military or terrorist attack
8.    Reduction of the national debt

Your criteria might be different (or differently weighted) than mine. I don’t care, really. We can debate the fine points and priorities. What I want is to change the whole darn way we define political success in America and thereby draw a better class of person to politics. One way we can do that and preserve our democratic values is to reward politicians for the performance of their country.

Does the idea of paying politicians more money repel you? Look at it this way. The wealth of American households is down about $20 trillion from 18 months ago. Each percentage point of unemployment will create a million more sad stories this winter. Each percentage point will add incremental thousands of more divorces, child beatings, black dog depressions, plunges into drug addiction and alcoholism, and even suicides.

If the incoming Obama administration, Senate and Congress are able to return America to noninflationary, sustainable 3% growth and put $20 trillion back into our stock and real estate portfolios, would you then be so churlish as to deny each senator, congressman, Cabinet official, Fed chairman and Fed governor a $10 million bonus? Not me. Let us hand the chief executive, Obama, a $100 million bonus if he pulls it off.

America needs a turnaround and quick. Let’s give the politicians a personal stake in improving the conditions for America’s success.

 

[Edward Campbell]

As those who follow my musings will understand I favour giving Ontario its full and fair share of seats in the HoC, as this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, suggests will happen circa 2014:
--------------------
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/18/john-ivison-harper-mounts-an-assault-built-on-retreat.aspx

John Ivison:
Harper mounts an assault built on retreat

Posted: December 18, 2008, 6:05 PM

John Ivison

Either Stephen Harper is playing three dimensional chess at such an advanced level that he’s bamboozled his political opponents, or he’s winging it, in the hope that he doesn’t land himself in checkmate.

The latest in a series of policy reversals strongly suggests the latter. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said this week that he and Mr. Harper had resolved their disagreement over the distribution of seats in Parliament when they met in Ottawa. “I spoke to him about that and I think we’ve fixed it,” the Premier said.

The inference was that Mr. McGuinty had won his battle to have Ontario allocated more than the 10 new seats in the House of Commons the government had proposed under legislation that would have seen representation in the House more closely aligned with growing populations. Under the original plan, B.C. was set to received an additional seven seats and Alberta another five.

Most people have leapt to the conclusion that Mr. McGuinty’s declaration of victory means Ontario is set to get another 21 seats, the number that would correspond to its population, when the legislation is re-introduced. However, sources say the number is more likely to end up being in the mid-range between 10 and 20 new seats.

The motivation for revamping the legislation remains unclear but insiders say new Minister for Democratic Reform, Steven Fletcher, was asked to make nice with Ontario. This suggests Mr. Harper has had second thoughts about his decision to declare war on the province when he sent his Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, to Toronto last spring, to attempt to lay the blame for the coming economic slowdown at Mr. McGuinty’s door.

“I’ve been tasked by the Prime Minister to come up with a formula that reflects the reality of Canada and respects Canadians’ sense of fair play,” said Mr. Fletcher in an interview yesterday. “I will be introducing legislation when Parliament resumes and I think most reasonable people will agree with the balance that is struck.”

Those who subscribe to the theory that Mr. Harper is a latter day Jean-Luc Picard, several chess moves ahead of his dim-witted opponents, might argue that the Prime Minister is simply turning to Ontario, now that he has been frustrated in Quebec. In this light, another 15 or so seats in Ontario boosts his chances of a majority.

This remains a possibility but a closer look at the ridings from which new seats might be carved suggests that the Liberals are as likely to gain as the Conservatives.

Of the 13 seats in Ontario with a population of more than 130,000 at the last election, five were “safe” Liberal seats (that is, won by more than 5% of the vote), four were “safe” Conservative seats, two were marginal Liberal wins and two were marginal Conservative victories.

The prime candidates for readjustment are suburban areas around Toronto like Brampton (Brampton West has a population of 170,000 - six times the number in Nunavut), Halton, Mississauga and Oak Ridges-Markham. Many of those seats could go either way in forthcoming elections.

It should also be remembered that the new seats are unlikely to come into being much before 2014, three years after the 2011 census on which they will be based. After the last major census in 2001, it took three years to go through the long process of appointing provincial commissions to look at the issue; allow public and parliamentary hearings; and, finally amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. Even Mr. Harper’s most enthusiastic fans don’t claim he’s gazing out six years into the future.

