Showing posts with label senate reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label senate reform. Show all posts

27 July 2015

Smoke, mirrors, and Harper’s senate moratorium #nlpoli #cdnpoli

Heading into an election and with the three major federal parties within five or six points of each other in the opinion polls, the Prime Minister has decided that this is the time to talk about reforming the senate.

Stephen Harper said last week that he will not make any more appointments to the senate.  His plan is to create a crisis and then either reform the senate or abolish it in the ensuing melee among and with the provincial premiers.

The New Democrats are flattered. They have already advocated abolishing the senate altogether. This is a popular idea in Quebec where the NDP are threatened by the resurgence of the Bloc Quebecois.  The NDP won its current status as official opposition in 2011 with a surprising haul of seats in the province as the Bloc vote collapsed and its supporters looked for a politically friendly home. 

The sovereignists found a welcome embrace from the NDP.  To the extent that anyone else in the country thinks about the senate, it is likely only as the object of derision given the recent scandals over spending.  Few have thought through the implication of the NDP plan.  In Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, it would cut in half the province’s representation in Ottawa. 

15 June 2015

Brad Wall's case for abolishing Premiers #cdnpoli #nlpoli

Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall thinks that making the senate an elected institution that better reflects Canadians is too hard.

Rather than reform the senate,  Wall wants to get rid of it altogether.

Wall thinks that the provincial Premiers should do the job currently done by the senate.

Here’s why no one should take senate abolition seriously.

Here’s why those proposing it don’t have the best interest of Canadians at heart.

06 January 2012

So much for senate reform #nlpoli #cdnpoli

Surely to mercy, if Prime Minister Stephen Harper was halfway serious about senate reform he could find someone else from Newfoundland and Labrador besides Norm Doyle to take up a senate seat.

Maybe Harper could have found someone other than a  guy who has been recycled more times than a university freshman’s one good shirt.

And even if senate reform wasn’t the reason for making the appointment, there has got to be someone in the province who has distinguished himself or herself in the arts world, academia, social policy activism or business who could take up the appointment.

If Norm Doyle got the job, the list must have been made up of Conservatives in Newfoundland and Labrador who hadn’t followed Danny Williams blindly and who could be reached without a séance.

The last thing the senate needs is another political hack taking up space, drawing a nice salary (on top of his public sector pension) and not doing very much else besides.

- srbp -

29 January 2010

And the cliche gets it…

Senator Beth Marshall.

Here’s the view from January 19:

Beth Marshall would be too obvious just because all the spec puts her name up right next to the two Loyolas.  She’s at the point now where her name is on everyone’s list of nominees for everything. Watch out if the Pope drops dead tomorrow.  Local spec will have Beth in the running right behind the two Loyolas;  it’s gotten to be that much of a cliche.

An interesting choice if one that is remarkable for how cliche it really is.

Others have already pointed out that Marshall very publicly declined to join the ABC silliness. That obviously stood her in good stead for this plum.

Others, however, have also over-estimated her lack of connections to the local provincial Conservatives and how this might not help improve relations between the federal Connies and their provincial cousins.  Bear in mind she was handed the plum of over-seeing implementation of the Green report and has been a faithful party player on the House of Assembly management committee.

She’s tight enough with both the federal and provincial crews to serve as a bridge. And it’s not like she hasn’t got experience in changing her tune when it serves her partisan purpose as well.

Don’t be surprised if she goes to cabinet in short order or otherwise gets a neat job to facilitate the rapprochement. The anti-Ottawa hysteria that once was the local Connie stock-in-trade will quickly be a thing of the past.

-srbp-

19 January 2010

Every name in for the senator pool

A couple of e-mails in ye olde inbox on Monday and just about every conceivable name cropped up in the great game of trying to figure out who will be the new Conservative senator from Newfoundland and Labrador.

For the record, here’s the list:

  • Loyola Hearn

  • Loyola Sullivan

  • Liam O'Brien

  • Beth Marshall

  • Rex Barnes

  • Tim Powers

  • Merv Wiseman

  • Graham Letto

  • Rick Hillier

  • Lynn Verge

  • Tom Rideout

  • Vic Young

  • Leo Power

Loyola_Sullivan Most of the spec seems to favour one of the Two Loyolas that’s Sullivan on the right -  but those fellows already have or had their bit of pork.

loyola_hearn That’s former fish minister Loyola Hearn on the left, there, for those who don’t know him.

