Independent Caucus's for the Senate

The Senate has just voted for a major shake-up of how members of the Red Chamber align themselves by allowing nine or more members to form a caucus, a substantial break from tradition that has historically seen the place organized along party lines.
A small but important step forward in my view, I continue to believe that we need this body to examine and offer revisions upon legislation proposed by the government (particularly majority governments) and any move to give more resources to “independents” and move away from partisan decisions is a good thing IMHO.


The motion directs the Senate rules committee to now formalize the changes, and then requests the internal economy committee — which effectively governs the chamber and adjudicates complaints — to draw-up budgets for these prospective new caucuses, to help hire staff for "secretariats" and pursue research projects. The motion was adopted by a voice vote, so it is not clear how much support it had from the existing parties.
Now if only “independent” and minority caucus's in the House of Commons could get equal access to resources for their MP's


Because he faced a significant list of vacancies when he assumed office, Trudeau has been able to appoint a large number of new senators in a relatively short time through a "merit-based" application process. In the last year alone, 27 senators have been appointed and a further 11 senators will be appointed by the year's end (or 38 out of a total 105 senators).
Virtually all of these new appointees have joined together with a handful of other senators — who left the Liberal or Conservative caucuses for various reasons — to create the Independent Senators Group (ISG) led by Alberta Senator Elaine McCoy, who acts as its leader or "convenor." (The caucus definition change also formally brings the ISG under the Senate's rules.)
I note that Senator Elaine McCoy has been a self identified “independent” for many years, long before Trudeau started appointing “non partisan” senators.


Wells said while the new senators were appointed as Independents, they have since realized it is beneficial to caucus together to share money, staff and other resources.
I really hope this does not encourage the groups to morf into partisan voting blocks but simply encourages independent thinkers to cooperate and find consensus on matters of particular interest to them.





Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

When The Senate Works As It Should.....

After years of the Conservative dominated Senate rubber stamping legislation and blocking amendments in committee we now have a situation where they are doing their job and proposing changes to a clearly flawed bill. Despite the Liberals using their majority to turn down all of the many amendments propped in the House to the Assisted dieing legislation it is fairly well established that as written it will not pass the constitutional test and the Senate has proposed a change to correct this, the reaction is perhaps predictable.
Both the Conservatives and some others are screaming that this is going to produce a parliamentary deadlock in that the minister responsible continues to defend the bill as written and shows no indication of accepting the senates recommendations. It has yet to be seen in both sides dig their heels in and compromise cannot be found bur the rhetoric that says the Senate is interfering with the process of passing this legislation is pure bloody nonsense! Their job is to study legislation in depth, including the constitutionality of it, and propose corrections to it for the House to consider, that in the past when the majority party numbers in the House and the Senate have coincided and flawed bills have not been properly examined or changed does not mean that such actions are correct or desirable. I am sure that there have also be periods when the majorities did not coincide and bills have been “held up” in the Senate before.
Although the number of “independent” senators in the chamber is not substantive (yet) the general tone of the place seems to be improving and the partisanship reducing, now if we can get the Liberals in the HoC to stop “acting like the previous government” and be more accepting of amendments to proposed legislation be it from their fellow MPs or from the Senate we might have something going right for a change. This has also happened to another bill before the Senate, the RCMP Union legislation!


Let us wait and see how the changes are dealt with when the bills are returned to to the House, it will be another definitive test of whether the election promises and rhetoric were meaningful or just that, promises and rhetoric! Step one, a totally free vote by all partys on this important issue when it gets back to the House.




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

When is our raise coming?

Members of Parliament and senators will get a $3,000 increase Friday in their base salary, while cabinet ministers and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will receive a larger raise – at a time when Canadians are struggling with stagnant wages and rising unemployment.
The wage hike of 1.8 per cent for MPs and 2.1 per cent for senators is about four times what the federal government has offered public sector unions and executives in the federal public service.................
Federal legislation automatically gives MPs an annual pay hike on April 1 that’s equal to the average percentage increase negotiated by unions with 500 or more employees in the private sector. The data are published by Employment and Social Development Canada.
The pay hike for MPs is nearly double the average increase of one per cent that public sector unions negotiated in jurisdictions across Canada in 2015.
MPs have the option of freezing their own salaries through federal legislation, but the government has decided not to do so. Salaries for MPs were frozen at 2009-10 levels until the end of the 2012-13 fiscal year under legislation introduced and passed by the former Conservative government...............
Since the MP wage freeze was lifted in 2013, the base salary of members of Parliament has increased eight per cent, from $157,731.
Taxpayers will cough up an extra $25.4 million for an increase of 20 per cent to office budgets for MPs and House of Commons officers that also takes effect Friday.


“I don’t think most Canadians have much sympathy for the notion that MPs need a pay hike, considering they already earn far more than the average Canadian.” said Aaron Wudrick, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.


And he would be right about that, why is it that their compensation is based upon average PRIVATE sector UNION wages when by far the greatest number of taxpayers are paid far less than union rates and rarely if ever see raises of any amount. Next thing you know they will want to be paid for two weeks of sick days just like or poor hard done by teachers .....oh wait, they get paid whether they show up or not don’t they Mr Harper?

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Goodby Harper, Hello Canada

I am going to be taking a short break from my weekly blogging over the holidays but before I do I wanted to write a little of my personal thoughts as to what I hope the new year will bring. I will admit to being very optimistic, perhaps too much so, for a return to a kinder, more inclusive, caring Canada as detailed by our new governments many proposed changes to things that were ignored, closed, silenced or abused by the previous regime. Just the tone of the PM and his various ministers gives me a renewed sense of hope for the future, a positive outlook and the reinvesting in people, the openness in listening to, and inviting such dialogue from, the provinces, the scientific community, our environmental groups and our native peoples is so refreshing.
I am not so naive as to believe that all the promises will be achieved in the next year or more, or even ever, but the fact that they are trying thus far for that “open and accountable” government promised to us so many times before is to be supported and encouraged. The reinstatement of the census, the unmuzzleing of our scientists and diplomats, the freedom of our charities to express an opinion without fear, the invitation to all Partys and Provinces to join the delegation at the climate change talks all show a real desire to actually fulfil such promises.
Its not going to be all plain sailing, the very practical proposals for appointing Senators (something that must be done if we are going to have a functional parliamentary system) is already being criticized by some of the very people who would have an increased say in such appointments, namely the Provinces. In trying to ensure a non partisan Senate but still be able to introduce government bills to that chamber previous procedures will need to be changed and some Senators are trying to do just that but some outside the chamber are going to do everything they can to block any efforts to make such changes. The new opposition, who are now in the same position as the Liberals were just a few brief weeks ago, are naturally against almost any move to undo legislation or decisions forced through whist they were in power. I hope they will learn to be a little less partisan with their rhetoric and debate future bills upon their merit, but I doubt that will happen. Just trying to form parliamentary committees has already turned into a squabble as to who can serve on or attend meetings.