Where his supporters may be on firmer ground is the suggestion that, by increasing the number of seats for Ontario, Mr. Harper is trying to destabilize the already wobbly coalition between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois.

The Liberals opposed the original legislation, on the basis that Ontario was being denied its fair share of seats. It will be hard for the Grits or the NDP to oppose a new bill, if it is adds to Ontario’s seat count and is embraced by Mr. McGuinty.

Joyce Murray, the Liberal critic for democratic reform, said that her party supported an increased number of seats for Ontario. “We called for that and if the Prime Minister is listening to what the Liberal Party was insisting upon, that’s good...But we have to see the details of the bill,” she said.

The Bloc, on the other hand, is steadfast in its opposition to granting Ontario more seats -- unless Quebec also benefits. “We were opposed to the original bill because it diluted the political weight of Quebec. Once it’s been recognized that the Québécois nation exists, you have to ensure that it can be heard by federal institutions,” the party’s House leader, Pierre Paquette, toldLa Presse. This, even though Quebec has just seven seats where the population is more than 110,000, compared to 67 in Ontario.

Whatever the reason for Mr. Harper’s change of heart on representation by population, irresolution at the heart of government is becoming a common occurrence. For a Prime Minister who had made “never retreat, never explain, never apologize” his modus operandi, he has recently reversed himself on a range of issues - from removing the public subsidy for political parties to banning public sector strikes; from electing senators to the commitment not to go into deficit.

Conservative critics of the Prime Minister used to joke that he was so earnest he couldn’t entertain a doubt. For better or worse, those days are past.


National Post
-------------------

I don’t know about three dimensional chess at a very high level but I think Harper is ‘out front’ of his opponents on this issue, because:

First - continually reducing Québec’s ‘power’ in Canada can do nothing but benefit the country. Québec already has separated: in most meaningful ways it is already a foreign and usually unfriendly country, 'locked' within our territory;

Second – equality of representation is an important attribute of a modern liberal democracy. It is difficult to achieve in Canada because of the Senate. Our Constitution says, in  §51A that ” a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators representing such province” and, in 22, that PEI will have four senators. Thus – until we totally revise the Constitution* - PEI must have four seat in the HoC which means that almost all other provinces must should have their representation levels increased, steadily, until we have (circa 2030) 800+ MPs in Ottawa!

Adding seats in AB, BC and ON is a step in the right direction on democratic and practical grounds. Harper’s Conservatives are dominant or strong and gaining ground in all three.

--------------------

* A process which, if done sensibly, would make is a republic (better, formally, a regency) and that would see us having five provinces: British Columbia, with its integral Yukon Territory; Saskatchewan (the former Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) with its subordinate territories (Northwest Territories and Nunavut), Ontario, Québec and Atlantic Canada (New Brunswick, PEI, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador).

 

[Infanteer]

* A process which, if done sensibly, would make is a republic (better, formally, a regency) and that would see us having five provinces: British Columbia, with its integral Yukon Territory; Saskatchewan (the former Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) with its subordinate territories (Northwest Territories and Nunavut), Ontario, Québec and Atlantic Canada (New Brunswick, PEI, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador).

Interesting idea - I will admit that I'm warming to a rearrangement of sub-national bodies in any rearrangment of the rules; this is another interesting take on things, but I think I'm more prone to seeing the provinces busted up into smaller entities then seeing larger conglamerations.

BC always gets accorded "independant" status because of the massive population density that lies in Vancouver and the surrounding cities of the Lower Mainland (Greater Vancouver).  However, leave this geographic area, and you see something different - I wager that BC North of Hope has more in common with Alberta then it does with downtown Granville and Hastings Street.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
BC always gets accorded "independant" status because of the massive population density that lies in Vancouver and the surrounding cities of the Lower Mainland (Greater Vancouver).  However, leave this geographic area, and you see something different - I wager that BC North of Hope has more in common with Alberta then it does with downtown Granville and Hastings Street.

True enough, but I think, when you look at BC's economy and trade patterns, it is not enough like AB, SK, etc to justify a single Western province. On the other hand, a single western province does, easily, ,muscle QC down to third place in a four team league and that might be attractive. But QC in third place might just makes the whining even louder and less productive.

 

[Kirkhill]

True enough, but I think, when you look at BC's economy and trade patterns, it is not enough like AB, SK, etc to justify a single Western province. On the other hand, a single western province does, easily, ,muscle QC down to third place in a four team league and that might be attractive. But QC in third place might just makes the whining even louder and less productive.