Put them in the “Definitely Not” pile right next to Rick Hillier.

Liam O’Brien would be a long shot.  He surely won’t take offence at the suggestion.

Ditto Merv Wiseman, although he might take offence. Sucks to be him, then. Rex Barnes looks like he got on the list for the same reason Merv did:  someone listed former Tory candidates. Another “nope”.

Beth Marshall would be too obvious just because all the spec puts her name up right next to the two Loyolas.  She’s at the point now where her name is on everyone’s list of nominees for everything. Watch out if the Pope drops dead tomorrow.  Local spec will have Beth in the running right behind the two Loyolas;  it’s gotten to be that much of a cliche.

Graham Letto or someone else from Labrador would be a shot to replace Bill Rompkey when he retires within the next year or two. 

small power Leo Power is a suggestion if someone was digging way inside the party and maybe way back into the mists of time to boot.

He’s a former exec to John Crosbie and former principal secretary to Tom Rideout for 43 Days but has Leo got anything else to qualify him for a seat in the Antechamber to the Kingdom of Heaven before Tom Rideout?

rideout toque And speaking of Tom, there’s just something about that appointment that wouldn’t fit the reformist theme supposedly being set by this round of appointments. Any Tories in the National Capital Region with a room to rent might find Tom a willing tenant.

So who’s left on that list?

Tim Powers  - he of the Globe blog and Ottawa lobbyist fame - is an interesting choice.  The guy has strong ties both provincial and federally so he could act a go-between in the Great Rapprochement between the federal Connies and the provincial cousins.

verge - old mug shot Lynn Verge is a possibility.  She’s a former provincial Tory leader with a strong background in public life.

 

Vic Young Then there’s Vic Young. Frankly it’s a bit strange to see him there.  The former public servant and business exec has kept a pretty low profile since retiring.  Well, low with the exception of the Blame Canada Commission in 2002.

He’d be a good choice but that hasn’t stopped prime ministers – including this one – from looking right past a good choice in favour of a complete waste of time. 

Like say Mike Duffy.

Odds are that none of the names on that list will wind up getting the nod whenever the choice is made. The federal Conservatives have shown themselves adept at coming up with some – shall we say – unusual choices when it comes to federal appointments. 

One that stands out in the local legal community is a judge whose appointment prompted tongue-in-cheek concern in some quarters that she might not know where the court house was.  Seems the only time she’d darkened its doors – as the local legal wags put it – was when she’d shown up to see her old man sworn in as a supreme court judge years before.

So with all those names from the current speculation out of the way, maybe someone can come up with a novel idea.

The comments are open.  Toss your suggestions on the table.

-srbp-

09 January 2010

Jeff, the SCC and senate reform

Canada’s Ersatz George Will should learn to do that or at least take his own advice.
Jeff Simpson implores – presumably the prime minister and premiers – as follows:
Go right ahead, gentlemen. Climb into the sandbox of Senate reform and start playing. But before doing so, pause and read at least a summary of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling of 1979 that will complicate every game you might wish to play.
The ruling -  issued in 1980 – is readily available online and makes for easy reading for anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of only the English language.  It does not, as Simpson claims, mean that the federal parliament can “unilaterally do almost nothing to the Senate.”

The ruling came in response to a specific set of questions posed to the court.

But more importantly, the reference came at a time when any amendment to the constitution had to be done as an act of the British parliament.  If you read the SCC decision, you can see the extent to which that circumstance drove the reasoning, particularly the impact of a 1949 amendment to the section of the constitution which  defined how constitutional amendments were to be made.

The Supreme Court answered a specific question – in paraphrase: can the federal parliament unilaterally amend the constitution as it was in 1979 to eliminate the senate – with a resounding “No”.

The reasoning is simple:  the senate was created to represent the “sectional” interests of the country and to do so equally and nothing up to 1979 gave the federal parliament the power to alter so fundamental a notion.

