LPC Senate Change: The View Of A Tory Insider

Keith Beardsley is a Tory insider.  Smart guy.  Not obviously insane.  His angle on Justin's shock announcement this morning is surely worth noting:

It will...be interesting to see how the Conservative Senate caucus responds. How many of them will decide they would now like to become independent like their former Liberal colleagues? If enough Conservative senators decide to sit as independents it will change the dynamics of getting legislation through the upper house. The government side would be faced with convincing individual senators of the merits of legislation, rather than being able to demand loyalty to pass legislation.

As for other reactions, WK and LK  make an obvious point: this move will look less clever should the LPC form a government in 2015 and have to run legislation through a group of independents rather than hacks and lapdogs.  But what if this eventually becomes just the way things are?  Senators become a bit more like their U.S. counterparts.  If you were a lobby group, and swung one Indy-Senator to your side, how successfully could you delay an adverse bill?  Or if you were an environmental group?  Would negotiation become the order of the day?

I dunno, and in the end it could all be political theatrics.  Made Wednesday more interesting, however.

On Debating What Might Occur In The Aftermath Of The Reform Or Abolition Of The Canadian Senate

Debating what might occur in the aftermath of the reform or abolition of  the Canadian Senate,  as Andrew Coyne does in the OpEd piece through the link, is like debating whether, if pigs should ever fly, we should all wear a protective helmet while flying our flying pig.  But pigs won't fly, ever, so why waste time debating the issue?

That is all.

Same Thing Might Work For Senate Reform

A tough-on-crime Conservative senator said murderers should be provided with the tools to kill themselves in jail.

Abolition by attrition, as it were.

Senate Reform In A Nutshell

“I think it’s pretty simple, he might not even want this form of Senate reform, but it appeals to his base in the West,” said Prof. [Ned] Franks. “You’ve got to remember the ‘Triple E Senate,’ which is a Canadian brand of tooth paste as far as I know, is sort of the darling of the West. So he introduces it, it gets shot down, he’s lost nothing. He gains something because he tried.”

So: even with a majority the Harper Torys are more worried about raising funds--for what, exactly, at this point in the electoral cycle?--then crafting Legislation that will stand the test of time, which one would like to think is the goal of all federal governments.

Grow up, Torys!

But for a slightly different view, read Colby Cosh, who argues that its the entirely pseudo nature of the proposed Senate election process that renders these "reforms" OK constitutionally.  And, just as an aside,Colby's  hair is even more appalling than it used to be.  When I told him to get a hair-cut, I didn't mean that.

The Emptiest Of Empty Threats

He's going to stiff Westerners over their precious Triple-E? Not likely. He's going to open The Constitution, followed a minute later by every group with complaint (legit or not) demanding that their complaint be dealt with now its open? If Senate Reformers get a turn, why not First Nations? Not bloody likely.

 I mean, I'm OK with Senate abolishment. But rather than try to get to that point and have the nation blow-up somewhere in transit, I'd frankly prefer to let the PM continue to appoint hacks.

Oh, and as for the current bill: its crap. The PM only has to take any Senate election result "under advisement"; he is not bound by it. Therefore why would anyone bother to run if they hadn't already cleared their candidacy with the PM? And if the PM is still final arbiter, why go through the whole election dog-and-pony show in the first place? Again, why not just let the PM continue to appoint hacks.  Its cheaper that way.

What Did I Say?

Conservative senators balking at Senate reform.

Seriously, who could not have predicted this? I sure did. To get appointed, you say yes sir yes sir Mr. Harper sir I will sir: but once you've been appointed to your job-for-life, its fuck you! time.

Once More With Senate Reform

They're at it again, so I will say it again:

1) All I've heard suggests that the provinces will be asked elect a Senate candidate who the PM promises to then appoint. In other words, the actual appointment will still be in the hands of the PM, who the provinces (and candidates) are being asked to trust.  But I personally would not trust PM Harper to appoint a Senator whose views do not coincide with his own.  As a practical matter, I think any potential Senate candidate with LPoC or NDP leanings would be disinclined to spend any money on a campaign where their appointment is not assured even should they win.  But if the end result is to stuff the Senate with Torys, why not just stuff the Senate with Torys?  Why the elaborate charade?

