Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[Fishbone Jones]

:

 

[ballz]

Sorry RG, I know you're right but dear lord the self-righteousness is awful

I'm clearly not alone in this and in fact, it would be safe to assume that a majority of Canadians feel the same way as I do or we would have a different country built on a different set of values.

No, you're not alone, but unfortunately you've been surrounded by like-minded individuals at university and have the false impression that those classrooms are a good sample of the average Canadian.

If your ad populum was even close to correct, we wouldn't have a majority Conservative government. We wouldn't even have a majority Liberal government. We'd have a majority NDP government, and if there was a major party even more to the left of them, they'd have the majority.

Instead, Canadians have chosen to go in the exact opposite direction of you.

Now go away troll.

 

[Edward Campbell]

... we would have a different country built on a different set of values.

Those who hold these views are, generally, ignorant of both history and the USA, presuming, as is usually the case, the authors refers to that country.

The historical fact is, notwithstanding any and all m nonsense spouted in Canadian secondary schools and universities, the USA started down the road to an advanced welfare state before Canada did and it got there first.

The other fact, equally undeniable, is that the American welfare state is at least as advanced as Canada's and equally caring and sharing - there are minor differences: Americans without health insurance go to hospital emergency rooms, from which that cannot be turned away, for routine medical problems; Canadians, benefitting from universal health insurance, go to hospital emergency rooms for routine problems because our 'system' cannot afford to pay for enough family physicians; and it goes on and on ... But, at bottom, there is nothing much to choose between them. In terms of the social safety net and the underlying social principles Canada and the USA are about as different as Norway is from Denmark. We do not have a different vastly country from the USA, we never intended to have much of a different country - some people, including a lot of abysmally ignorant people with PhDs, want a different country, but most Canadians, the ones who vote Conservative and 2/3 of the ones who vote Liberal, like things the way they are like things the and the way they are headed, too, so the loony left does not get its way.

I, personally, am sick and tired of university professors propagandizing in their lecture halls for socio-economic and political systems that consistently fail, and I am even more tired of high schools that graduate people without the intellectual skills to recognize plain old BS when they hear it in a classroom.

 

[MARS]

This editorial by Rex Murphy touches on some of the recent posts in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hf94tXosjU&sns=fb

 

[ModlrMike]

Funny to read the comments accusing the CBC of toadying to the PM. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

And, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, BC is aiming to get on with the business of electing senators:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/premier-backs-bid-to-elect-senators-from-bc/article2361025/

Premier backs bid to elect senators from B.C.

IAN BAILEY AND JUSTINE HUNTER

VANCOUVER AND VICTORIA— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Mar. 06, 2012


British Columbia is throwing its weight behind an elected Senate, with a private member’s bill – supported by Premier Christy Clark – pushing for a vote this fall.

Although Ms. Clark’s parliamentary secretary John Les tabled the measure as a private member’s bill Tuesday, an official in the Premier’s office said he has the backing of Ms. Clark. Mr. Les said most members of the majority Liberal caucus are behind the Senate Election Act, setting the stage for the bill to pass by May.

Conservative Senator Gerry St. Germain is scheduled to retire this November. “That would be the first opportunity to have a senatorial election in B.C.,” Mr. Les said, hours after tabling the bill in the legislature.

But the NDP opposition raised immediate questions about why Ms. Clark isn’t seizing the agenda herself. “As opposed to a government bill, they pushed out poor John Les with a private member’s bill,” said John Horgan, House Leader for the B.C. NDP.

Mr. Les said he was acting because the bill allows for a quick fix to concerns about the Senate. “There’s a healthy appetite for democratizing something without a great history of democracy,” Mr. Les said in an interview.

If passed, British Columbia would be the first province after Alberta to elect senators, although other provinces have been considering the option. Alberta has held Senate-nominee processes since 1989, with three senators appointed as a result.

As Ms. Clark’s Liberals face the fracturing of their centre-right coalition because of the rise of the B.C. Conservative Party, Senate elections could also be a tactical measure aimed at wooing back right-leaning voters. The Liberals, seeking a fourth term in the May, 2013, election, have been looking for options to bolster their governing coalition in order to avoid vote splitting on the right that could give the NDP an edge at the polls.

Indeed, news of the B.C. move elicited praise from the federal Tories, who are pushing a reform package that includes an elected Senate and term limits. Heritage Minister James Moore, lead minister for B.C., and Tim Uppal, Minister of State for Democratic Reform, issued a joint statement saluting the introduction of the Senate Election Act.