Which is the basis of my argument for an additional three provinces: Vancouver (including Vancouver Island), Toronto (Including Hamilton and Oshawa - maybe even including London) and Montreal.

The folks in the Crowsnest and Smithers are much more likely to travel to Calgary and Edmonton than Vancouver.

Prince Rupert could easily become the coastal outlet of single political entity encompassing Winnipeg, Edmonton and Kelowna.

 

[a_majoor]

City States would represent the "new" political landscape, even in the United States, "Blue" states are often "Red" with "Blue" cities when examined on a county by county basis.

Other divisions could be made based on watersheds or any other arbitrary boundary. I am an advocate of sharply defined and limited government (my time seems to have been @ 300 years ago; missed the bus again!  ), but the real problem seems to be that the current system is totally inflexible by design and circumstance. Bottom up initiatives are resisted by the centre (several Senators in Waiting have been elected since the 1990's without taking their seats or even being acknowledged), while the public is rightfully suspicious of "top down" initiatives like the Meech Lake or the Charlottetown accords, and defeats them if given the chance.

Unless and until this is resolved, there will be no electoral reform.

 

[Edward Campbell]

According to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen, Taliban Jack Layton has found a new way to make mischief:
--------------------
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Naming+Tories+violates+Constitution/1082070/story.html

Naming Tories to Senate would violate Constitution: NDP

BY MIKE DE SOUZA

DECEMBER 16, 2008

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be abusing his power if he appoints unelected senators before the House of Commons reconvenes, NDP Leader Jack Layton said Tuesday.

One day after sending a letter to the prime minister urging him not to try to stack the Senate with Conservatives, Layton argued that the proposed 18 appointments would be unconstitutional.

"The prime minister needs to impose upon himself some restraint," Layton said in an interview with Canwest News Service. "He ducked the test, the fundamental test of his legitimacy to make these recommendations through a prorogation (of Parliament) and he's now pretending that he has the full legitimacy to move forward. This is an abuse of his power."

The NDP also sent a copy of Layton's letter to Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean, who must approve Harper's nominations.

Harper said on Monday that making the appointments was "the only option" since his government has been blocked in attempts to introduce legislation for an elected Senate.

"In a way, it's a sad day for me," said Harper in an interview with ATV. "I've waited for three years. We've invited provinces to hold elections. We've put an electoral bill before the House of Commons. But for the most part, neither in Parliament nor in the provinces has there been any willingness to move forward on reform."

The Liberals hold a comfortable majority with 58 seats out of 105 in the Senate, but the Conservatives, who now have 20 seats would begin to catch up if Harper nominates Tories to fill the 18 vacancies.

"We're now faced with a very simple choice," Harper told ATV. "Does the government Canadians elected appoint those senators, or are they going to be appointed by a coalition that nobody elected?"

But Layton compared Harper's arguments to those used by former Liberal prime minister John Turner who was criticized by Brian Mulroney in a 1984 federal election debate for approving a series of patronage appointments right before the campaign started.

Layton noted that a group of constitutional and legal experts last weekend also questioned Harper's legitimacy to make nominations without demonstrating that he had the confidence of the Commons.

"The nomination of senators in these circumstances would be illegitimate and, more importantly, in clear violation of the constitutional ideals and the rule of law," wrote the six experts in an opinion piece published in La Presse.

The experts also suggested that the Governor General should ensure that Harper has the confidence of the Commons before approving the nominations.

Layton added that a letter signed by a majority of opposition MPs demonstrated that the prime minister has lost the confidence necessary to continue governing.

"He can try to pretend to ignore that and act as though he has the full authority of the prime minister in normal circumstances, but that would fly in the face of the facts," said Layton.

mdesouza@canwest.com

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service
--------------------


First: Layton doesn’t have a constitutional leg upon which he might try to stand wobble. The Constitution (in §23) lists six ‘qualifications’ to be ‘summoned’ to the Senate and in (§24) says that the Governor General (always acting on the advice of her Privy Council) shall ”summon qualified Persons to the Senate.”