Here’s what the learned justices said in the summary at the front of the decision and the same words are repeated throughout its lengthy explanation:
The apparent intention of the 1949 amendment to the Act which enacted s. 91(1) was to obviate the necessity for the enactment of a statute of the British Parliament to effect amendments to the Act which theretofore had been obtained through a joint resolution of both Houses of Parliament and without provincial consent. Legislation enacted under this subsection since 1949 has dealt with matters which, according to the practice existing before 1949, would have been referred to the British Parliament by way of a joint resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and without the consent of the provinces. It did not in any substantial way affect federal-provincial relationships. The legislation contemplated in the first question is of an entirely different character. While it does not directly affect the federal-provincial relationships in the sense of changing federal and provincial legislative powers, it does envisage the elimination of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and so would alter the structure of the federal Parliament to which the federal power to legislate is entrusted under s. 91 of the Act.
The Senate has a vital role as an institution forming part of the federal system: one of its primary purposes was to afford protection to the various sectional interests in Canada in relation to the enactment of federal legislation. The power to enact federal legislation was given to the Queen by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons. Thus, the body which had been created as a means of protecting sectional and provincial interests was made a participant in this legislative process.
Nowhere in that can one find anything that  - even vaguely - gives provincial premiers a function veto over all senate reform as Jeff Simpson contends.

Nor can it be found in the decision on some bits of the second question to which the court also said “No”.

The second question contained a daisy chain of changes, including giving new powers to the provincial governments. Not surprisingly the judges thought it a bad idea in a federal country to let Ottawa unilaterally change what a provincial legislature can and cannot do. The others were deemed to lack sufficient information to let the judges made a choice.

Jeff’s basically out to lunch if he thinks the 1980 decision gives the senate as it is currently constituted some sort of provincial protection.

They get that out of the 1982 repatriation and the subsequent amending formula:
42. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):

(b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;

Unfortunately, Canadians are stuck in a situation in which the provincial satraps must find agreement before anything can be done with the senate.   Don’t forget, this is the same gang that couldn’t even agree among themselves on how to keep the taps of federal Equalization cash flowing to them all.

The only difference is that in this case, there are more of them in favour of senate abolition than any other choice. The only result of abolition – supported as well by the federal New Democratic party – would be to cement the control Ontario members of parliament have on the federal legislature.  The sectional balancing effect that the senate is supposed to have from the original constitution would be gone.

That would adversely provinces like those in Atlantic Canada or in the west. The scary part of the abolition movement is that where it was once confined to those with a naked self-interest in such a move, the idea has now caught on in Nova Scotia and elsewhere.  Not only is Darrell Dexter hoodwinked into believing that the Lower Churchill exists but he has also been fooled into thinking no senate is better than senate reform when it comes to protecting his provinces interests in Canada, the federal country.

The only part of Jeff’s column where he seems to get it right is at the end and that’s really the easiest of all bits when it comes to assessing federal-provincial relations. Odds are that any move to reform the senate in a meaningful way will simply open the doors to more constitutional demands and the sort of indecision we have seen repeatedly on issues involving the 11 first ministers.

Aside from the normal, eternal divisions among the provincial premiers, Canada is also beset at this sad time in its history with three major federal party leaders neither of whom holds the vision necessary to counteract the premiers politically.

For the Prime Minister, senate reform is another of his tiny tactical manoeuvres to stay in power.  For Jack Layton, he’s already locked firmly in favour of Ontario with the NDP cry for abolition. Heck his party constitution doesn’t even believe in fairly representing the “sectional interests” of the country.

And Michael Ignatieff?  So far he has shown himself to have as sensitive and informed a view of Canada, the country, as he had of the ethics or efficacy of binding some poor sod to a board and then draping his face in wet towels until he suffocates. National support for the Liberals speaks rather clearly to Ig-man’s lack of appeal.

Senate reform could occur if there was any leadership in the country worthy of the description. Leadership could deal with the situation imposed by the 1982 constitution.The country needs leadership. 

Sadly, the people of Canada cannot find leadership among the 10 premiers, or the federal party leaders.

And that, Jeff Simpson ought to know, is the real political problem with senate reform.

-srbp-

07 January 2010

Senate reform, again

One glaring point the Globe and Mail front pager on senate reform missed is blatantly obvious.

The Globe claimed that:

Analysts say that provincial opposition in smaller provinces could stem from premiers' fear that their already weak national voice will be further limited if newly influential senators appear on the scene.

That’s crap.

All provincial premiers oppose any reform of the senate that would give it real power and political legitimacy.

All premiers are afraid that they will be eclipsed by a group of politicians representing Canadians in Ottawa elected on the basis of geography.  They all fear being reduced to the status of American state governors.