“This announcement today means that British Columbians will have real input into choosing the people who represent our province in the Senate. This is good news for democracy and good news for our province,” Mr. Moore said.

The federal Tories have been encouraging provinces to consult citizens on Senate nominees through the Senate Reform Act, introduced in June, 2011. It calls for nine-year terms for senators, who can currently sit until age 75, as well as for the provinces to elect a roster of potential senators.

Ms. Clark supported a previous iteration of Mr. Les’s bill that died on the order paper last fall, but then said she was concerned about electing senators without additional reform. She was not available Tuesday to explain her current view.

Under Mr. Les’s current bill, candidates could run as independents or members of parties in one of six new Senate electoral districts to be created across the province. It would also allow for Internet voting – a general electoral option Ms. Clark has endorsed.

The bill has an eight-year sunset clause, implemented, said Mr. Les, in hopes of reform to deal with B.C. having fewer Senate seats than such smaller provinces as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

Last June, Ms. Clark said she would accept the Harper government’s vision of an elected Senate only if B.C.’s representation was improved. In a single day of meetings in Ottawa, she advanced two reform proposals: Up to 10 more senators for the province to reflect B.C.’s growing economic clout, and limiting the number of senators from regions that are overrepresented.

There are six B.C senators and six each from the three other Western provinces.

A slow, steady, incremental approach can work ~ we can have an elected and effective Senate without opening the Constitution.

 

[RangerRay]

To give some context...

Christy Clark changes her mind every week about what to do about the Senate.  At first, she wanted to abolish it, then she wanted to leave it alone, then she wants more seats for BC.  She made a series of incomprehensible statements about it last fall and she lost a lot of credibility with the Feds.  The only reason she is doing this now is because the BC Liberals are tanking in the polls.  In two strong BC Liberal ridings (Chilliwack-Hope, and Port Moody-Coquitlam) that should have by-elections soon, the BC Liberals are polling a distant third to the NDP and upstart BC Conservatives.  It is also telling that it is a private member's bill from an MLA from a very conservative riding (Chilliwack), instead of a government bill.

She is trying to change the channel.

Last week, it was learned that a convicted terrorist was invited by the government to watch the budget procedures in the Legislature in lock-down.  She claims to be shocked at this, yet Jaspal Atwal was one of her main organizers in the Indo-Canadian community.  She is desperately trying to distance herself from him.

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/02/28/premier-clark-shocked-convicted-gunman-attended-budget-speech/

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2012/02/28/exclusive-breaking-news-judged-terrorist-and-convicted-gunman-invited-by-premier-clarks-people-to-attend-budget-speech-was-a-top-ranking-indo-lieutenant-of-the-christy-clark-leadership-team/

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2012/02/29/disgruntled-indo-canadian-christy-clark-leadership-captain-with-criminal-past-has-strong-ties-to-the-liberal-party-of-canada/


As well, there appears to be some shenanigans during the leadership race to indicate that her people hijacked to process to allow her to win, while she had no caucus support.

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2012/03/05/christy-clark-must-resign-as-premier-of-british-columbia-part-i-the-case-of-the-stolen-pin-numbers-finally-revealed/

Not to mention, on Friday, she was a no-show for a big shindig by Telus announcing that they were going to be spending lots of money and hiring lots of people.  NDP leader Adrian Dix was there.  NDP MLA's were there.  Only one BC Liberal backbencher was in attendance.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Buzz+over+Premier+Photo+snub+Telus/6256318/story.html

So, this is Christy Clark's attempt to change the narrative and get back some "conservative" support.  But my guess is that they are gone for good and we are looking at an NDP government in 2013.

If caucus does not push her out the door, the voters will send the BC Liberals into electoral oblivion, just like they did to Social Credit in 1991.

EDIT TO ADD:  Christy Clark is also trying to distract from a nasty labour battle with the BC Teachers Federation.  IMHO, both sides are being dense.

 

[Kalatzi]

Kudos to the Right Honourable Senator Patrick Brazeau for his charm and inciteful contribution to the Senate Reform Question.

I wonder when we'll hear from him again op:

 

[Edward Campbell]

I was going to write something about the very sad case of Senator Joyce Fairbairn and the status of her membership in the Senate, but I couldn't quite wrap my mind around the whole issue.