The GG did not qualify the prorogation - as she does, for example, when parliament is dissolved before a general election – in any way. (When parliament is dissolved for a general election the GG tells the PM, formally, that he may only take necessary, routine administrative actions – which would not include naming new senators. When John Turner (1984) named Trudeau’s list of hacks, flacks and bagmen to the Senate (giving Brian Mulroney a debate winning line: "You had an option, sir. You could have said, 'I am not going to do it. This is wrong for Canada, and I am not going to ask Canadians to pay the price.' You had an option, sir--to say 'no'--and you chose to say 'yes' to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Liberal Party. That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough for Canadians.") he did so before asking the GG to dissolve parliament.) PM Harper’s advice to the GG re: summoning 18 new senators is advice she is constitutionally obliged to follow.

Second: Unless Taliban Jack was, like me, far away from Canadian news during the last week in Nov 08 he would know that Prime Minister Harper had just, on 27 Nov 08 at 1725 Hrs, won a confidence vote in the HoC, on the Throne Speech. Now that parliament is prorogued the economic statement and the possible consequences that might have followed a vote on it are finished, constitutionally it is as if Jim Flaherty’s economic statement had never existed and, therefore, there is no/cannot be any threat of a coalition based upon it.

Prime Minister Harper can, and in my opinion should offer a new Throne Speech on 27 Jan 09 – one that sets out the bleak fiscal situation and promises firm but temporary measures to protect Canadians (but not their factories) from its worst effects. He should follow this with a budget that:

• Can be used to fight an election in Apr 09; or

• Will deeply divide the Liberal Party of Canada, being a budget that will be unacceptable to the BQ and the NDP and to the left wing of the Liberals but will be popular with Canadians, who are now well prepared for harsh measures – including a big deficit – and bad news, but who want some relief in the form of cash in hand which might be provided by temporary measures such as loosening the EI purse-strings.


Edit: punctuation

Another edit: typo/spelling - carelessness, anyway!

 

[Edward Campbell]

Further to my last, this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen, is Harper’s political WMD:
-------------------
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Harper+message+Senate+change+Minister/1097631/story.html

Harper's message to Senate is change or die: Minister


BY MIA RABSON

DECEMBER 19, 2008


OTTAWA — If the federal Conservative government can't get its planned reforms to the Canadian Senate passed as soon as possible it will simply move to abolish the chamber altogether, says Steven Fletcher, the minister of state for democratic reform.

But Manitoba Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs says that's just a lot of hot air, because the government needs the approval of the provinces to make any major changes to the Senate.

Fletcher says he will introduce legislation to introduce eight-year term limits for senators, and a process to elect senators, as soon as the budget and economic issues are dealt with by the House of Commons. He also issued a warning to any parliamentarians planning to block the reforms.

"If we don't get those reforms in a reasonable amount of time we will look to abolish it," said Fletcher.

The bills will be similar in nature to the ones introduced in the last parliament that failed to get through a committee review before the election.

But Carstairs said that in order to abolish the Senate, or introduce an elected Senate, the government would need the approval of the provinces.

"They cannot in my view even introduce fixed terms without the approval of the provinces," said Carstairs. "Both Ontario and Quebec have said they will take them to court over this."

While the Conservative government argues it only needs the approval of Parliament, the two biggest provinces say a significant change to the Senate can be done only with a formal constitutional amendment — which requires the approval of at least seven provinces which represent 50 per cent of the population. That means either Ontario or Quebec — or both — would need to approve the reforms.

Reforming the Senate was one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's election promises in both 2006 and 2008. He has battled with and criticized the Senate repeatedly over the past three years.

He has also refused to fill any vacancies in the upper chamber, saying he wanted to wait until he could implement elections. But with 18 vacancies, and with his minority government facing the constant threat of being toppled by a vote of the opposition parties, Harper now plans to fill the vacancies in an announcement expected Monday.

The decision was blasted by opponents as a flip-flop on Harper's election promise. Fletcher defended the decision as a practical move to at least get the Senate fulfilling its purpose.

"There are so many vacancies the Senate is essentially not able to function," said Fletcher.

Filling the empty seats with pro-reform senators will also improve the government's chances of getting their reform plans passed.

The government has been inundated with applications for the vacant seats, he said.

"People come up to me on the street and say they want to be a senator," said Fletcher.

Fletcher also indicated it's possible the senators being appointed next week will take officer under term limits, but added that will be up to Harper to announce.

Albertans have voted for senators since 1989, providing a list of names to the prime minister to choose from. Two of the senators elected in Alberta have been appointed — Stan Waters in 1990 and Bert Brown in 2007. Saskatchewan announced earlier this year it would begin a similar process to elect senators in that province.