So here is my message for 2016. Let us support and encourage the positive change that the new government is proposing, let us ensure that they keep their promises of consulting with the Provinces on shared issues, let us make sure that that open and accountable thing does not drop from sight again and, yes, let us hope for more 'Sunny Days' ahead for Canada.


I will be back in January with some thoughts upon the choices to be made in bringing in Electoral Reform. As Peter Lowry says “What we really need in considering these questions is people with open minds. You simply cannot consider solutions to the voting system until you have a clear idea of why you want to change it and what really are the options available. This is not as simple as people think.”

Meanwhile I wish all my readers Happy Holidays and a productive and prosperous 2016


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Party Platforms, some thoughts!

If the choice is between fixing the hole in the roof and remortgaging the house then the choice is obvious, particularly with the interest rates so low. Throwing a tarp over it and putting a bucket under the drips is not a long term viable solution, that for so many of us finding a job to even purchase a tarp is a major problem simply highlights the position we are in both individually and as a country. If the roof has been leaking for some time and just moving the buckets around as needed was the solution chosen then simply doing more of the same is equally illogical. When your accountant then proposes that you go out and buy a shiny new Caddy with the money you did not know you had, saved by not fixing the roof, would you rehire him!


With Harper promising billions in funding for various projects across the country despite the numbers that put us in recession whilst at the same time saying that there is / will be a surplus of income over spending is troubling enough but that Mulclair is echoing that scenario is bizarre. Anyone who thinks that the books will be shown to be in the black when the 'new' government is sworn in must be drinking more than coolaid and to promise that all the goodies being proposed can then be paid for without substantial new income is a fantasy. The fantasy includes the recently announced $1.9-billion surplus for 2014-15, a $4 billion jump from the announced deficit just a few months ago and revealed just a month before the election....are you kidding?. The deficit still exists even if only in unfulfilled promises and programs! Of course close examination of many of the promises reveal that the amounts flaunted are to be trickled out over several years, in some cases even decades, and thus can be reduced, redirected or cancelled as required. It is the promise of big bucks for this or that that gets the attention of far too many voters.


It is understandable that all the partys (except the Greens) are reluctant to talk about minority and / or coalition government, they all want the power to pass legislation of their choice without having to 'comprise' by 'cooperating' with those damned folk from other partys who have been elected by their constituents to represent then in our search for a better Canada. We have seen what majority government has brought about, and it has not been pretty, whilst the Cons have been particularly destructive of process and ideologically rigid I suspect any party with a majority will not embrace 'comprise' and 'cooperation' which to my mind is what we need to move forward.


I will be very surprised if we are not in a minority situation come October and that will at a minimum require two or more partys to work together to undo the Havoc that Harper has wrought be it on a case by case basis or on a more formal agreement. I applaud Elizabeth May's efforts to get a conversation started about this possibility (probability?) BEFORE we find ourselves in another constitutional crisis. We cannot forget that despite Harper & Mulclair having said they will not appoint senators and that they want to abolish it, it still is part of our parliamentary process and legislation must be passed in the senate before becoming law. That as it sits now it is a body dominated by Conservative appointees who can be counted upon to oppose just about anything that does not fit their view of the world will be difficult enough without adding further dis-functionality to that body by calling in to doubt its legitimacy.


All the opposition partys are promising to move towards election reform, the Libs say they will introduce a new voting system in time for the 2019 election, are leaning towards a preferential voting system but will form a committee to study it first. The NDP say that they will impose a Mixed Member Proportional system and the Greens have long advocated for change and say that they will “establish an all-party Democratic Voting Commission to review past research and conduct a public consultation on the style of proportional representation best suited to Canada.” With even those of us who strongly flavor electoral reform unable to agree on which of the several systems and variations of same is the best option this one is going to be difficult for all concerned. Then there is parliamentary reform, the return to following the traditional rules and strengthening the system so it cannot be abused as it has been in recent years. Little has been said about that by the partys, they are all too busy trying to GET power rather than restrict and share it!


Finally, little has been said about reinstating our scientific research, Census Canada data collecting, environmental protections, search and rescue capability, social support mechanisms etc etc etc gutted by the Con Regime. These things will all take time and money and require a vibrant “economy” with folks able to finds jobs and pay taxes, stopping the exodus of corporations to other jurisdictions and ensuring those that do stay pay their fair share. In short we need a leader and a government that instills confidence in Canada both internally and overseas, are any of the partys going to provide this dramatic change so desperately needed? Frankly I see a few glimmers of light but still await the rising of the sun over Canada bringing a new era of our 'representatives' working together to bring a new day to our diverse country.


Who is going to be that bright light, I have no idea!





Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Harper History, Part 8 – Senate reform / suspensions, Election Act

2013 – 2014
Even with the ongoing Senate expense scandal, the Robocall investigation crawling along (much delayed by the presence of the Conservative lawyer at E.C. Interviews) another suspension of parliament for no apparent reason followed up by another massive austerity budget it was the (un)Fair Elections Act that got all the attention during this period. The closing or cuts to any number of federal programs and departments continued, many aimed at scientific, public safety and oversight areas, in an apparent effort to be able to 'balance' the budget just before the 2015 election. It becomes increasingly difficult to see the attacks upon our democratic systems through the BS being spread by the PMO and their ever increasing advertising budget, that difficulty is reflected in many such instances not being listed in this post.

July 2013
Harper’s approach to risk management is illustrated by a deliberate process of offloading costs on the provinces and cuts to essential services. As shown by a reduction in support for heavy urban search and rescue teams (HUSAR) in Vancouver, Calgary, St. Boniface, Toronto and Halifax. Meanwhile, a training center for first responders that was run by Public Safety Canada has been shut down and the Canadian Center for Emergency Preparedness has ceased operations.
August
The Minister of State for (un)Democratic Reform, Pierre Poilievre, held a press conferance to reiterate the Harper regimes position is that it can proceed unilaterally on Senate reform and to outline what they have presented to the Supreme Court of Canada in this regard. As expected by most constitutional scholars this idea was rejected by the court.