Jonathan Kay as done so, properly, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of he Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/28/jonathan-kay-the-fairbairn-case-is-a-surreal-indictment-of-the-canadian-senate/

The Fairbairn case is an indictment of the Canadian Senate

Jonathan Kay

Aug 28, 2012

This week, it was revealed that Canadian Senator Joyce Fairbairn was permitted to cast votes in the Senate more than three months after being declared legally incompetent on grounds of Alzheimer’s-type dementia. Predictably, the news engendered a good deal of callous-seeming social-media snickering. One of my friends, for instance, wrote on Facebook that the case “confirms what we already knew: you don’t need to be legally competent to be a Liberal politician.”

On the other side, people who actually know Fairbairn are outraged by the public focus on her health. One Chrétien-era Liberal published a blog called “leave Joyce alone,” in which he mused about retribution: “Every Liberal staffer who spots a drunken, stoned or otherwise indisposed Conservative Parliamentarian will be provided with an online spot to record and document what they have observed.” Ray Heard, another veteran Liberal, described fond memories of Senator Fairbairn on his Facebook page, and said that the coverage of her decline was “sickening” and “cruel.”

These pleas are well-intentioned — but wrong. The folks commenting on this story in the mainstream press and social media, even the snarky ones, aren’t mocking Senator Fairbairn. They’re mocking what her case says about the Senate. And they’re absolutely right to do so, even if the underlying news story is sad and personal. In fact, I know of no single episode that better summarizes the need for Senate reform.

Either the Canadian Senate is important and useful, or it is not. And if it is important and useful, then it demands intellectually competent members — which Ms. Fairbarn, sadly, isn’t anymore. If she is not legally competent to enter into a contract to buy a house or sell stock, why did her fellow Senate Liberals see fit to line her up to vote on legislation affecting 33-million people? The fact that they saw nothing wrong with this suggests that they themselves see their body as a sinecure pasture. And obviously, that candid insight into Senators’ own views is something deserving of reportage and even mockery.

Moreover, the fact that the chief of staff to Liberal Senate leader James Cowan co-signed a declaration that Fairbairn was legally incompetent, and shared legal responsibility for her personal care, adds a bizarre aspect to the story. Party politics is a reality in the Senate, and one of Cowan’s functions, in some cases, is to encourage the Liberal Senate caucus to vote in a certain way. Is it not surreal — and perhaps even creepy and unethical — that a man counting votes has on his personal staff a person who has legal responsibility for a mentally incapacitated human being who holds such a vote?

None of this — absolutely none of it — reflects badly on Senator Fairbairn. But it does reflect badly on the Senate, Senator Cowan, and the whole atmosphere of country-club uselessness within an entity whose functions apparently are regarded by insiders as less important or intellectually arduous than signing one’s name to a housing contract or cell phone plan. And the people who say so have nothing to apologize for.

National Post
jkay@nationalpost.com
Twitter @jonkay

The headline writer is wrong, it isn't the Senate, per se, that is called into question, it is the attitude of all those, Conservative, Liberal and others, who knew that Senator Fairbairn was casting votes after being declared legally incompetent.

They all feel sorry for her; as do I; she is, by all accounts, and estimable woman and a faithful public servant, but she is, legally, incompetent; yet her colleagues allowed her to vote on legislation ... the Senate is not to blame, but several senators are.

See, also: from the National Post: "Senator Fairbairn’s saga has been going on at least since 2009 ... we [Senators] have been quietly asked not to challenge Joyce in Committee or the Chamber, because she wasn’t well. This game of being ‘nice’ has been going on for too long ... the late Michael Pitfield, the ‘Independent’ Senator who was [Pierre] Trudeau’s Clerk of the PCO, was stricken by Parkinson’s and could not speak. He stayed on sick leave for years. They would wheel him in twice a year to meet the minimum requirement for attendance and then he’d go back to his home in Montreal. He collected millions, and no one complained..."

It's time we complained ... not about the costs, they're trivial and we, as a country, can afford to be generous to those stricken with such ailments ... it's time we complained about the nature of the Senate and demanded its reform. Maybe that will be Joyce Fairbairn's legacy.

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... it isn't the Senate, per se, that is called into question, it is the attitude of all those, Conservative, Liberal and others, who knew that Senator Fairbairn was casting votes after being declared legally incompetent.

They all feel sorry for her; as do I; she is, by all accounts, and estimable woman and a faithful public servant, but she is, legally, incompetent; yet her colleagues allowed her to vote on legislation ... the Senate is not to blame, but several senators are ....

Still, the Senate, as an institution, takes a pretty public kick in the 'nads with things like this.  That said, one hopes it would be possible to question/call to accountability those who let this happen while preserving the dignity and privacy of Fairbairn.  It's cowardly for the Liberals to hide behind privacy concerns to, it would appear, duck scrutiny, and the Conservatives should be able to question what happened without blaming/scapegoating an individual who's sick.