Manitoba has begun an all-party consultation process to determine how Manitobans feel about Senate reform.

© Copyright (c) Winnipeg Free Press
--------------------

Carstairs is right, abolishing the Senate would require the sort of full blown constitutional amendment process that, while welcome to me, personally, is anathema to most Canadians. Remember the Meech Lake and Charlottetown processes? They were bad enough to make your worst root canal seem pleasant by comparison.

But there is an easy way to Senate reform if/when Harper has a majority. He need only write two letters:

One to all the provincial premiers telling them that, effective a certain date, he will appoint to the Senate only those persons who -

1. Meet all the qualifications in §23 of the Constitution,

2. Submit, with their nomination a signed letter of resignation to be effective on the date of the next (applicable) provincial general election, and

3. Are elected in their province – eventually in elections held coincidentally with provincial general elections and on a ‘proportional’ (list) basis so that the senate ‘delegation’ of a province reflects the will of the people in the province concerned; and

The second to all senators demanding their resignations effective the date of the next (applicable) general election.

Of course not all senators will resign – but many will and, after a year or two, there will be two Senates: one elected and the other phoney in the eyes of Canadians. By around 2021, around half the time it took in the USA early in the 20th century, I’m guessing that we will have an elected Senate.

During the conversion process the PM should announce that, forthwith, he will appoint only elected senators to be ministers in portfolios (e.g. Agriculture, Fisheries and Oceans, Health and Natural Resources) where the national government intrudes greatly into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The ‘deed’ can be done without any constitutional amendment – the PM’s discretion (beyond the provisions of §23) is, essentially, unlimited and beyond review by anyone. Provinces either sign on or do without. Senators either sign on or face planned obsolescence and increasing public disdain.

We end up with a ‘House of the Provinces’ that, fairly consistently, represents the political will of Canadians in their provinces.

Equality – in both chambers – is another matter but two of the three Es can be effected easily.


Edit: typo/spelling

 

[ArmyRick]

Interesting stuff so far. Its good to see people are at least recognising our system is far from perfect and needs improvement.

 

[Infanteer]

Harper should ust do what Caesar did and stack the Senate with Gauls....(Yes, I just watched HBO's Rome).

On a serious note, I like and agree with Edward's last two posts.  Layton is grasping for anything to keep the spotlight on him and Harper seems to be playing a good game of brinksmanship - but one that, here, is better for Canada as a whole.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a provocative column by Lawrence Martin:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081219.wcomartin22/BNStory/politics/home

The G-G needs to break her queenly silence and explain herself

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Monday's Globe and Mail

December 22, 2008 at 12:00 AM EST

Since our Governor-General made her critical decision on prorogation 2-1/2 weeks ago, there's been a sustained regal silence. Nary a word from the celestial Michaëlle Jean to explain it.

Few seem bothered by this. It's as if our mindset is back in the old colonial days. Upper Canada circa 1839. Lord Sydenham at the helm.

Ms. Jean's verdict, as we know, prevented the government from being defeated on a motion of non-confidence. It locked the doors of Parliament, kept the Conservatives in power. They should be sending her champagne every day from here to eternity.

One would think, given its significance, that we would be entitled to know something about the G-G's pivotal meeting with the Prime Minister that precipitated the outcome. We have been told nothing about the rationale for her queenly judgment. We don't know what the PM told her, whether it was accurate, whether he torqued the separatist threat, whether he raised the possibility of legal recourse. We don't know whether her decision came with any strings attached or how she determined it was consistent with the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. We don't know if, as has been suggested, advisers on each side had pretty much worked out the deal before the PM went to Rideau Hall.

In our collective ignorance, we're prepared to move on.

The Governor-General could very well be called upon in the coming year to make another landmark decision to keep the government in power, or strip it of same. We'll likely be left in the dark then as well. Nothing is revealed because tradition suggests our Governor-General never has to explain herself. This, and because we're so docile that we allow that hoary tradition to stand. It gives rise to cracks such as that by a wag who recently called us "a banana republic with snowflakes."

Over recent decades, the remaining vestiges of colonialism haven't bothered us much because we thought the monarchy was irrelevant. The Governor-General had only ceremonial functions. She was the hood ornament on the car. Why worry about it? But in this season, we found out how potent the office can be.

And how did we react? We rolled over like vassals.