Forest Ethics Advocacy, launched a constitutional challenge to new requirements in the National Energy Board Act that place severe restrictions placed upon public comment by Bill C-38 whereby any citizen wishing to comment upon projects, even those directly affected, are effectively prevented from doing so have the effect of silencing citizens concerned about tar sands pipelines.
Sep. 13, 2013
For the third time Haper Prorouges parliment in a move that ensures he won’t face opposition questions on the Senate expenses scandal for an extra month, saying that most of the promises the Conservatives made in the last election have been fulfilled. Upon returning in October however he promptly reintroduced nearly all the government bills that were killed by the suspension of parliament.
November
The Senate flexed its muscle Tuesday and in an unprecedented move the Senate suspended three of its members —Conservative Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau — out of the chamber, cutting their salaries and use of office resources. Some senators said that the suspensions largely supported by the Conservatives was as much about politics as expense claims and the process was flawed.

In a more directed to sideline independent MPs and more particularly the Green Party the right of independent and small party MP's right to intervene at the report stage of proposed legislation was removed.

At the Conservative convention the ruling regime came out AGAINST proportional representation and for 'riding equality' whatever that means! It must be noted that in 1997 when in a minority position an essay penned by Stephen Harper and Tom Flanagan extolled the virtues of both proportional voting systems and coalition governments however once brought to power by the FPTP that idea quickly disappeared.Program budgets show cuts to programs focused on aviation, marine and rail safety and security at Transport Canada as well as reduced spending on food safety at Agriculture Canada. At the same time other less essential departments such as the PMO and their advertising budget are increasing substantialy.
In a closed-door session with dozens of bureaucrats (information commissioner) Suzanne Legault cited a series of novel measures she says are damaging an already tottering system. "I am seeing signs of a system in crisis, where departments are unable to fulfil even their most basic obligations under the act," Legault told the group.

As an example, she cited a directive in April this year from the Treasury Board warning bureaucrats to steer clear of ministers' offices when looking for documents to respond to an access-to-information request.

In other words the bureaucrats have been told to not even look in certain places so that they can say that they found nothing!!

"When the access system falters," she said, "not only is Canadians' participation in government thwarted, but ultimately the health of Canadian democracy is at stake."

A group of Conservative MPs has been meeting secretly for well over a year, discussing ways to inject more democracy into the Commons. One of the solutions they have embraced is the removal of the leader’s power to veto individual candidates.
Michael Chong is expected to table a private members’ bill that would change the leader power over candidate nominations.This he did and the bill eventually passed but in such a watered down form as to all but meaningless.

Finally in November having said two years ago that the data collection for the Artic claim was complete, and having reduced our government scientific community to a shadow of its former strength, just a few days before the submission was due to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf Harper suddenly said the submission was incomplete because it 'did not include the north pole'.
December

Quantity not Quality is apparently the Harper regimes measure of 'success'

Mr. Van Loan extolled the virtues of the 34-day fall session, which started late because of prorogation and was adjourned early. He said 2013 was the most productive year on record, with 40 bills receiving Royal Assent. “ “That’s something we can all be proud of. It shows how Parliament is working better than ever right now,” he said. With many bills rammed through the House by government limiting debate and using their majority to pass flawed and controversial legislation most Canadians would beg to differ!
January 2014
It was revealed that in addition to the 'consolidation' of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans libraries, where reports say that despite assurances that much of the material would be digitized a large number of books and papers have been destroyed without such backup, the Libraries of Heath Canada are now under attack. Many scientists were so concerned about losing access to their research library that some are hording journals and books in their garages for colleagues to consult. This after a report calling for the libraries to NOT be closed was rejected as 'flawed' (i.e. Not the answer that was required) and the library's collection was moved to the National Science Library and the inter-library loan functions were outsourced to a private company.'If you want to justify closing a library, you make access difficult and then you say it is hardly used.'— Dr. Rudi Mueller, retired Health Canada pathologist
February
Just a day after the 242-page (un)Fair Elections Act was tabled House Leader Peter Van Loan gave notice that the government will vote to send the bill to committee the following day, a move that seemed to signal the government plans to push the bill through the legislative process without changes.
What follows is just a very small selection of the opposition expressed about this bill.In an interview on CBC Radio Canada's Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand said "my reading of the act is that I can no longer speak about democracy in this country." it "limits the chief electoral officer's power to provide information to the public."
Under the proposed bill, the only role of the chief electoral officer would be to inform the public of when, where, and how to vote. Elections Canada would be forbidden from launching ad campaigns encouraging Canadians to vote. Surveys and research would be forbidden under the new bill, Mayrand said.
Ed Broadbent
Past governments have avoided turning democratic process into a tool for one party’s advantage. Changes in electoral processes were always based on all-party consensus.
That Harper derides such all-party consensus is, sadly, no surprise. That his robotic backbench will unquestioningly obey is not news either. Except now, the victims of his disregard for debate aren’t only the people we elect. It’s those doing the electing as well.
A letter signed by over 150 professors at Canadian universities who teach and conduct research on the principles and practices of constitutional democracies, including 15 past presidents of the Canadian Political Science Association.
We, the undersigned — professors at Canadian universities who study the principles and institutions of constitutional democracy — believe that the Fair Elections Act (Bill C-23), if passed, would damage the institution at the heart of our country’s democracy: voting in federal elections.
More at undemocratic-democratic-reform
19 international Scholars from six democracy’s across the world add their voice to the over 150 Canadian scholars and almost universal condemnation of the Harper Regime's attempt to introduce partisan bias into our election rules and to reduce the powers of the world respected Elections Canada We, the undersigned, international scholars and political scientists, are concerned that Canada’s international reputation as one of the world’s guardians of democracy and human rights is threatened by passage of the proposed Fair Elections Act.
More at electoral-integrity-of-act-questioned
With the Elections act dominating the news and the legislature agenda the House Affairs Committee studying the bill conducted one day of hearings after MPs returned from the spring break before going into a rushed clause-by-clause review ending May 1. “Clause-by-clause review will begin Tuesday, April 29 with morning and evening meetings for three days until it wraps up May 1.” On May 14^th 2014 the deeply flawed “fair” Elections Act passed final reading with a few amendments that public pressure made the Cons include but without the dozens of amendments proposed by the opposition and without even considering the 75 amendments that the Greens were not even permitted to table.
Returning to other issues in the spring of 2014
Tabled around the same time as the (un)Fair Elections Act the 2014 - 359 page budget received little attention but the budget projections, including a cushion of reserve cash, show a deficit of $2.9-billion for the 2014-2015 year. To get there Harper “delayed” $3-billion in defence spending and saved more than $1-billion annually by clawing back health benefits for public-sector retirees.