.... It's time we complained ... not about the costs, they're trivial and we, as a country, can afford to be generous to those stricken with such ailments ... it's time we complained about the nature of the Senate and demanded its reform. Maybe that will be Joyce Fairbairn's legacy.

Good point.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Five new (Conservative) senators, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-appoints-five-new-senators/article4525951/

Harper appoints five new senators

OTTAWA — The Canadian Press

Published Friday, Sep. 07 2012

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has appointed five new senators, bolstering the Tory majority in the upper chamber.

He is sending Diane Bellemare, Tobias C. Enverga Jr., Thanh Hai Ngo, Thomas Johnson McInnis and Paul E. McIntyre to the Senate.

Bellemare fills a vacancy in Quebec, Enverga and Ngo take vacant Ontario seats, McInnis is from Nova Scotia and McIntyre is from New Brunswick.

The prime minister says the new senators are pledged to support his government’s efforts to reform the Senate, including term limits.

The appointments give Harper’s Tories 62 of the Senate’s 105 seats.

The Liberals hold 40 seats, there is one Progressive Conservative senator and two independents.

Diane Bellemare is an economist. From 1972 to 1994, she was a Professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal. In 1994, she was appointed Chief Executive Officer of the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre (SQDM) by the Parti Québécois government of Jacques Parizeau. Bellemare ran as one of the Action démocratique du Québec (ADQ) star candidates in the 2003 election. She finished third with 21% of the vote in the district of Blainville. PQ incumbent Richard Legendre won the election with 43% of the vote. From September 2003 to April 2007, she held executive jobs with the Conseil du patronat du Québec, including Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist from April 2006 to April 2007. After April 2007, Bellemare acted as an adviser to ADQ leader Mario Dumont concerning issues dealing with the economy. She ran as the party’s candidate to fill the seat vacated by former PQ leader André Boisclair in the Montreal-based district of Pointe-aux-Trembles. She finished third with 14% of the vote and lost the by-election held on May 12, 2008 against former PQ MNA Nicole Léger. Bellemare also ran as the party's candidate in the district of Bertrand in the general election of 2008. She finished third with 11% of the vote.

Tobias C. Enverga Jr is a Philippines-Canadian businessman. He is a project manager at the Bank of Montreal, where he has worked for more than 30 years. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Letran College in the Philippines, a Masters Certificate in Project Management from the Schulich School of Business at York University, and a Computer Studies Certificate from Centennial College.and is (was?) a member of the Toronto catholic District School Board. He has been recognized for his philanthropy.

Thanh Hai Ngo as appointed Citizenship Judge for Ottawa in December 2007, he was Chairperson of the Employment Insurance Board of Referees in Ottawa. He has a distinguished career in education both as a teacher in Ottawa and as an educator in Malaysia and Vietnam. Judge Ngo has also been an active member of various Vietnamese communities across Canada and overseas, and is the Founder and former Chairperson of the Ottawa Vietnamese Non-Profit Residence Corporation. He served as the President of the Vietnamese Community Association of Ottawa and as a Board Member and Vice-President of the Canadian Assessment and Placement Centre, Canadian Employment Centre for New Immigrants. Judge Ngo was educated in France and Canada; he received from the University of Paris – la Sorbonne, a Bachelor of Arts (Honours), and from the University of Ottawa, a Bachelor and a Master of Education.

Thomas Johnson McInnis is a career lawyer in Nova Scotia. He holds a law degree from Dalhousie University. He has practiced property and commercial law and public-private partnering with a number of firms, including the Weldon McInnis Law Firm (1996-2005) the Boyne Clark Law Firm (1993-1996) and the McInnis Mont & Randall Law Firm (1976-1978).  He was also co-owner of Halifax Water Tours (1974-1986) and the Maritime Travel Agency (1975-1979). Mr. McInnis is currently President of the Sheet Harbour & Area Chamber of Commerce, President of the Association for the Preservation of the Eastern Shore and a ,Member of the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society. He was appointed to the Halifax Port Authority in 2008. Thomas Johnson McInnis was the federal Progressive Conservative candidate for Dartmouth in 2000. He was also elected to the Nova Scotia House of Assembly (1978-1993).