2)  Any attempt to introduce term-limits for Senators will have to overcome opposition from the five Tory Senators who have come out against the idea, and any others who have not yet spoken up.  Its hardly just the Libs in the upper-chamber who have opposed the idea.

Tory Senate Reform Proposal Is A Sham

"We can do it by appointing elected senators,” says Jason Kenny, but if senate candidates still, once elected, must be appointed, then the PM can ignore the result of any plebiscite where the result goes against him.  Think what is likely to happen if a candidate with known NDP connections were to run and win.  What assurance would they have that the Harper government would not simply pass them over?

And, that being the case, why would anyone not onside with the Harper government even choose to run? 

Although perhaps that is the point.

All That Stands Between Harper And Senate Reform

...a topic much discussed this morning in the wake of the Harper victory, are Conservative Senators Nancy Greene Rain, Don Plett, Richard Neufeld, Pierre Claude Nolin and Jacque Demers.  Still not there yet, I'm afraid, CPoC majority or no.

Et Tu, Puffy?

While a handful, like staunch Ontario Conservatives Bob Runciman and Doug Finley pledged full support for an elected Senate, senators Mike Duffy, Irving Gerstein and Glen Patterson refused to say whether they still support the government’s legislation.

Actually, He's The Fourth

[Richard] Neufeld is the second Conservative senator in as many months to oppose Harper's third attempt at creating an elected Senate...

The other two are Harper Senate Appointees Nancy Greene Rain (I think that's how she's concatenated her name) and Don Plett, as the folks at the Winnipeg Free Press would know if they read BCLSB. And, as I wrote back years ago (but can't find the link, so you'll have to trust me): Senate reform will die in the Senate. Now and forever.

Excerpts From Claude Nolin's Speech On Senate Reform

Here are my favorite bits from the rebel Tory Senator's speech opposing Bill S-8, the Harper government's latest attempt at an elected upper chamber:

An election identifies the people's choice. It is the culmination of a competition that produces the most popular candidate. This house should be made up, if possible, of popular people, but more importantly, of competent people. That is why the Fathers of Confederation devised a system in which the Prime Minister retains full responsibility for recommending to the Governor General the nominees best qualified to serve as senators.

Under the guise of bowing to popular democracy, Bill S-8 is contrary to what the Fathers of Confederation had in mind.

The popularity shown by an election is certainly something appropriate, but it should not be viewed as a fundamental consideration for determining whether or not an individual Canadian should be nominated to this place.

In recent history, this chamber has seen its work influenced by a number of senators. Senator Keon retired just a little while ago; a few years ago, it was Senator Beaudoin. I will name only these two, given the time I am allotted. I know Senator Beaudoin very well and I got to know Senator Keon. Senator Keon told us that he would never have run in an election because he did not feel the need to be popular in order to be efficient. He would have opposed the passage of Bill S-8.

We have here several French-speaking senators from outside Quebec, including Senator Mockler from New Brunswick. Do you think that the people of New Brunswick, most of whom are English-speaking, would have voted for Senator Mockler, an Acadian?

[...]

Why are there more Aboriginal senators than Aboriginal members of the other place? Because they are in the minority. All across Canada, except in the territories, Aboriginal Canadians from various reserves and of various origins are in the minority. Do you think that in a popularity contest, people would be willing to put the names of Aboriginal candidates and then vote for them? The answer is no. Should we have Aboriginal senators in this chamber? Yes!

[...]
I do not agree with giving up the "E" for effective for the sake of the "E" for elected. That is not what we are here for. We are not here to replace the House of Commons, but to complement it, to add effective second thought to the legislative process initiated in the other place. We are not here to replace the work of the members of Parliament, but to complete it.

Honourable senators, this much-sought-after effectiveness takes aim at the so called legitimacy that being elected could provide us, because electing senators does not guarantee effectiveness. The only thing "E" for elected will get us is popularity. Popularity is what they have in the House of Commons. We are not the House of Commons. The Senate of Canada offers Canadians effective work.

This effectiveness results from our individual and collective expression of the independence that the current process allows us. Any honourable senator may act in good conscience in the interest of Canadians, independently of pressure exerted by the House of Commons and of his or her political affiliations. Any independence resulting from electing candidates to the Senate is certainly not going to make the Senate more effective.