Frankly, that would be the best thing for Canadians as a whole.  The federal parliament should be comprised of two houses, one elected by population and the other representing the provinces equally.

No provincial government should control in any way shape or form the second chamber in the national parliament.

Elect senators directly, with equal numbers from each province.

It’s that simple, but if we let the premiers get involved we will do nothing but reinforce the anti-democratic, paternalistic attitude some of them have and the anti-democratic executive federalism they love to practice.

-srbp-

31 December 2009

New Year’s Contest: name the new NL senator

So parliament will start anew in the New Year and all the empty seats in the senate will have new bums to fill them.

Who do you think will get the nod?

Who do you think should get the job, if it wasn’t a partisan wank-fest?

Drop a name in a comment space. See if you can beat some of the suggestions on a post from last October.

-srbp-

22 December 2008

18 more appointed to Antechamber to the Kingdom of Heaven

So much for senate reform.

Sure the federal Conservatives said they wouldn’t do it, but what else is new?

Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Fabian Manning are among the 18 new senators.

Will Fabe resign to run against Scott Andrews or can Scott breathe a sigh of relief?

-srbp-

01 December 2007

The "I"s have it: Danny Williams on senate reform

Senate reform was one of the issues discussed during a 45 minute meeting between Prime minister Stephen harper and Premier Danny Williams in St. John's on Friday. Williams told reporters after the meeting that the two leaders discussed several topics.

Note the way Williams refers to it: he speaks about his feelings, his issues and his views as opposed to positions of the government. Apparently his views expressed in this highly personalized way are synonymous with those of the government or the province as a whole.

Certainly for a perspective on the national issues, I have my own feelings and we didn't get in to it. My own feelings on federal spending limitations, the environment, environmental issues. So I'm able -- and obviously energy -- to discuss those at a national level.

When we sit around the table as a group of first ministers, then we deal at that high level. As well, that doesn't mean that Jean Charest and Quebec aren't going to talk with their issues and I'm not going to talk about my issues. If I have outstanding issues with the Government of Canada, I've certainly raised them. Those meetings are national meetings. To be quite honest with you, I don't have any problem raising to that level...

I guess where I agree with him on certain issues. I have issues on senate reform, but there are other areas where I could find agreement. When it comes to discussing his position at the commonwealth and where he is on Kyoto and where he's positioning Canada at this particular point in time in Kyoto, that may be an area where I could agree with him. I won't take my personal disagreements on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and use those to disagree with the prime minister on every national issue because that's not in the national interest.

There's an aspect of this highly personalized way of dealing with issues that crops up in the letter the Premier sent the Prime Minister earlier this year on senate reform. The letter was copied to the senate committee studying the government bills before the last sitting of parliament prorogued.

Toward the end of the letter, Williams states that any discussions on senate reform should take place among first ministers, what Williams referred to in the Friday scrum as "that high level." Executive federalism is alive and well.

The letter is presented here as a series of image files. They are as big as the space will allow, but should be legible if you click on them and enlarge the image.

williams senate reform1


williams senate reform2



williams senate reform3

05 June 2007

Provinces lining up against senate reform package

The Globe and Mail is following up on a story reported on the weekend by Canadian Press that the provincial premiers are raising objections to the Harper administration's senate reform proposals.

The Globe quotes extensively from a May 30, 2007 letter from Premier Danny Williams to the Prime Minister:
Mr. Williams asks that Mr. Harper withdraw both Bill S-4, which would impose eight-year term limits on senators, and Bill C-43, which would create a process for electing senators.

"If you are intent on Senate reform, then it must be done correctly," Mr. Williams says in the letter.

"Any changes should be carefully considered by both (federal and provincial) constitutional orders of government in the context of a national public debate. The current piecemeal and unilateral approach does not suffice."
-srbp-

13 May 2007

Adding seats to Commons, feds should reform senate too

Proposed changes to representation in the House of Commons will more fairly represent Canadians across the country, irrespective of where they live.

The move is designed to avert regional tensions in the country, according to the Globe's Brian Laghi.

Well, senate reform is long overdue. Creating a senate comprising representatives elected in equal numbers from each of the provinces would restore a balance to the national parliament as a whole. represent the population fairly in the Commons. Represent the provinces - i.e the regions where Canadians live - in a new senate.

-srbp-