Paul E. McIntyre is a lawyer and member of the Canadian Bar Association and New Brunswick Barristers' Society. He holds a Bachelor of Arts from the Université de Moncton, a Master of Arts (History) from the University of New Brunswick, and a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) from Dalhousie University. Mr. McIntyre was Chairperson of the New Brunswick Review Board from 1985 to 1998 and 2000 onward.  He was also the senior law partner at the McIntyre Law Firm in Dalhousie, New Brunswick, until 2008. He was appointed federal Queen's Counsel in 1993. He is the owner and creator of the Alfred Desrosiers Nature Park, a fundraiser to various charitable organizations, including the Salvation Army and a former Chairperson of the Charlo Fall Fair. He was also the Assistant Coordinator of the Children's Wish Foundation (Restigouche region).

 

[a_majoor]

The Conservatives are pushing a private member's bill that would open the lid on how unions spend their member's dues on political activities. NAturally the unions are afraid and going to fight this tooth and nail. Both the Liberals (in Ontario) and the NDP have benefited from union contributions and more recently "third party" union front organizations like "Working Families", although from the voting patrterns it seems quite clear that union members are not on the same page as union leaders.  Membership might have a different opinion if they knew how much money was being spent on political activities and where it was going:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/11/john-ivison-union-threatens-members-with-fines-as-labour-movement-scrambles-to-find-a-way-to-sink-tory-transparency-bill/

John Ivison: Unions scrambling to sink Tory MP’s transparency bill
John Ivison | Sep 11, 2012 6:52 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 11, 2012 10:03 PM ET

A Conservative MP’s private members’ bill, currently before Parliament, has ushered in a new age of anxiety for Canada’s labour movement.

Such is the consternation in union-land that members are being called to mandatory special meetings to come up with some way, any way, to sink Russ Hiebert’s Bill C-377. Members of the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators were informed they would be fined $50 if they failed to show up for one meeting.

The reason is that Mr. Hiebert’s financial transparency bill – which, among other things, would require unions to disclose how much money they spend on political activities – could shatter the union business model forever.

We do not know how much of the $4.5-billion collected in union dues is spent on political hobby-horses by the leadership, since there is no requirement to disclose that information.

But we can assume that in many cases, those who are forced to donate around two weeks’ pay a year to the unions do not agree with the causes chosen.

It is a fair bet that many workers from the Quebec side of the National Capital Region forced to pay dues to the Public Service Alliance of Canada would demand reforms, if it were revealed how much the union spent endorsing the Parti Québécois in the recent provincial election.

It’s also a reasonable assumption that many workers in Alberta, forced to pay dues to the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, would be outraged if they discovered how much of their money was used to host NDP leader Thomas Mulcair’s trip west to denounce the oilsands.

Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative MP, was so upset by the PSAC case, he has mulled introducing legislation allowing workers covered by federal labour laws, such as Air Canada staff, to opt out of paying dues if they do not want to be part of the union. Alas, the Rand formula forces all employees within a bargaining unit to pay union dues, even if an estimated 290,000 of them across the country choose not to become members of the union. If Mr. Poilievre brings forth a private members’ bill, it would not cover the vast majority of those folks, who are governed by provincial labour laws (though some provincial politicians such as Ontario’s PC leader, Tim Hudak, have advocated following the Wisconsin “right to work” model).

The genius of Mr. Hiebert’s bill is that it amends the Income Tax Act, and so covers all union workers.

Big Labour has been fighting back. A recent article in the Financial Post by Canadian Auto Workers president Ken Lewenza and the CEP’s Dave Coles, said Bill C-377 would slap unions with “onerous and discriminatory” accounting regulations. Union members can learn what their money is being spent on by attending union meetings and reading union newsletters, they argued.

The two leaders claim the bill may not see the light of day because it violates Canadian privacy law, since it would oblige unions to disclose the names and personal information of health benefit recipients.

The good news for those of us who believe unions should be compelled to be accountable to those who pay the piper, is that this provision will likely be amended out at committee, allowing the rest of the bill to proceed untouched.

When Parliament resumes, expect the Conservatives to make a lot of noise about the Hiebert bill. The Prime Minister has already signalled his support by voting for it when it passed second reading.

The Tories argue that the bill would merely bring Canada into line with Australia, France, Germany, the U.S. and U.K. Moreover, they feel many rank and file workers sympathize with their attempts to force union disclosure, backing the NDP into a position where they have to defend the union bosses. With its very existence at stake, it’s no surprise the labour aristocracy is being forced to coerce its own members with 50-buck fines to make sure they show up and rally against the Hiebert bill.

National Post
• Email: jivison@nationalpost.com | Twitter:

 

[Edward Campbell]

Now the Premier McGuinty is proroguing the Ontario Legislature the Twitterverse is alive with "experts," some of whom, like Norman Spector, are highly qualified and should know better, spewing BS.