[...]

Senator Brown: Does the honourable senator know why the Canadian media unanimously have called this place illegitimate for over 100 years?

Senator Nolin: Senator Brown, we do not have much time so I will be brief.

First, I do not agree that all media and the entire population have said that. Recently, I saw numbers to indicate that the split is 50/50 between those who want an elected Senate and those who do not. The key question is not about legitimacy coming from an election. At the end of day, senators will be judged on their effectiveness, and not in terms of whether or not the media like the Senate. Effectiveness is the key word. Can senators be effective only when they are elected? I doubt it. Elected senators can be effective, but being elected should not be a prerequisite. Independence from the other place is the tool that provides efficiency and effectiveness to senators. What the media thinks, I do not really care.

[...]

Senator Segal: Honourable senators, I am fascinated by Senator Nolin's citation of the original intent of the Fathers of Confederation. I want to get a sense from the honourable senator of how far that original intent should constrain our ability in this chamber to try to improve the legislative framework which, at the present time, has one third of our national legislators unelected, Senator Brown notwithstanding.

Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, my answer will be brief. I am not saying that this is the last word or that it is the end of the world. I am only saying that it is there, and I do not think Bill S-8 adds to that.

The intent is sober second thought, as expressed by the framer Sir John A. Macdonald. I do not think being elected will add to the principle of sober second thought. Quite to the contrary, I think it would create havoc between this house and the other house because we would try to be more popular and more democratic.

That is not what the population in 1867 needed, and it is not what the population needs now. The population needs a second chamber that will add to the quality of the work of the first chamber by giving sober second thought to the work done by the first house, without concern for glamour, popularity or beauty contests. We have a job to do, and we are free and independent. We can do it without being pushed by the people in the other place. Let us use that. We are not using it. We must be independent; then we will be effective.

Here, on the other hand, is a link to John Baird shrieking. Which makes you feel more proud to be a Canadian?

McCoy Spots A Squish

Two, Actually: recent Harper Senate Appointees Nancy Greene Rain (I think that's how she's concatenated her name) and Don Plett, musing about how an elected Senate might not be such a good thing, with Mr. Plett throwing in an additional aside suggesting he's against Senate term-limits.

This last bit is, of course, absolute heresy. Plett is a Harper appointee, and as Stockwell Day wrote back in September:

To deal with the problem of it being a life-long position the Prime Minister takes an innovative approach. Whomever the Prime Minister appoints must vow to step down after 8 years, no exceptions, no excuses. So each person he recently appointed, along with the ones he appointed earlier, will be done in 8 years.

But Plett isn't the only dissident among Harper Senate appointments. Senator Jacques Demers has not only said that he will ignore any vow to step down after eight years (presumably he and Plett had their fingers crossed when Harper made them swear), he's unwilling to vote for portions of the Tory's "tough on crime" agenda. Claude Nolin has signalled that he will back private Member's bill C-232.

Which is actually fine by me. As HOC politics becomes increasingly tawdry, perhaps the Senate really is ascending towards its intended role as home of the sober 2nd thought.

PS. And another interesting post from my favorite Senator (because she said something nice to me once at a BBQ and I pledged myself to her for all infinity) suggesting that the public appetite for retooling the upper house is greatly exaggerated.

Harper And The Senate: The People Have Spoken

Last month, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed five people to the Senate. Two thirds of Canadians (65%) think Harper is being hypocritical by appointing new senators while at the same time calling for Senate reform. A third of respondents (35%) disagree.

[...]

Except for Alberta, a majority of respondents in all provinces say Prime Minister Harper is being hypocritical for appointing new senators.

Vision Critical is connected with Angus Reid, so I would assume the methodology is decent enough.

As With Crime Legislation, So Too With Senate Reform

I've been arguing forever that the bulk of Harper's "tough on crime" legislation isn't meant to pass. Andrew Potter thinks (and I think I agree with him) that the same is true with Senate reform legislation:

I have a column in the Citizen today arguing that if Harper is serious about Senate reform, the appointments process is the place to focus his attention. Except I don’t actually think that Harper cares about Senate reform one way or another; like abortion in the US, it is one of those useful issues that Conservatives in Canada use to keep their base on a low boil. They are always just about to do something about it, though they never seem to get there. Senate reform for Harper is a tactical device, not part of a serious strategic agenda.