According to the 2013 annual Public Works ad report, (released in 2014), Canada spent more than $14 million on advertising Canada’s Economic Action Plan (which was called “propaganda” by survey respondents) and an additional $8.2 million on its Responsible Resource Development campaign (which was, in part, responsible for Canada's severely weakened environmental legislation). Both advertising campaigns placed heavy emphasis on the Alberta oilsands as central to Canada’s economic future.
These two campaigns were Canada’s most expensive advertising projects for the 2012-2013 fiscal year, dwarfing the amount of money spent on any other advertising effort.
The $1.25 million supplied to News Canada for publicity work falls outside the disclosed advertising funds mentioned in Public Works annual report, meaning this is additional money devoted to government communications above and beyond its advertising efforts.
March 28, 2014 The ongoing Elections act cluster fk successfully distracted from the latest omnibus budget from the Harper Regime, hardy a word has been seen about the 350 page “Harper Government Creating Jobs & Growth While Returning to Balanced Budgets With Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1.”. Yep, we are back to that H*&^%$# Government thing again........ Also in March The Harper Regime having eliminated the long form Census thus also eliminating reliable information on the economic and social status of various areas and communities across the country then cut Statscan's budget.

Like many other departments (with the notable exception of the PMO) their budget has been cut. Statscan’s budget has fallen by $29.3-million in the past two years, and its staffing has fallen by 767 people and do not have the staff to analyze what little data that the elimination of the long form census has left available. Experts, including the C.D. Howe Institute and numerous economists, have said the quality of Canada’s labour market data is so poor that it is impossible to know for sure whether there is a serious labour shortage. Statistics Canada eventually withheld the release of survey data for one of every four municipalities and other census sub-divisions because of the poor quality of the numbers.
"As a result of data not being released due to quality concerns, potential users of this data for approximately 25 per cent of geographic areas do not have reliable National Household Survey data available for their use,"
AprilAfter commissioning a survey of 25,000 employers that cost $4.6-million to shed light on the extent of the country’s skills gap it was not published due to “ we have no funding for it, we’re reviewing the data so that we can document how well the survey worked”.
In a similar mindset it seems that a survey of the effectiveness the $15 million (2013) Economic (In)action Plan advertising that was taken at a cost of $31,000 now omits to ask whether those that saw them actually took any notice or went to the web site.

Over several moths in the spring of 2014 the Harper regime lost a series of Supreme Court rulings including the government's attempt to gain some clarity about its powers to change — or failing that, abolish — the Senate ran into a constitutional brick wall. The court ruled that reforms, including term limits or Senate elections, or abolishing the Senate altogether, could only be done with the consent of at least seven provinces representing at least half of the population. Also an attempt to prevent medical marijuana users from growing pot at home was defeated, the Court also ruled that cuts to health care for refugee claimants were "cruel and unusual" and that internet service providers must not disclose names, addresses and phone numbers of their customers to law enforcement officials without a warrant.

In the final article in this series we will attempt to make sense of the pre-election promises, misinformation and ongoing personal attacks issuing from the Harper spin machine, all of which were already in full swing more than a year ahead of the election.Please Note
Parts 1 to 5 are now available as one long document (19 pages - 7900 words) in chronological order and may be viewed, shared and downloaded on Google Docs. Due to the large number of embedded links I recommend you import it as a Docx, ODF Doc or HTML so that you may follow the references if you wish for more information on a particular issue.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Senate Reform Redux

With a small minority of senators under the spotlight for spending irregularities and the Duffy trial adding a further spotlight on how the unprincipled nominated to that body can cheat the system (such as it is) there are the predictable calls for it to be abolished. NDP leader Thomas Mulclair is one such individual, he has said that if elected he will consult with the Premiers to try and come to an agreement to do so, I call this simply political expediency! He knows full well that it will be almost impossible to obtain the unanimous consent of all provinces plus the majority of the House and the Senate required to abolish this institution. He also says that he has yet to meet anyone who does not support his position on this...... what bloody nonsense! I wish politicians would not lie to make their point, whilst there are no doubt many folks that subscribe to his point of view on this some of us look at it in a somewhat more practical way and want major reform, clearly defined rules, and a non partisan way of selecting senators.


My own particular opposition to the elimination of the senate stems a great deal from the Harper Regime's actions regarding legislation since they have had a majority, whilst we know that they have a majority in both the House and the Senate and thus have basically forced bills through with little debate and no regard for the many thoughtful amendments put forward in both houses the senate has at least added to the discussion and given a little time for “second thought”. Imagine if there were no Senate and a majority government (of any stripe), what then would be the restraint upon an ideological government such as the one we have now from ramming through self serving or clearly anti-Canadian or pro foreign corporation legislation without restriction. It would bring us even closer to a dictatorship than we are now!


Although now that the brown stuff has hit the fan Harper insists that “As you know, the Senate is an independent body and the Senate is responsible for its own expenses. The Senate itself commissioned the Auditor-Generals’ report and the Senate itself is responsible for responding to that report,” we know that currently that is not the case and it is for the most part a highly partisan body not known in recent years for its independent thinking.


YES, the chamber needs reform, the way of selecting members needs to be changed (Harpers choices have clearly demonstrated that) but in my view we DO need a chamber of “sober second thought”, it just that right now we have a chamber of partisan appointees some of whom have no regard for either the taxpayer or the need for the independence of the senate. I have said before on these pages that the best solution (without reopening the can of worms that opening the constitution would involve) is to have the PM voluntarily select Senators from a short list provided by the provinces, it seems that Brian Mulroney agrees with me (or I agree with him, that would be a first!). I all so happen to agree with him that some kind of independent panel / commission needs to review and establish some set rules for the way the Senate operates. As with the Liberal proposal to “create a new, nonpartisan, merit-based, broad, and diverse process to advise the Prime Minister on Senate appointments” the problem will be of course who appoints the panel and will Parliament and the Senate adopt any rules proposed?


One final word on this, if we were to do away with any government institution that broke the rules, whose members spent public moneys with little or no oversight and who set their own rules as and when they thought fit, then the PMO, the House of Commons and the Conservative caucus in particular would be high on my list. Last year, when Green Party Leader Elizabeth May proposed the AG come look at MPs’ books, Tory MPs vetoed her request however now all parties say they are open to the idea but have yet to actually request said audit!