Most people are harking back to the 2008 Michaëlle Jean/Stephen Harper prorogation which unleashed a wholly uninformed firestorm of protest from people, like Spector and most Canadian journalists, who are abysmally ignorant of the Canadian Constitution.

The business of government is entirely political; the politicians are corralled by the Constitution - especially by the unwritten parts* - and the Crown, but the Crown is, equally, constrained by the Constitution and the Constitution, itself, is constrained by legal and public opinion. That Prime Minister Harper, in 2008, and Premier McGuinty, yesterday, used the Constitution for wholly partisan, political purposes is 100% Constitutionally correct in all respects. The fact that a lot of people don't like what he did is irrelevant - unless or until those people rise up and, using political means, effect change. Hand wringing, especially ignorant hand wringing, doesn't count. People in the chattering classes, people like Lawrence Martin, Jeffrey Simpson and Norman Spector, declaim about the demise of the system and abuses of democracy without understanding that the system is what scoundrels like Elizabeth I, Robert Walpole and Mackenzie King made it - and they made it what it is by turning it to their own advantages.

What Michaëlle Jean did in 2008 was correct in law and by Constitutional convention, which matters more than law. What The Honourable David C. Onley, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario did yesterday is equally legal and proper. Prorogation is a tool - premiers and prime ministers can and will use it as they see fit. The ill informed commentariat doesn't get any say until or unless they win high political office or are sufficiently distinguished to become the Queen's rep.

----------
The Canadian Constitution - the 1867 and 1982 versions, alike - is an amateurish affair. It was a first draft: the first time the gnomes at Whitehall had turned their hands to writing a constitution - and, of course, a first time for a federal constitution in the Westminster system with its requisite division of powers sections. They did much better 40ish years later when they wrote the Australian one and better still, 40ish more years after that when they wrote the modern German Constitution. But ours remains defective in many respects. Prime Minister Trudeau's changes, especially the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, did little - actually nothing - to imrpove things beyond providing gainful employment for lawyers and judges.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is the contrary position, expressed in an editorial in the Globe and Mail. The Globe feels very strongly about this; the editorial appears, in the print editions, on the front page, above the fold, headlined: Prorogation an abuse of power. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/mcguinty-should-reverse-prorogation-action/article4619905/

GLOBE EDITORIAL

The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Oct. 17 2012

The purpose of prorogation is to allow a government to prepare a fresh agenda, to be articulated in a new Speech from the Throne, not to avoid political inconveniences or embarrassments.

Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario, says he asked the Lieutenant-Governor of the province to prorogue the Legislative Assembly so that he can concentrate on the government’s negotiations with schoolteachers and the implementation of a wage freeze.

It is very safe to say that Mr. McGuinty at the least feels no regret that the prorogation has aborted a potential contempt proceeding against two of his cabinet ministers. Or he may have set out to dampen a growing and justified controversy over the costly political cancellation of two gas plants.

The legislature has been adjourned indefinitely. No date has been set for the culmination of the provincial Liberal leadership campaign. At this rate, there will not be a new premier, or a new session of the legislature, until some weeks or months into 2013. In the meantime, there will be no question periods, holding the government to account, including over the gas plant decision. There will be no public scrutiny of proposed legislation. The passing (or rejection) of new statutes, moreover, is an integral part of the governing process; it is not just a matter of major reforms. Without a legislature, a government can work only through administrative actions.

The two prorogations under the federal Conservative government, in 2008 and 2009 – the first of the two was in the face of a no-confidence motion – are conspicuous examples of this pattern of tactical dispensing with legislatures. So is Premier Christy Clark’s long adjournment in British Columbia, which began in May and is likely to last until February, 2013 – shortly before a dissolution and a general election fixed by law for May.

Mr. McGuinty needs to reverse this arbitrary action and request a new session of Ontario’s Legislative Assembly. What sort of legacy would it be, were his last significant act as Premier to involve the subversion of the democratic rights of Ontarians?

While I agree that some prorogations are, indeed, tactical, in fact I would suggest that ALL prorogations are tactical (budgets and elections being strategic events), that does not make them inherently wrong or, in any way undemocratic. The problem is not prorogation, it is that we, voters, accept less than sterling conduct as "normal" from our politicians.

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... ALL prorogations are tactical (budgets and elections being strategic events), that does not make them inherently wrong or, in any way undemocratic.

Among the commentariat, it's "wrong" if they don't agree with/like it.

.... The problem is not prorogation, it is that we, voters, accept less than sterling conduct as "normal" from our politicians.