And I would just point out, that if the prorogation is meant to advance Harper's intention to begin electing senators and to set eight-year term limits, it as already failed. There's already a rogue among Harper's new appointees:

Newly minted Conservative senator and former Montreal Canadiens coach Jacques Demers says he has much to learn and more to prove.

In an interview with Sun Media, he revealed he could have been a Liberal senator, has only a peripheral interest in politics and no intention of asking electors for their support -- in spite of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's assertions new senators should run for office.

[...]

Demers expects to spend the next 10 years in the Senate, and wants to learn from his colleagues while keeping his own opinions.

Tories On Senate Reform

Stockwell Day on Senate Reform, August 31st, 2009:

To deal with the problem of it being a life-long position the Prime Minister takes an innovative approach. Whomever the Prime Minister appoints must vow to step down after 8 years, no exceptions, no excuses. So each person he recently appointed, along with the ones he appointed earlier, will be done in 8 years. That's a major change.

Newly minted Tory Senator Jacques Demers, September 19th, 2009:

Demers expects to spend the next 10 years in the Senate, and wants to learn from his colleagues while keeping his own opinions.

Either Mr. Demers has already broken his vow, or was exempted from it. Or the very existence of the "vow" is a bunch of hoo-hah meant to con Tory supporters who care about this kind of stuff.

Stockwell Day on Senate Reform, August 31st, 2009:

One more thing about the latest round of Senate appointees, each one has agreed to work hard from inside the Senate to push for reform. That means when the next federal election is called we may see senators stepping down from the Red Chamber and running for office.

Newly minted Tory Senator Jacque Demers, September 19th, 2009:

"I just did not see myself going in different places shaking hands. I am not a politician." That's why, Demers said, he won't run for office if senators are elected.

Senate Reform--a poor joke at best.

Stockwell Day On Senate Reform: Reforming The Upper Chamber One Hack At A Time

In his most recent weekly column, the Minister of International Trade Stockwell Day chimes in on the topic of Senate reform, and in particular Prime Minister Harper's latest round of appointments. Here are some column highlights, followed by my own brief remarks:

Then there's the little (big) matter of being unelected. The Prime Minister has invited Premiers to come up with a way of getting their own citizens to elect the person of their choice within their own province. Then the Prime Minister will promise to put them in the Senate.

However, the suggested mechanisms by which a province would put forward its choice for a vacant Senate seat are joke-worthy at best. In all of proposals put forward by the Harper Tories, for example, winning a senate election would not necessarily result in assuming a senate seat. Their first crack at reform took place back at the end of 2006. At that time, The Ottawa Citizen reported:

... the [Conservative] bill proposes to establish a procedure where Elections Canada, which has the legal authority to conduct a federal referendum as well as federal elections, would conduct a form of plebiscite, likely only within provinces that have Senate vacancies.

The results would be presented as information to a prime minister to consider when filling a vacancy.

The consultation could not be legally binding on Harper or subsequent prime ministers because the Constitution stipulates only the Queen, on the advice of cabinet, can name people to the Senate. Unlike all other government appointments, where the Governor General's approval is enough, Senate appointments continue to receive direct approval from the Queen.

Even in the case of Bert Brown, who Albertans chose as their upper chamber representative in 2007, the actual appointment was, in the end, a result of a Prime Ministerial whim:

So far only Alberta has responded by coming up with their own Senate election. They allow for the names of Senate candidates to be added to the ballots during their municipal elections. The province picks up the administration costs and the people decide who their Senator will be.

The last time they did this the winner was Bert Brown. The Prime Minister kept his word and appointed him to the Senate. He sits today in that Chamber, quite proud to be the only elected Senator in that place of over 100 appointees.

Had the Prime Minister chosen to break his word, something he has been occasionally occasionally to do, the people of Alberta would have come up with bupkis.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is no mechanizsm to determine who can offer themselves as a Senate candidate. So, with most reform proposals under consideration, I could put myself forward. And if I won, the Prime Minister could ignore the result. A good outcome, I suppose, but achieved only via an absurd process.