Its not the Senate (or the House of Commons) thats the problem, its those self righteous appointees that are in it who have no moral compass and who do not understand the word ethical!
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Meaningful Changes or Lipstick on the Pig?

In the unholy rush to jam their Unfair Elections Act through before the majority of Canadians realise just how bad and self-serving piece of legislation it is the Harper regieme has asked the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to “pre-study” it. In short order the Conservative-dominated committee has come back with a number of changes that it would like to see, remember this is just a “pre-study” not full hearings and that the House of Commons has yet to finish its initial study of this bill. The House Affairs Committee studying the bill will conduct one more day of hearings when MPs return from a two-week break April 28, before going into a rushed clause-by-clause review ending May 1. “Clause-by-clause review will begin Tuesday, April 29 with morning and evening meetings for three days until it wraps up May 1.” 'Rushed' hardly covers it, this is legislation that changes the very fundamental way in which elections are held and funded and should not be rushed or subject to any limitations of debate or public scrutiny. In May it will then (presumably) go to the senate for a full (rushed?) committee study.


There are those who feel that the changes that the senate so quickly proposed are simply “putting lipstick on the pig” or as Tim Harper of the Star puts it:- “What Conservatives senators have really done is give the government cover to suddenly shift course, drop their bullying demeanour and pretend to be reasonable and conciliatory then go ahead and pass a deeply flawed bill with nothing more than cosmetic tweaks.”
I cannot help but agree with his opinion that “That {this} adds to the odds that somehow the proposed amendments will be given more weight than they are worth, wrapping this saga up with a nice bow, as the Senate flexes its muscle and the Harper governments feigns flexibility.”


Indeed whilst the changes propose include 'that attestations of name and address be given by authorities such as homeless shelters, student and senior’s residences, removing a spending loophole that would allow parties to exclude money spent on certain fundraising activities, and permitting Elections Canada to continue with certain education programs' that hardly touches the edges of what is wrong with this bill. Are these amendments just a distraction from the core faults, as Elizabeth May of the Green Party and long advocate for democratic reform said she thinks there’s a willingness from the government to consider amendments to the bill’s provisions on vouching. She’s worried that if all the focus is placed there, though, the bill could still pass without amending other provisions concerning the appointment of partisan poll workers, the muzzling of Elections Canada, and a fundraising loophole for party election financing.
“The list of things that are wrong with this bill is a very long list. If the vouching provisions have settled in the public imagination as what’s wrong with the bill, fixing those might make people think that the whole process is okay. It won’t be okay,” she said.

The issue of vouching has indeed received the majority of the public criticism but is perhaps the one issue where this bill could be challenged in the courts in that it would possibly disenfranchise some voters “Pierre Lortie, who chaired a royal commission on electoral reform in the early ’90s, told the House Affairs Committee the bill would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”


That however is no guarantee that the bill will be changed in any meaningful way or that other antidemocratic and self-serving measures will not remain and be jammed though and become law. As Ms May puts it in an interview to the Hill Times “I think it sets a new record for a government bill that can’t find a single expert to support the government bill,” “[Conservatives] keep claiming they have everyday Canadians who support the bill. I haven’t seen any of those, either.”


As I said above and Ms May has indicated the vouching thing may well distract from some of the other terrible proposals in this bill but never the less she has, as always, clearly outlined this particular problem in her recent article for the Times Colonist.


“The repetition of the 39 pieces of ID has become part of the disinformation that could lead to a loss of voter rights in the next election. A passport won’t work by itself because it does not include an address. A driver’s licence only works if it includes a street address and not a post office box, as is the case in many rural areas. If you have moved and your driver’s licence shows your previous address, you won’t have adequate ID. The requirement is for something with a photo ID and your address or just the right combination of two (or more) other identifiers, even without a photo ID.
Here’s a hypothetical. Imagine my daughter, currently a student in Halifax, went to the polling station bringing along six pieces of ID from the list — just to be on the safe side — her birth certificate, her student ID, her driver’s licence, her health card, her passport and her transcript. All are listed as acceptable on the Elections Canada website.
Could she vote? No. None of these forms of ID will include her current address. She does pay for utilities in her Halifax apartment. The utility bill is listed as an acceptable proof of address, in conjunction with her other ID. So, she runs back to her apartment, prints out her online utility bill and gets back to the polling station.
Can she vote now? No. The utility statement must be one mailed to the customer, not one printed out from online billing.”
As a rural resident whose wife worked on the 'revisions' for voters in the last elections I can say that rural addressing in particular is a major problem in this regard. It is improving with the use of 'fire numbers' in many municipality’s but the vulgarities of rural addressing DO create some unique problems where the address on you identification is expected to match that in the Elections Canada listings!



Wake up Canada, our democracy has become a shadow of its former self ever-since the Harper Regime received their false majority, it is now being threatened with a poison pill that would put it in further jeopardy. Speak up, only immense public pressure will stop these Oligarch from destroying our long internationally admired election oversight system and even that may not be enough to stop them!








Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

An Independent Senate – We can but hope!

“I call upon the Prime Minister to publicly commit, as I have today, to be guided in all future Senate appointments by an open, transparent, non-partisan process, and once appointed, have senators sit independent from the political parties that serve in in the House of Commons.
Justin Trudeou Jan 29 2014

By now you all know that in a surprising and brave move the Liberal leader has released all the former Liberal Senators from any connection from the Liberal Caucus saying that “only elected Members of the House of Commons will serve as members of the Liberal Caucus. “ Whilst this move is not without its problems, not the least of which is how Senate committees will be formed and chaired in the future, it is in my view probably the only way in the short term to return the Senate to its role of 'sober second thought' and reduce the extreme partisanship that has made it simply a rubber stamp of the PMO. That Mr Trudeau also says what many of us who believe the senate has in the past (and can in the future) have an important role in our parliamentary system have said for some time is also encouraging. That being:-

“I’m committing today that, if I earn the privilege of serving Canadians as their Prime Minister, I will put in place an open, transparent, non-partisan public process for appointing and confirming Senators. No more closed doors. No more secretive deliberations. No more announcements the week before Christmas, under the cover of darkness.”