:goodpost:

 

[Edward Campbell]

I thought members might be interested in how the HoC has changed since 1900.

Note how the political power of the regions has grown (West) and declined (ON, QC and Atlantic) over the century plus.

 

[GAP]

definitely a lesson in relevancy.....

 

[Edward Campbell]

This isn't really a budget, it is the Budget Implementation Bill. The budget, proper, was passed in the spring; but the budget is a plan, not an order. It is, now, necessary to pass legislation to give effect to the budget's various provisions. This is, in fact, the 2nd Budget Implementation Bill, and the second omnibus bill. The first C-38 was passed in the Spring after much, nasty debate; it did not deal with all the measures in the budget, proper. That, multiple budget implementation bills, is actually fairly normal and this bill C-45 aims to finish the business. What is abnormal is the use of two massive omnibus bills.

Parliamentary convention says that Parliament should consider every tax and every expenditure - that is, after all, Parliament's primary raison d'être. In practice Parliament has neither the expertize nor the time to deal with every aspect of a modern, 21st century budget so it has become common to group provisions into several bills dealing with related provisions. This government is trying a different, unpopular method: the big, omnibus bills. Many commentators see this as an affront to democracy and an attempt to reduce parliament to a ceremonial role. That's a bit much but there's no question that most provisions of the 2012 budget will pass without any parliamentary scrutiny and that is a problem, for me.

There has been too little discussion, in Canada at large, about how our parliament exercises its primary duty in the 21st century.

The omnibus Budget Implementation Bill and the Canada-China FIPA both attracted some media attention, but almost always for the wrong reasons, but Parliament said little - not of substance, anyway.

Part of the problem is Prime Minister Stephen Harper's* approach to governing. He is not, despite what many in the commentariat suggest, a bully, but he is impatient with the slow, stately parliamentary processes. In my opinion he is mistaken.

Another part of the problem is that parliamentary committees, which can and have done some very good, useful work, have stagnated in power and utility. Governments, of all stripes, need to recognize that:

    1. Committees can be useful, they can see and recommend ways to rectify weaknesses in legislation drafted by civil servants;** and

    2. Committees can help the government to overcome public resistance by allowing expert witnesses, pro and con, to illuminate the rational for legislation.

A third part of the problem, also related to committees, is that, notwithstanding the time they waste on partisan showboating, not enough members have enough time to give their committee work the attention it deserves. 

Maybe, if Prime Minister Harper would show some patience with parliament and what it can do for him, and maybe if members had more time to work in committee, and maybe if, given more time, they then took their work more seriously then parliament would work better for the government and for the country.

But: I wonder if 338 MPs - what we will have after the next redistribution - are enough.

Some time ago I proposed a 451 seat HoC (which I also modified to a more politically palatable, but less democratic 399 seat HoC) which would, I still believe, address the efficient and effective committee issue I described above by having more members with, consequentially, more time and, possibly, more expertize.

Parliament should have given much, much more attention to both the Budget Implementation Bills and to the Canada-China FIPA but I have sympathy with Prime Minister Harper: consideration, given how committees work, would take too long so he went the omnibus route and, in the case of the FIPA, just rammed it though. I think that more members would make committees more efficient and effective.

My  :2c:

_____
*  Please note that I am a card carrying Conservative who donates pretty much the maximum allowed by law to that party; I like Stephen Harper, I approve of most of his policies; I want his government to be re-elected in 2015, BUT I worry about
    his approach to governing.
** Odd though it may seem, private members bills are often better drafted than government bills. Private members use the staff at the
    Library of Parliament to help them draft bills; the government uses civil servants in line departments. The Library of Parliament is, very often,
    better staffed, qualitatively, than are departments.

 

[a_majoor]

Although the argument is somewhat tounge in cheek, it is interesting to contemplate what, exactly, would happen if a large portion of our elected government were to be removed. Think of the plane crash several years ago which destroyed the entire upper echelon of the Polish leadership. Similarly, a massive attack by (insert terror group here) durig the Speech from the Throne could kill or disable a large number of government officials and elected representatives. Of course if killer robots are rampaging through Ottawa, then all bets are off:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/02/matt-gurney-if-cylons-nuke-ottawa-cant-someone-elected-take-over/

Matt Gurney: If Cylons nuke Ottawa, can’t someone elected take over?