Instead of demanding disclosure, we submitted to the tradition of silence for no other reason than it is just that - tradition.

Progressive societies, by the 21st century at least, should be in the business of unburdening themselves of outmoded convention. Not us. Here the divine right of kings abides.

Michaëlle Jean is an elegant Governor-General. It's not a question here of whether her prorogation decision was the right or the wrong call. That's another debate. But it's one that cannot be properly aired without knowledge of what was behind the verdict.

Adrienne Clarkson isn't speaking out but Ed Schreyer, our other remaining G-G still in good health, says that there is nothing preventing Ms. Jean from publicly explaining her rationale.

"I'm afraid that the historical practice is one of discreet silence," he said. "But that's not to say it shouldn't evolve with time. There's nothing written that says the governor-general must never articulate reasons for doing or not doing something."

On her handling of the controversy, Ms. Jean has been let off the hook.

The Harper government did a spectacular job of turning public opinion in its favour with its separatists-at-the-gates fear-mongering. Opposed to the option of a coalition government, the public then welcomed, only two weeks after Parliament had begun, her prorogation.

Not everyone passively accepted the closed-door dictate. Writing from his base in Paris, Keith Spicer spoke of how pathetic it looked.

"Finally, the world pays a little attention to Canada. And what does it see? Zimbabwe run by the Queen." The CBC's Allan Gregg used a similar comparison. Andrew Cohen, Allan Fotheringham and Peter Newman, who called the lock-up our "test run at a banana republic," have spoken out.

As the dust settles, there will be more questions put and more doubts seeded about the monarchy playing such a vital role in times we thought were modern. Given that we're in a period where minority governments are common and the G-G's power is therefore large, it becomes doubly important that the disclosure issue be addressed.

Ms. Jean, who knows all about the history of colonial masters, needs to be prepared to reform her institution. She can do away with the archaic tradition of secrecy with a snap of a finger.

For her loyal and acquiescent subjects, it would be a timely gift.
--------------------

While I think Ed Shreyer is correct in saying that ”there is nothing preventing Ms. Jean from publicly explaining her rationale,” were she to do so it would likely topple a traditional but rather wobbly system that requires the prime minister to consult the sovereign (or her representative, the GG) and gives the sovereign/GG an important and powerful check on unbridled prime ministerial power.

If the GG (or an elected president with similar functions powers à la Germany or India) were to discard one tradition it is highly likely that the rest would go, too. After all, why would a head of government (PM) want to consult with a head of state (GG) who is free to publicize their discussions – but those consultations are, as I said, a very real check on the PM’s power – Mme. Jean could have sais “No,” and then invited Celine Stéphane Dion and Taliban Jack Layton to form a government.

I’m betting Lawrence Martin would not be complaining then because, in his mind – filled to brim with fevered images of Tory fiends and demons, as it must be – that would have been a good thing.

But Mme. Jean (advised, as she was, by a first rate, independent constitutional expert) made the right choice and now the left wing Liberal/NDP propaganda mill is casting about for someone to blame – and it’s tradition.

What knee-jerk anti-Americans like Martin cannot admit, to themselves, is that they want an American style constitutional republic – because they understand its carefully written rules and regulations. I admit that our tradition wracked Westminster style parliamentary system – with its funny hats and all – can be a bit mysterious, especially for those who find Bagehot a bit much to get through, but it has its own advantages, over the US system, and the traditions of monarchical silence, which protects the sovereign’s political power – that she exercises on behalf of her people, are amongst them.

 

[Neill McKay]

Mr. Martin's snarky and sarcastic tone doesn't add to his writing, and doesn't make his ignorance any more entertaining.

The explanation Mr. Martin seeks is blindingly obvious: the Governor General prorogued Parliament because she was advised to do so by the Prime Minister, and that advice was within the bounds of the constitution.  In general the GG will accept the advice of her government unless the wheels have come off and the PM is trying to act outside of the constitution.  Whether we agree with his advice or not, this wasn't one of those times.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>"Finally, the world pays a little attention to Canada. And what does it see? Zimbabwe run by the Queen." The CBC's Allan Gregg used a similar comparison. Andrew Cohen, Allan Fotheringham and Peter Newman, who called the lock-up our "test run at a banana republic," have spoken out.