Mr. Day also considers the PM's most recent attempts at reform:

To deal with the problem of it being a life-long position the Prime Minister takes an innovative approach. Whomever the Prime Minister appoints must vow to step down after 8 years, no exceptions, no excuses. So each person he recently appointed, along with the ones he appointed earlier, will be done in 8 years. That's a major change.

No, it is a reform technique that is only as good as the vows of the appointees. Not to be too cynical, but the odds of a Conservative government still being in power federally in 8 years is low, the odds of Stephen Harper heading up that government are infinitesimal. And, either way, if any of his Senate appointees wish to remain in the upper chamber past that date, there is not a thing he or anyone else can do about it.

Mr. Day concludes

One more thing about the latest round of Senate appointees, each one has agreed to work hard from inside the Senate to push for reform. That means when the next federal election is called we may see senators stepping down from the Red Chamber and running for office.

That's progress.

Yeah, or we may not see anything like that, in which case we have the status quo passed off as progress.

Tories Phone One In

OTTAWA -- The Conservatives are giving Senate reform a third try. The federal government plans to table legislation in the Senate Tuesday that will limit a senator's term to eight years, Sun Media has learned.

Another Tory bill to reform the Senate introduced into a Liberal dominated Senate. Given the latest gun registry stuff, this appears to be the Tories modus operandi when they want to introduce legislation they know is doomed to failure. The lack of cheering you hear from the right side of the blogosphere is the sound of people (Tory hardcores esp.) catching on.

And as for the last bit:

This time, Tories are confident their Senate reform bills will pass because the "institutional resistance" they have faced from Senate Liberals will be replaced next year by an appointed Conservative majority.

Well, its false. The Libs lose their majority next year. The Tories don't get one for another couple of years (2011, I think), so Senate Reform is a non-starter for quite awhile yet.

Wonder if this is a matter of the MSM just getting it wrong or Tory sources feeding them crap in the hopes that their political base is similarly fooled when they read it in the paper.

In any case, my guess would be that, come 2011 or whenever and a Tory Senate majority, Harper and Co. find a reason to support the status quo. They've swallowed their principles often enough to assume it will happen again.

Who Said That?

A senate chair should be occupied by someone with a democratic mandate, and Canadians should be able to mark their ballot for their Senator, as well as for their MP. We need a ballot with senators' names, and seats with senators that have been elected. Under a Conservative government, Canadians will choose who sits in this chair. In the 21st century, those who want to sit in the parliament of a democratic state should have a mandate from the people.The Prime Minister currently holds a virtually free hand in the selection of Senators. As Prime Minister I will use that power to establish a federal process for electing senators.

Probably the same guy who said this:

"In Canada, Senators remain appointed, not elected," he said. "They don't have to retire until age 75, and may warm their seats for as long as 45 years. By the nature of the system, they're not accountable to voters."

Lets be clear: Harper has the perfect right to stuff the Senate with cronies. Its the Canadian way. One might even argue that the integrity of the institution demands these appointments be made.

However, they are most accurately viewed as signalling the inevitable process by which a political party or movement sheds its Idealism in the face of hard reality. Where once the CPoC could argue that there was a clear moral distinction between them and the Liberals, now they can merely argue that there is a barely perceptible moral distinction between them and the Liberals. In three months, they will be arguing that their latest scandal isn't as bad as Adscam was. In six months...well, everybody count the spoons on Parliament Hill.

(PS. I'm hoping Harper does what so many people have tried to do for so many years-- get Puffy off the air-waves. For one thing, that would literalize the "stuffing" metaphor. Would they be forced to give him two Senate seats, a la the major airlines?)

H/t Ted.

The Only Reformed Senate Is A Dead Senate

Any of the changes to the upper chamber proposed by Stephen Harper thus far amount to an attempt to shift power from Central Canada to the West without having to shift the requisite bodies out West to force a redistribution of power in the HOC, which is based more or less on rep. by pop.

On the political level, an NEP in reverse, in other words.

Ontario and Quebec MPs of all stripes should oppose any such changs. Abolition should be the only reform acceptable to Central Canada.

(But of course talk of Senate reform at this point is simply a slice of red meat waved before the Tory base. It isn't like Harper is serious about pushing Senate reform in the face of a looming recession and looming deficits. But if he ever got serious about it, that's what I would say.)