There already has been a great deal of debate upon exactly what kind of process such a system will entail and no doubt there will be much more. As always the devil is in the details! We know that Harper has asked the Supreme Court of Canada to rule upon exactly what can and cannot be done within the existing constitutional framework and you may be sure that if he cannot hold sway over decisions in the Senate his preference would be to abolish it (as it would seem is also the preference of the NDP) so that a PM who holds a majority (preferably him of course) can have total control over legislation. Justin covers this point thusly:-

As an unelected body, there are — and ought to be — limits on the Senate’s power. These limits have expanded over time and have become conventions. These proposals are in keeping with that direction.

As you all know, the Supreme Court of Canada will rule sometime soon on the exact limits of the House of Commons power as it relates to Senate Reform. Let me be clear on this point: these proposals, while bold and concrete, are not the final word. They represent our judgment of how far we can go in the absence of guidance from the Supreme Court.

In other words, I believe this is the most meaningful action possible without opening up the Constitution. If the Supreme Court says more can be done, we will be open to doing more.

All in all despite some of the details that will need to be sorted out in both the actual operation of the Senate with no party caucuses and the way in which future Senators are selected (perhaps recommended to the PM would be a better term as under the constitution the PM must still 'appoint' the senators) this in my view a fantastic move by the Liberals. Some have already said that:-

“when (when, not if) Trudeau is Prime Minister, he will have a problem. Every single piece of legislation must pass the Upper House, the unelected side. To do that with a chamber for of independents will be hard, if not impossible. When push comes to shove, independents will flex their political muscle. They will pass nothing that they don’t approve of, Senate traditions not withstanding.”

I disagree, A senate full of independents would work EXACTLY how it was supposed to work, legislation would pass or fail entirely upon its merits rather that along partisan lines, now wouldn’t that be refreshing? Its not like should the Liberals come to power that all those Con Senators appointed by Harper will suddenly disappear, they will in fact be an undemocratic presence in the upper chamber for years to come. We hope that at least some of them will declare themselves independent and think and act independently, it would indeed be a step in the right direction, as is this brought to our attention by Nancy over at Impolitical:-


“This may be a nod to the democratic reform resolution that the federal Liberal MP caucus has proposed as one of its priority resolutions to be voted upon at the upcoming February biennial policy convention in Montreal, less than a month away now. That resolution, Bolstering Canada's Democracy, contains this operative proposal:

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT immediately after the next election, the Liberal Party of Canada institute an all-Party process, involving expert assistance and citizen participation, to report to Parliament within 12 months with analysis and recommendations for an electoral system including, without limitation, a preferential ballot and/or a form of proportional representation, to represent all Canadians more fairly and to allow Parliament to serve Canada better.

I do hope the Libs endorse this resolution.


A final note here if anyone, including Justin, thinks that Harper will willingly give up his control over the conservative senators or despite his rhetoric to do so, embrace a “open, transparent, non-partisan process” for appointing them then they are dreaming in technicolour. This will be particularly true if the Cons think they are going to be in opposition come 2015, after all we wouldn’t want any one else to be able to pass legislation through the Senate would we? Watch for a highly partisan attack upon this idea from the Harper Oligarchs.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Quantity not Quality

Quantity not Quality is apparently the Harper regimes measure of 'success' Mr. Van Loan recently extolled the virtues of the 34-day fall session, which started late because of prorogation and was adjourned early. He said 2013 was the most productive year on record, with 40 bills receiving Royal Assent. “ “That’s something we can all be proud of. It shows how Parliament is working better than ever right now,” he said.


So it seems that passing bills that have had debate curtailed or where the Harper regime has dictated that “their” MP's shall vote for it regardless of their constituents wishes is 'parliament working better'


Blocking committees both in the Commons and in the Senate from being able to hear from senior bureaucrats or experts on the matters being considered is 'parliament working better'


Designating a spokesclown to make a mockery of question period by answering questions with disrespectful nonsense is 'parliament working better'


Reducing the ability of independent and minority MP's to amend legislation at the committee stage is 'parliament working better'


Enabling the PMO to interfere with senate business and dictating both the subject and the outcome of investigation “without the Prime Minister knowing” is 'parliament working better'


Jamming hundreds of pieces of unrelated legislation into omnibus budget bills, refusing to split it so that fuller debate can take place and then forcing final vote on it all is 'parliament working better'


Making agreements with foreign governments which give them more rights over our industries and resources than Canadian companies and citizens without any parliamentary consultation is 'parliament working better'


Spending millions on self promoting TV advertising extolling the virtues of the oil industry whist simultaneously cutting funding for environmental monitoring and scientific research is 'parliament working better'


Doing every thing possible to block the investigation by parliamentarians and Elections Canada into electoral fraud during the last election is 'parliament working better'


Failing to replace the Parliamentary Budget Officer with an independent full time knowledgeable individual is 'parliament working better'


I fully expect the next thing we will be told is that abolishing the Senate and recalling Parliament for a week before the summer break and perhaps a couple of days in the fall will be 'parliament working better', after all those pesky opposition members who represent some 60% or more of Canadians just make it more difficult to ram through our agenda so why bother to consult with then at all!






Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Backbenchers Grow a Backbone?

Many of us have been sounding the alarm bell for some time about the amount of power and control the Prime Minister and the PMO have over both the daily working of parliament and more particularly the amount of control exercised over MPs and senators elected or appointed under the Conservative banner. Now it would seem a few backbenchers have finally become tired of following orders and want to do what they were elected to do, represent their constituents without having to rigidly follow the scrip provided by the PMO.
“Tired of being a $160,200-a-year voting machines, the group of Conservative MPs has been meeting secretly for well over a year, discussing ways to inject more democracy into the Commons.
One of the solutions they have embraced – the cause of their shackles – is the removal of the leader’s power to veto individual candidates. Because it is difficult to win an election as an independent, Harper and the other party leaders have enormous power over their MPs, since no one can run under their party’s banner without their approval.
Chong is expected to table a private members’ bill that would give veto power over a candidate to the riding association executive rather than the party leader or his designate, sources said. “

Whilst hardly a major revolt this initiative would be a small step in the right direction and a least stop the PM (and other party leaders) from overriding the wishes of local District Associations in choosing candidates. A more interesting and perhaps significant development is the recent Op Ed and subsequent interview of David Sachs, a Conservative communications consultant who has worked for cabinet ministers Lawrence Cannon and Peter Kent. He says:-