Once again, some of Canada's allegedly finest and/or most illustrious and/or influential minds speak out with a sense of proportion.  My dog's vomit has more substance.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC web site are the eighteen new senators:
--------------------
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/22/senate-harper.html

Wallin, Duffy among 18 named to fill Senate seats

Last Updated: Monday, December 22, 2008 | 1:32 PM ET

CBC News

Prime Minister Stephen Harper named 18 people to the Senate on Monday, filling all the vacancies in an effort to balance out the Liberal-dominated chamber before the possibility of an election in the new year.

Among those appointed to regionally distributed seats in the upper house were former broadcaster Pamela Wallin (Sask.), Olympian Nancy Greene Raine (B.C.) and CTV personality Mike Duffy (P.E.I.).

Others named:

• Former MP Fabian Manning (N.L.).
• Lawyer Fred Dickson (N.S.).
• Stephen Greene, former deputy chief of staff to N.S. Premier Rodney MacDonald (N.S.).
• N.S. businessman Michael L. MacDonald (N.S.).
• Long-time New Brunswick MLA and cabinet minister Percy Mockler (N.B.).
• Lawyer John D. Wallace (N.B.).
• National chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples Patrick Brazeau (Que.).
• Former MP and teacher Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis (Que.).
• Director of Via Rail Canada Leo Housakos (Que.).
• Former Quebec MNA Michel Rivard (Que.).
• Nicole Eaton, member of the prominent Eaton family (Ont.).
• Businessman Irving Gerstein (Ont.).
• Co-founder of the Corean Canadian Coactive (C3) society Yonah Martin (B.C.).
• Provincial cabinet minister Richard Neufeld (B.C.).
• Former Yukon MLA Hector Daniel Lang (Yukon).

Move thwarts coalition appointments

The prime minister said he filled the vacancies to prevent a potential Liberal-NDP coalition from getting the opportunity.

If Senate vacancies are to be filled … they should be filled by the government that Canadians elected rather than by a coalition that no one voted for," Harper said in a press release.

He vowed to continue pushing for Senate reforms, and said all incoming Senators had promised to support eight-year term limits and other Senate reform legislation.

"For our part, we will continue working with the provinces and reform-minded parliamentarians to build a more accountable and democratic Senate," said Harper.

Opposition parties have been critical of Harper's decision to make patronage appointments during a time when Parliament is prorogued, saying the prime minister does not have the confidence of the House of Commons.

In early December, Harper asked Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean to prorogue Parliament until Jan. 26, a move aimed at avoiding a confidence vote in which opposition parties planned to topple his minority government and try to bring a Liberal-NDP coalition to power.

But the opposition parties could still trigger an election on Jan. 27 when the minority Conservatives introduce their annual budget, and Harper is worried about losing the chance to fill the seats, said CBC's Margo McDiarmid.

2 prior Senate appointments

Harper's appointment of senators marks a significant departure from his long-held position that Senate members should be elected.

Until now, the prime minister held off filling the 18 vacancies in hopes of reforming the Senate to make sure members are elected, but he has been unable to pass any legislation to that effect.

Prior to Monday's appointments, Liberal-affiliated senators occupied 58 of the 105 seats, while 20 were held by Conservatives. Other seats are held by Independents and senators of other party affiliations.

The Tories had previously only named Quebecer Michael Fortier and Albertan Bert Brown to the Senate since coming to power in early 2006.

Following the January 2006 election of a Conservative minority government, Harper gave Fortier a seat in the Senate and then appointed him to a cabinet post, a decision he said was to ensure representation for Montreal. The Montreal lawyer resigned from his Senate seat for an unsuccessful bid in the October election.

Brown won his seat in an election in Alberta, the only province to elect senators. In November, Saskatchewan introduced legislation to allow voters to choose senators.

Also Monday, Harper made another high-profile appointment — naming Thomas Cromwell of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.

By doing so, the prime minister bypassed a parliamentary hearing process he has championed to more openly scrutinize nominees.
--------------------

The adverse comments are already starting to appear – especially from those who defend the indefensible: an appointed legislature.

Addendum:

And there are more adverse comments, here, on Army.ca. My question, retiredgrunt45 is: should Harper have simply aimed to abolish the Senate by failing to appoint anyone? Would the Celine Dion/Layton coalition not have appointed its own crew of Green/Liberal/NDP hacks, flacks and bagmen? Will Iggy not appoint senators if/when he becomes PM? Or are Liberals OK just because they're not Conservatives?