Matt Gurney | Nov 2, 2012 10:49 AM ET | Last Updated: Nov 2, 2012 12:15 PM ET
More from Matt Gurney | @mattgurney

In the Postmedia newspapers on Friday, reporter Lee Berthiaume compared Canada’s planned chain of leadership succession against the fictional benchmark set in the 2004 reboot of the sci-fi classic Battlestar Galactica. And his findings should give every Canadian pause.

In that show, the human race is virtually annihilated in a massive surprise attack by intelligent robots that we had created to serve us, with predictable anti-human results. With mankind’s cities nuked into oblivion on all of the 12 Colonies of Man and the human race reduced to a few thousand people scattered among various far-flung spaceships, the leadership of the survivors falls to Laura Roslin — a politically compromised, physically unwell woman who is the 43rd most senior official in the line of succession. And the most senior official left alive after the bombs fall.

There are many valuable lessons that can be drawn from Battlestar Galactica, not least of which is the importance of remaining eternally vigilant against all foreign foes. Especially angry, religious robots that were designed specifically to kill human beings and are capable of swiftly hacking any computer system. Indeed, that latter point is especially relevant given revelations in the recent Auditor-General’s report about the poor state of Canadian cybersecurity.

It must be pointed out that the humans’ defensive arm, the Colonial Fleet, was a far superior battle force than the Cylon armada that destroyed our worlds. It was only cyber warfare that allowed the Cylons to kill us by the billions after disabling our defences in the opening moves of their attack. The Colonial Fleet was appropriately deployed to fight a conventional war, so the Cylons attacked with unconventional means. There can be no better object lesson about the danger of always being ready to fight the last war while your enemies innovate and plan. (Because, as we know, the Cylons do have a Plan.)

For Canada, there are other lessons to be found in the Fall of the 12 Colonies. First and foremost is the need for a government to maintain democratic legitimacy, whether conducting daily business or fleeing into deep space, way past the Red Line, to avoid genocide. And that requires robust safeguards in case of the unthinkable.

Our line of succession, as the Postmedia story points out, doesn’t have 43 rungs down that particular ladder. The lowest we could go is down to good old number 37 —the Honourable Bal Gosal, Minister of State (Sport). But if Canada were to be subjected to an attack that wasn’t quite as catastrophic as the Fall of the 12 Colonies of Man — if, for example, Prime Minister Harper were to die of natural causes — who would take over?

Senator Marjory LeBreton.

Really?

No disrespect is intended to Senator LeBreton, who has a long and distinguished record of public service. She is a senior official in Mr. Harper’s government and has always served with distinction. But when one looks through her past accomplishments, one that is notably absent is winning an election. Senator LeBreton was appointed to the Senate by Brian Mulroney after years of faithful service as a Tory staffer. While this certainly leaves Senator LeBreton well equipped to understand how our federal government (or what’s left of it) would function, it also means that Canada could conceivably find itself with a prime minister who has never been elected to office. That’s unacceptable.

This is not a quirk unique to Canada. When Laura Roslin took command of the scattered human survivors, her past professional experience (before becoming secretary of education) was being a school teacher. And the United States’ line of succession also falls to unelected officials any lower than the third successor.

But while Canada may not be alone in selecting unelected officials to assume leadership in the aftermath of crises both small and existential, it is still wrong to dismiss the meaning of democracy. Should our government ever need to reassemble itself, it is appropriate that the spirit of democracy be respected, even if reality dictates some pragmatic flexibility on the finer points. Jason Kenney, who is third in line after Senator LeBreton, may not possess all of her strengths, but he does have one thing in his favour: He was chosen by the people of his constituency to represent them in a free and fair election. The Tories, with their traditional focus on increasing the democractic legitimacy of the Senate, should have known this.

The difference between Senator LeBreton and Mr. Kenney might not mean much in the face of homicidal cybernetic lifeforms and their space-borne nuclear arsenals. But it ought to mean something to us.

National Post
mgurney@nationalpost.com

 

[Sythen]

Although the argument is somewhat tounge in cheek, it is interesting to contemplate what, exactly, would happen if a large portion of our elected government were to be removed. Think of the plane crash several years ago which destroyed the entire upper echelon of the Polish leadership. Similarly, a massive attack by (insert terror group here) durig the Speech from the Throne could kill or disable a large number of government officials and elected representatives. Of course if killer robots are rampaging through Ottawa, then all bets are off:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/02/matt-gurney-if-cylons-nuke-ottawa-cant-someone-elected-take-over/

Just wow.. I found it so unbelievable that I actually had to fact check it myself. This is totally unacceptable to me. Sending an email to my MP as well as the PM as soon as I get home. Under no circumstance should Canada be lead by an unelected person. We're not the EU here.