“Prime Minister Stephen Harper has long employed the cynical strategy of total denial when faced with controversy, disregarding the public’s right to the truth. He knows the public will never follow the minutiae of events. As long as solidarity is maintained, Harper can ride out any storm by claiming it is just more partisan noise. Only we Conservatives have the power to break that solidarity, and take away Harper’s trump card. It’s time to demonstrate that Conservatives care about ethics and ultimately, checks on that corrupting influence of power.”
This is hardly news to those of us who have been taking notice and cannot be news to all those Conservatives out there but it is refreshing to see such a insider finally recognize that not only such things are taking place but that they are toxic to both Canada and to their own party. He goes on to say:-


“The prime minister has, in the kindest interpretation, hidden the full truth. Is that acceptable to you, as a Canadian and a Conservative?
As Conservatives, there is much Harper and his government have done to be proud of. But as more power is seized by the unelected members of Harper’s inner circle; as more of his key, chosen people turn out to be ethically unsound or worse, we must ask: how far will we let our own leader go?
Some Conservatives argue this tempest is all over a small amount of money. But if the prime minister’s key people are willing to go to such lengths over such a small issue, solely to maintain (how ironic) the façade of ethics, how far would they go over big issues? Does anyone trust this government to deal openly when facing major challenges?”


Does anyone trust this government to deal openly when facing major challenges?
Remember this is a long standing Conservative talking and asking the questions that for many of us has long been decided. Do I trust Harper, the PMO, the Cabinet, this Regime to be open, honest and accountable or even do the best for Canada (as opposed to big multinationals and foreign business). NO!


“Ask what is democracy if an elected leader abuses all the levers of power? If he, or his people, manipulate independent branches of government (Senate, Parliamentary Budget Officer)? If he, or people acting on his behalf, abuse the electoral process (as in the allegations of electoral fraud), and then abuse the investigative process (the independent Deloitte audit)? If our leaders hide the truth as common practice?”
“If we do not act, we embolden Harper. We increase the risk of further ethical scandals. Make no mistake: if Harper continues like this, he will fall, and he will take our party down with it. It will be hard to win an election for a decade. “
Whilst removing Harper as leader of the Cons would be a good thing I cannot believe that it will make much of a difference, the rot goes MUCH deeper than the PM and the PMO, only by his fellow MPs closing their eyes to the escalating control and spin issuing from his office for years has Harper succeeded in arriving at this point. It is getting very late in the day to try and correct things now, we can only hope that Harper does 'continue like this' and does 'fall and take the party with him'!


Mr Sachs specifically mentions both the senate scandal and the election fraud and the abuse of the investigation process and we see that this abuse continues with it being reported that:-


“The prime minister’s office has hired three law firms to provide legal advice to current and former employees in relation to the RCMP investigation of former chief of staff Nigel Wright’s $90,000 payment to Mike Duffy.
The PMO didn’t provide an estimate of the cost of the legal fees, but they are likely to be steep. The lead lawyer on the file, Bay Street litigator Robert Staley, a partner at Bennet Jones, is said to bill in the $900-an-hour range.”


As several articles point out there is already legal advice available to the PM from within the government, already paid for by the taxpayer but apparently that is not good enough, the PM intends to spend thousands more of OUR money to continue his coverup. If there is no wrongdoing then why o why does he need no less than three private law firms with lawyers charging in the hundreds of dollars an hour to 'provide advice'?


Sachs told Power Play that “a lot of Conservatives” are uncomfortable with the government and how the PMO has conducted its affairs, although they may not say so publicly.
“The people in the PMO have basically been running the country for years telling MPs how to vote, telling campaigns what they’re allowed to say and who they’re allowed to speak to, which is generally nobody and nothing,” he said.
In Sachs’ view, the PMO is “controlling things in such a way that was so clearly wrong.”

Thank you Mr Sachs for confirming what we all know has been the situation from almost the very moment Harper became PM, please tell your fellow conservatives that they can either stand up and be counted as ethical and honest or they can remain part of the Harper Regimes development of a dishonest and controlling dictatorship.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

A Created Crisis?

The whole debate about the reform or abolition of the senate would not be getting the attention it is currently getting were it not for the somewhat overblown concern about just three senators expense claims and Harpers request to the courts to find out if he can do away or substantially change the upper chamber without broad agreement from the provinces and Canadian taxpayers. Is this much like the “dysfunctional parliament” that said 'leader' referred to when trying to justify his decision to shut down parliament a few years ago? Is the 'crisis', as with much of the ongoing infighting in the house and in committees, something of his own making, the senators under scrutiny are after all all highly partisan conservative individuals chosen by said 'leader' and the 'cover up' seems to be centred in his office! Is the underlying aim to abolish the senate so that the PM in a majority government can have “absolute power”?
A few days before the election of 2006, when the polls showed he was about to end 13 years of Liberal government, Stephen Harper told reporters that Canadians shouldn't be uneasy at the prospect of "absolute power" for a Conservative government because it would be kept in check by senators, civil servants and judges appointed by the Liberals.
"We have no alternative but to accept the checks," he said. "They're part of our system. Judges are named. Judges can't be removed except under extraordinary circumstances."
Seven years later, the Senate and the senior ranks of the civil service are full of Harper appointees, but judges are acting as a stubborn check on Harper's absolute power, just as Harper predicted.

Indeed some of the arguments put forward to the supreme court by the government side would seem to indicate that he has little regard for due process as set down in our constitution and would prefer to simply change thing to his liking without any consultation or agreement with the provinces or the people.

It will be interesting to see how Harper reacts when the Supreme Court justices eventually tell him that he can't reform or abolish the Senate without a deal with the provinces.

It seems likely that he will see this as a communications challenge. The prime minister can't fight the Supremes, can't reform the Senate, can't lock up everybody he'd like to lock up, but he can deliver messages that press his supporters' emotional buttons, even if he can't deliver on what he has promised them.

Some of the presentations to the court were indeed as this observer notes rather outrageous.....

So the Stephen Harper government complains to the Supreme Court that the Senate is too partisan. This is the most outrageous legal argument since the fellow who killed both his parents asked for mercy on the grounds he was an orphan. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.


I have said in these pages a number of times that simply asking the provinces to submit a list of candidates to the PM and him committing to choosing from that list would eliminate much of the problem with partisan and unqualified individuals and enhance the regional representation that is the basis of the senate selection process. I am not alone in seeing this simple solution!


There is no more reason to elect senators than to elect judges. The purpose of the courts is to interpret the law. The purpose of the Senate as conceived by the framers is to act as a chamber of advice and consent. It is the House of Commons that has the unique task of representing the popular will, for which purpose that body does indeed need to be elected.................