Edit: addendum added

 

[McG]

If the nation is to reform its democratic systems, then another element which must be fixed is the ignorance of the voters (and the resultant susceptibility to baseless emotional arguments from parties and media).  At the very least, we could avoid time wasted on arguments defending the government elected by the people of Canada or attacking the constitutionality of the Prime Minister recommending persons to the GG for the Senate.

After that, it may be worth looking at how leaders are selected in Parliament (not necessarily by the parties) and how government and the opposition is formed.

Infanteer is correct:  We have a de facto Party System, grafted on a de jure Representative System.

As much as I would like all parties to disappear so that we could have a true representative (not to mention libertarian) parliament, that is neither going to happen, nor is it what the public at large wants or expects.

They are comfortable with the party system and the notion of electing a Leader.

It has the value of simplicity.  It allows them to exercise their vote once every few years with minimal effort.

For the system to work as the laws are written then we wouldn't have general elections at all.  We would have a permanent cadre of representatives, elected locally on an intermittent basis as the representatives died, quit or lost the confidence of their electors, and that would be called to parliament occasionally to vote on Government proposals.

But that isn't the parliament that we have.

Just as the Prime Ministers from Pitt, through North, Gladstone & Disraeli, Lloyd George and MacKenzie King have progressively usurped the powers of the Monarch, with little formal acknowledgement of the fact, so have the parties usurped the legitimate powers of the Members of Parliament.

For good or ill.

In the Canadian context I believe, I stand to be corrected, that it was MacKenzie King that blew up the old informal party system, just as he blew up the relationship with the Governor-General, and created the modern disciplined party.

If I'm not mistaken it was MacKenzie King who, when confronted by a caucus revolt, responded by claiming that his legitimacy came not from caucus, but from the party membership at large.  And that is the reason that the Libs are having so much trouble turfing Dion and electing Ignatieff.

This should get ire of the average Liberal party member. Most out here say the Party should choose the leader, not the MPs.

I think you can make a could case for the reverse - especially if you want a return to a more classical form of Westminster style parliamentary government.

We should, according to the classicists all vote for our individual members - selecting the best person to represent us. Then the elected members should caucus, based on party affiliation or, even, a coalition. Each caucus should elect a leader. Then the caucuses (and a few independents) should gather to elect a speaker and to hold a single 'vote' to see who forms the government. The leader of the caucus/party or coalition that gets the most votes sends its leader to see the GG and, after she agrees he's to be the Prime Minister, then selects a cabinet for her to approve.

I think shifting power from parties to MPs would be a good thing.  Of course, this debate would also require that we review our position on the formation of coalitions and of MPs crossing party lines inside the house.

 

[dapaterson]

I personally favour Senators selected from party lists within provinces, appointed in proportion to the party vote within the province.

Of course, that would require reshuffling the number of senate seats; perhaps move to 3 per province, 2 per territory, plus an additional 72 divided by population (twice the baseline number allocated to the provinces and territories), based on the last decennial census.  That would provide the upper house with 108 members.

Harper's move is partisan politics.  Get over it.  He did precisely what any other PM in the same situation would have done - and by appointing Saskatchewan's favourite daughter, a former Grit patronage appointee, has also bought himself some top cover.  Add in the biggest Ottawa political newsman and he's bought the grudging admiration of the press - a nice bit of info ops, buying off the media.  And, as a final bonus, this week is only 3 days long for the news cycle - by the time the news is back into its normal cycle, it will be 2 weeks from now, a lifetime in politics.  Almost better than trying to bury it on a Friday.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

And there are more adverse comments, here, on Army.ca. My question, retiredgrunt45 is: should Harper have simply aimed to abolish the Senate by failing to appoint anyone? Would the Celine Dion/Layton coalition not have appointed its own crew of Green/Liberal/NDP hacks, flacks and bagmen? Will Iggy not appoint senators if/when he becomes PM? Or are Liberals OK just because they're not Conservatives?

Mr Campbell that's the problem, everyone is talk, talk, talk, but when it comes right down to it, the partinship always gets in the way. In my view as I have stated in another thread the Senate as its stands is a waste of tax payers money, its only purposes it to feed par tinship politics and that can be done well enough by the politicians themselves as they have clearly shown over these past few months. The whole process of appointing senators is a bogus circus act and the only beneficiaries are the political parties, (Banana republic politics). Senators should be for the people, by the people and not for the beneficiary of some political party who thinks they have a God given right to rule.