How to choose them? We can look at how we select Judges. These worthies are also appointed by the PM (in effect – the Prime Minister’s Office passes on every name) but the problems are few because in almost every case the choice is made from lists drawn up by the legal communities in the various provinces – lists of people with a known and respected track record.
Let us choose senators in the same way. Let some great Prime Minister (will Mr. Harper step forward?) establish the precedent that with few exceptions, he/she will choose only from such lists. The provincial nominating bodies might be made up of members chosen by the governing and opposition parties in the local Legislature, by the municipalities, business and unions, the bar, universities and perhaps a few others. As with the court nominations, their work could be private and only for the eyes of the PM (which makes it easier for some to put forward their names), or it could be public.
This process would yield a truly respectable Senate. Yes, it would mark a diminution of the Prime Minister's patronage powers, but that would happen under the alternative of abolition in any case. We would be better to preserve and improve a truly useful advisory body.

Even Mr Harper has floated this idea but has said that he would not necessarily select from such lists which totally negates the whole idea but would of course allow the PM to continue to appoint partisan flacks. I think we all know where this one is going....absolutely nowhere, any major change will need constitutional change and that requires broad provincial support. Lets face it the Harper regime is not exactly renown for building broad support for anything and a PM that refuses to even meet with his provincial counterparts is unlikely to get a lot of cooperation in that regard.

The Senate and the House of Commons will continue to be a partisan war zone for the foreseeable future and we can but hope that a more 'cooperative' government can and will find a way to get consensus on bringing in Electoral, Parliamentary & Senate reform that will better serve the Canadian people than that which exists now.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

What Jeff Said.......

Even if it could, Senate reform shouldn’t proceed without the provinces – or the people

To the surprise of everyone in the Ottawa bubble, Her Majesty’s Minister of State for Democratic Reform, Pierre Poilievre, held a press availability Wednesday not to slam the Liberals for some alleged sins, but to actually speak to an issue of policy substance: the government’s Supreme Court reference on Senate reform.

The minister discussed the factum the government has presented to the court outlining its position, marking the first time the words “Pierre Poilievre” and “factum” have appeared in the same sentence. The government has put several questions to the court, essentially seeking clarity around what reforms Parliament can make on its own, what reforms would require provincial approval, and what level of provincial approval would be required for outright abolition, ie. unanimity, or seven provinces with half the population.

The Harper government’s position is that it can proceed unilaterally on Senate reform. I’m not a legal expert, but most of those I’ve seen weigh-in say, while it can proceed unilaterally in some ways, substantive reform does mean constitutional reform. And while the feds can make some changes to areas of sole federal interest on its own, substantive reforms would likely go beyond that.

But I’ll let the legal experts, and of course the Supreme Court, hash that one out. There’s what’s legal, and what’s right. And even if the courts said the feds could substantively reform or even abolish the Senate without the provinces, I’d argue they lack the moral authority to do so and would be making a mistake if they tried.

I’ve written extensively on the Senate in the past. Most recently I’ve argued what I’d like the Senate to be – an upper chamber with equal representation by province or region with clearly defined powers, to serve as a regional counter-weight to what should be a purely representation by population lower chamber in the House of Commons. With uneven population growth across the country, I think that’s an important piece to have in our parliament. The provinces have an undeniable interest in ensuring regional voices are heard and represented fairly in parliament; it’s difficult to argue this is purely a federal matter.

However, I would go beyond just requiring provincial approval through the amending formula for substantive Senate reform or unanimity for abolition. The people must be involved too. When Stephen Harper first came to Ottawa as a staffer and later a Reform MP in 1993, he was a leader in a party that believed in consulting the people on such matters via referendum. It’s time he returned to his roots.

Before we proceed down the road to reforming or abolishing the Senate, which would be a pretty major change to our democracy, the people must become involved. We need to have a debate in this country around how we want to be represented, and what we want our democracy and our parliament to look like.

And then we should vote in a national referendum, and the federal and provincial governments should proceed as the people direct.

......

All I can add is that the Federal Ministry of Democratic Reform is, just like so much else coming out of this government, just window dressing. Let us dress up the dummy in the window in various outfits and see what the public reaction is and then just ignore them anyway!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Be Careful What You Wish For!

Abolish the Senate? Be careful what you wish for, we all know that it has become highly partisan and some of those appointed feel they are entitled to their entitlements and take even more, reform is needed but do away with it entirely? I maintain that it is not the institution that is the problem but the people who are appointed to it and the manner of appointment, despite his appointment of many undeserving and unprincipled conservative flacks to ensure that he can jam questionable legislation through Mr Harper would like nothing better than to remove this impediment to his plans. I begin to wonder if all this recent expense scandal was not deliberately created to bring the senate into disrepute in order to sway public option against the senate and for abolition.

Without a bill having to be sent to the Senate it would be much easier and quicker for a majority government (any majority government) to push legislation through without sufficient examination and debate. Is this a good thing, I dont think so. Many of these bills are complex and written in such a way as to be all but impossible to fully understand the full ramifications, MPs have little time to fully dissect such legislation and all to often simply take their partys word upon both the content and upon how to vote. True the Senate is becoming a similar partisan rubber stamp despite the ability to more fully examine and debate a bill, but that once again is a problem with those appointed not the senate itself or for the most part its way of doing things.

Reform yes, abolition no. Besides the fact that it would be almost impossible to meet the conditions set down for such a move it would simply put more power into the hands of a majority PM who it would seem has very few checks and balances upon his power, many of the 'rules' be convention not requirements, and there being no consequences for ignoring such 'conventions'. Senators are meant to represent their Province not a particular party, if the next PM were to simply say to the Provinces 'I will accept you recommendation for filling this position (subject to the normal checks and debate) we would at least have a broader range of individuals appointed.

“But is abolition any more feasible than reform? It has proved hard enough just to change the length of senators’ terms. How is it supposed you could abolish it altogether? Indeed, whereas major reforms to the Senate — including changes to its powers, the numbers of senators from each province or the method of their selection — would invoke the Constitution’s general amending formula, requiring the support, not only of both Houses of Parliament, but of seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population, abolition would seem to require unanimity.”

The issue of the length of term, compensation & pensions is, in my opinion a separate issue and one that needs examining for both the Senate and the House of Commons. It is difficult for Canadians who struggle to make ends meet on a daily basis to justify the amount of money these folks receive both during their time in Ottawa and after they 'retire' from the legislature.

Thats just one opinion, the debate continues......probably for years and most certainly beyond the next election!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers