Stephen Harper and the Supremes

Well I finally got my tax stuff into the mail this week.  I was much later than usual but I’m sure the government won’t mind.  I’ve got a refund coming.

Paying taxes is one place that I stand far apart from Stephen Harper.  He’s never seen a tax that he doesn’t hate while I, on the other hand am proud to be able to pay taxes.  It’s a cost of being a citizen, and it means I’m earning enough to warrant paying taxes as well.

While I don’t mind paying taxes (even I’m not happy about it), it bothers me when my tax dollars are misused and abused.  I think WiFi in National Parks is a waste.  I think TV ads telling me how wonderful the EAP is are a waste.  I think sending lawyers to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) to fight for poorly written laws is a waste.

My solution to the last one is simpler than Steve’s.  Let’s ask the Parliamentary Legal Department to look at these bills before we send them into the House instead of waiting until the court challenges are filed.

Steve, on the other hand likes to play the martyr.  Those horrible Justices struck down a law that the “People’s Representatives” passed.  It’s been a long time since some of us have had a representative in Ottawa. 

Between the omnibus bills and time allocation and committees that spend more time behind closed doors (in camera they call it) than they do in open meetings, our representatives don’t get to say doodley-squat. That, and the marionette theatre that votes “Yea” when Steve does and “Nay” when Steve does.  We don’t have representation in the House, we have Party Reps to the ridings.

This is why we need a Judicial System that has some independence from the politicians.

This is a toughie for the Justices, they are picked by the same person who picks the Senators and often for similar reasons.  The Justices might have biases towards one party or another, but they try to set these aside so that their decisions are based on the Rule of Law and measured against the Constitution of Canada including the Charter of Rights.

Steve seems to think that the “Law and Order” Party means he writes the laws and orders the SCC to enforce them. 

Currently Steve is involved in a dust-up where he has the chutzpah to blast the chief justice of the SCC, Beverley McLachlin, for improper actions.  She gave free advice to the government about the list of people under consideration for the vacant SCC seat and warned that there might be an issue with the appointment of Marc Nadon.

Steve and the PMO have turned this into some kind of a pissing match with the SCC and McLachlin.  A matter that was best left behind closed doors is now being contested in the media.

This is family business, dirty laundry if you will.  Not meant to be aired in front of the neighbours, much less the country…

And this is where I pull out my crystal ball and wipe the dust from it.

I was going to save it for the Ontario election, but here goes.

“Leaks and official statements chastising the SCC as well as the lower courts who don’t march to Harper’s tune will find their way into the media with increasing regularity.

The Fair Elections Act will no doubt go to the SCC if the 2007 legislation requiring ID to vote doesn’t get there first and knock C 23 for a loop.

The rhetoric will revolve around the “activist judges” who are imposing their will on the “People’s Representatives” rather than just enforcing the laws that the government writes and enforcing them unquestioned.

I’ve no doubt it will be said in ways that make it look more palatable, but the argument will be that the courts need to answer to Parliament, not the other way around… and the loonies and the toonies will fill the coffers of the Harper Party war chest for the 2015 election.” Thus foretells the Bear.

This frightens me.

We have few checks or balances on the government in Canada. Our national police force, the RCMP answers to the government.  Our Crown Prosecutors answer to the government.

The only layer that has any real distance from the government is the Judiciary.  They are government appointed, but many, if not most hold the law to be higher than the government.

We have a Constitution and part of that is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  This is a very important document.  If you told Americans that the government there was going to erase parts or all of their Constitution they’d reach for their guns.  Here the government makes that threat to raise money from their supporters.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter, they consider the arguments and they measure our laws against the highest law in the land, the Constitution and the Charter.  If the law is found lacking, it is struck down.

Stephen holds that Parliament should be the highest authority, that any laws enacted by the House of Commons should not be impeded by the unelected Senate, or the Governor General, or the Judiciary at any level.

This is dangerous.

Parliament has long lost its original purpose, which was to make the government accountable for its actions.  The “government” is only the Prime Minister and the Minister in the Cabinet.  All other Members of Parliament are Private Members charged with trying to ensure that only bills that have been carefully vetted pass on to the Senate.

This does not happen, any Member who votes against the Party line risks sanctions or even expulsion from the Party.  This isn’t particular to the Harper Party, all parties tend to this sort of discipline.  Members get their marching orders in caucus and go and do their duty in the House.

Committees are made up of Private Members as well.  They are supposed to do the heavy lifting to ensure what the government proposes is good for us.  But Party loyalty and the risk of sanctions force these committees to divide along party lines as well.

That leaves only the Judiciary to protect us, and if they lose or give up that power, the genie will not go back into the bottle.

This is what I want you to think about, and think hard.  If the courts are answerable to Parliament, (and Parliament no longer does its job) the government is no longer accountable to anyone save themselves.  And that is a recipe for disaster.

Even if you think the Harper is the bee’s knees and that he can do no wrong, what about the people who will be in charge 2 years from now, or 20 years from now.

The Supreme Court of Canada said unanimously that Marc Nadon did not meet the requirements to sit on the SCC.  Even the justices that Harper appointed were in line with that decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada found that the government could not unilaterally impose changes on the Senate nor could the government abolish the Senate.

Without the Supreme Court, Marc Nadon would be sitting on that bench and the Senate would be whatever the Harper government decided it should be.

The Constitution would be relegated to just being a law, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the same.

With a stroke of a pen, the rights that you think you have could be taken away by a majority government.  Forever.

If you want to say that Harper would never do that, please be my guest.  But would you give that kind of power to Jean Chretien? to Pierre Elliott Trudeau?

The power you let Stephen Harper have today will be the same power that future leaders will have, are you willing to take that risk?

We’ve already seen what happened when Parliament lost its teeth.  It has devolved into a party driven marionette theatre.  They only support their team, pull one string and they say “Yea” and pull the other and they say “Nay.”

History shows us what can happen if there are no restraints on government.  1930s Germany where having the wrong religion could stop you from operating a business or get thrown in jail… or worse.

You might think that something of that order could never happen here, just have a look at the news from the past week in Brampton.  It ain’t pretty folks.

A couple of former Reform Party members are trying to revive the power of the Private Member.  It’s a long slow process and in the end, I fear it will not come to pass.  With MPs bound by party partisanship and voters blinded by it, it will be a cold day in Hell before the government of Stephen Harper will give up one iota of power.

God help us if he gets it all.

BC

Some (More) Musings on Canadian Democracy

Let me get on my soap box so you can see me better.  I ask that you hold your questions until the end… I can’t promise to answer all your questions or comments but I can assure that I will read them and consider them…

Friends and neighbours, I’d like to speak for a bit on a subject very dear to me, a subject I feel is very important to all of us, the subject of Democracy.

Now I don’t plan on going into a long winded explanation of how we got Democracy from the Greeks or how it was used throughout the ages, I’m just going to touch upon Canadian Democracy.

Our Democracy.

I came across an item while I was looking for something else about how Members of Parliament, prior to the Second World War, were required to  surrender their seat in the House of Commons and run in a by-election if they were deemed worthy to be a member of Cabinet.

This intrigued me.  Imagine, after winning an election the newly minted Prime Minister comes to you and says “I’d like you to be my Minister of …” and then you’d have to decide whether you wanted to be in Cabinet. 

Today it would be a no brainer, a pay raise, a larger staff, a title, it all sounds good doesn’t it?  But back then you’d have to decide if you wanted the headaches and hassle of running again for the seat that you had just won, and the risk that you might lose.

Why would they do such a thing? 

It was tradition, it was the convention, it was done that way because that was the way it was done.

But this wasn’t some strange idea that Canadians dreamed up to complicate running a Country, it was in fact part of the Westminster Parliamentary system.  This was and is the system we inherited from Britain when we became a Country in our own right.

At that time, the Parties didn’t have as much control over the individual or Private Members of the House of Commons.  An MP’s job was to represent their constituency and to hold the Government to account.   The Government being the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. 

Now if you’ve ever watched Question Period from the House in London, you may have seen vestiges of this.  Occasionally a Member from the Government Side of the House will rise to ask a pointed question about policy or a proposed law which would not be a good thing for their home constituency.  As a Private Member, you have the ability to challenge the Government, as a Member of Cabinet, you do not.

You see as a Minister you are required to support any policy or legislation that the Government brings forward even if you think it is a bad idea, even if it is bad for your constituency.

So there was merit in having these by elections back then.  If the people supported Bob Brown because they thought he would do a good job of representing them even if he belonged to the wrong party, the people could toss Bob out and elect someone else if they didn’t like the Party he was affiliated with, the Government he would be representing.

But things certainly have changed.  At least here they have.

It certainly is a rare event to hear an MP stand up to his or her own Party.  It’s political suicide.  At best you’d likely lose any status you have built up with the Party and be a back bencher for life, and at worst you might have your seat taken away and a new candidate parachuted in to replace you.  Today you cannot run for the Party of your choice unless the leader of the Party signs your nomination papers so it is best to keep the leader happy if you want to be an MP.

So whatever happened to this odd rule?  Well after a number of minority governments in the 1920s, it just disappeared in the 1930s.

You see this wasn’t a law that you had to run in a by-election, it wasn’t even a real rule.  It was merely a convention, like saying “Thank you” or “You’re welcome”, you don’t Have to say these things, but we generally do anyway… it’s the way things are done. 

Many of the “rules” we have in our Parliamentary system are just conventions.  It’s part of the way our Democracy works.

Have you ever wondered why when the Speaker of the House is selected, they are escorted to the Speaker’s Chair by the leaders of the Government and the Opposition?  Have you ever wondered why they pretend they don’t want the job?

It’s part of the same thing.  Traditionally the Speaker was chosen from the Opposition side to weaken the Opposition and to show that the Speaker holds no favouritism to the Government.  The Speaker also surrenders their ability to speak for their constituents in the House.

The use of the prorogue is another example.  Traditionally the prorogue was used by the Government to show that they have met the goals they set out in the Throne Speech and to provide a break with which to draw up a new set of goals and a new Throne Speech.  Often a prorogue would be called when there is a normal break scheduled for the Legislature.  This would give the Government plenty of time to set a new agenda, but there are also examples of short breaks as well, such as a prorogue in Ontario’s Provincial Parliament that lasted only a few hours.

It’s kind of handy for historians too.  A prorogue can break up a Parliament into Sessions, so if you are looking for a specific item, you wouldn’t have 4 or 5 years worth of information to go through, but only 2 or 3.  You could look for the 42^nd Parliament, 2^nd Session for example.

However, the prorogue has also been abused, used as a “get out of trouble card” if a Government is having a bad go of it.

Jean Chrétien prorogued Parliament during the Sponsorship Scandal, but he was on his way out as Liberal leader and Paul Martin could very well have used the same tool to set his agenda as he was coming in to replace Chrétien.

Stephen Harper has also used the prorogue to get out of trouble twice so far.  Once when the opposition parties were lining up to bring down his minority government and then again when the Afghan detainee situation was threatening to boil over.  Lately Harper has said he will prorogue again this summer, he claims it is so he can set a new agenda but the Senate Scandal that is knocking at his door suggests other motives are at play.

Listen, as a people we have seen some great changes in our electoral system.  We have gone from a show of hands at a local beer hall to the secret ballot.  We have gone from a time when only men of wealth or property were the only ones who could vote to a time where virtually all citizens have the right to vote and there are not a lot of places that can say that.

But, while our electoral system has been improved, our governance has gone the other way.  Our individual MPs , our voices in the House are for the most part muzzled.  If you want to be more than a backbencher for your political career  you pretty much have to toe the Party line and that rings true for pretty much all the parties, but even more so for some.

I would love to see at least one backbencher on the Harper side of the House stand up and say "No" to limiting debate, to say "No" to omnibus legislation.

We need our MPs to have voices again and not just parrot the party line regardless which party is handing out the talking points.

So how do we do this?  I don’t know.

I don’t even know If we can do this. 

We have seen the gradual diminishment of the MP to the point where they are little more than place markers in the House of Commons.  After we find out how many seats each party won, we don’t need ‘em any more.

The power in Ottawa appears to be getting so concentrated that we may not even need a Cabinet any more other than to reward good MPs for reading their talking points and not being an embarrassment to the Government.  It seems all they do is read their talking points anyways, and that includes the Cabinet Ministers.

Short of pointy sticks or cattle prods, how do we remind our MPs that we sent them to Ottawa to represent us and not to just send us periodic reports on what a wonderful job their leader is (or would be) doing.

Maybe we should go back through the long forgotten conventions of our Parliamentary system and make them use them again, in the ways they are supposed to be used?  Maybe 39 by-elections for Cabinet appointments would make people wonder what the devil is going on in Ottawa?

So endeth the Rant for Today,

I appreciate your time.

Cheers! BC

On Senate Reform or Step Away from the Red Chamber Stephen

As I was browsing through the channels the other day I happened across Jinny Sims speaking in the House of Commons about the “Senate Reform Act”.

Now Jinny Sims (pictured) is a New Democrat and I am not (I am not a card carrying member of any party) and we do not see eye to eye on the Senate. The NDP would like it abolished, I believe the Senate is an important part of our democratic system but that it is open to abuse and the Stephen Harper Party is abusing the Senate power more than any time I can remember.

Many years ago, when the Fathers of Confederation sat down and created Canada, they had a number of Democratic Models to choose from and they chose a Parliamentary System, the Westminster System.

Under this system, we have an elected House of Commons, the Parliament and an appointed Senate, appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

In our Canadian system, Senators are appointed for life or age 75 and must meet certain criteria to be eligible to sit as a Senator. These Senators represent their respective regions of Canada and are charged with evaluating legislation based on whether or not it is good for their region as well as the country as a whole. By appointing these Senators, they are not accountable to anyone but themselves, they cannot be recalled by voters or called to task by sitting Prime Ministers or anyone else. This is supposed to be a strength of the Senate. When the Senate looks at legislation, the members are free to discuss the legislation without fear of reprisal for supporting an unpopular view or voting against party doctrine.

When the Fathers of Confederation considered the Senate, they chose to balance the numbers and the power evenly over the 4 regions of Canada so that no one or two regions could dominate the Senate.

When a Prime Minister recommends someone for the Senate, he or she will often base part (or all) of their recommendation on the politics of the person they are suggesting, but that is where it is supposed to end. Each and every Senator’s responsibility is to the Country and to the people of the region they represent and not blind obeisance to the party that put him there.

At this point I quote Jinny Sims from Hansards:

It is a very telling comment when a senator can write a letter to other senators stating:

Those of us who came to the red chamber were there to get a majority vote for reform. Those in the Senate before [the Prime Minister came to power] need to realize that, had he not made appointments, the Conservatives appointed by Mulroney would now be a very small group struggling to do anything! Every senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple:--

As a taxpayer this would actually give me sleepless nights. It continues:

--our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform since he entered politics, the Rt. Hon. [Prime Minister].

Jinny is quoting Senator Bert Brown. I choose to not in “Honourable” as part of Bert’s title as I feel that any Senator who feels this way does a disservice to every Senator who does try to represent their constituents, their region, their Country.

The Senate is often referred to as a place of “sober second thought” where proposed laws receive their final evaluation before being sent on to the Governor General for Royal Assent or back to the House of Commons with amendments if the law is found wanting. The Senate is also often referred to a “rubber stamp” and it appears that is what Bert wants it to be.

Don Cherry likes to say “Dance with the one that brought you” which is fine for choosing your Goalie, but Stephen Harper doesn’t pay your salary Bert, the people of Canada do. If you want to dance with Stephen Harper, do it at the Senate Christmas Ball, not in the Red Chamber which incidentally is also paid for by the Canadian people.

I don’t care if the members of the Senate are members of political parties, I don’t care if they sit in those parties’ caucuses, I do have issue with Senators blindly following the dictates of Lord Stephen or whoever is the leader of the governing party of the day.

Here I quote Sir Clifford Sifton’s The New Era in Canada: (you'll need to scroll to section 3 for this part)

No nation should be under unchecked, single-chamber government ... It must also be remembered that, under our system, the power of the Cabinet tends to grow at the expense of the House of Commons ... The Senate is not so much a check on the House of Commons as it is upon the Cabinet, and there can be no doubt that its influence in this respect is salutary.

(words in bold my choice)

I would also quote a famous Canadian:

"... in the Upper House, - the controlling and regulating, but not the initiating, branch - ... in the House which has the sober second-thought in legislation, it is provided that each of those great sections shall be represented equally"

- Sir John A. Macdonald

I wouldn’t dream of contradicting Sir John A. but apparently Stephen and Bert have no qualms about it.

Now I hear that the Stephen Harper Party is considering closure for debate in the Senate, much as they have done in the House of Commons. The Senate needs to stand up to the House of Commons and say “No” or risk becoming what they are accused of, a rubber stamp not worth saving, a second act of “Marionette Theatre” with Lord Stephen pulling the strings.

The Stephen Harper Party wants to reform the Senate, they can’t stand the fact that they might be second guessed by “the controlling and regulating…branch” of government’s “sober second thought”. Again I refer to Sir John A. Macdonald.

The Senate has served us for over 140 years, offering amendments to laws that needed them, sitting on “special committees” looking into poverty in Canada, the needs of our youth, the needs of our elderly. They have been able to do this in part because they do not have to worry about rushing to please anyone but only to making sure things are done right. As for the committee work, they have the luxury of time to fully study an issue and fully understand the issue before moving forward on that issue. There is no 4 year window to try and jam things through.

If we need to reform the Senate, we need to take the power of selection of these Senators in waiting from the PMO and take the power over the Senate away from the government.

If Stephen Harper and his marionettes manage to distort the Senate into the image that they feel is the “right” one then I’ll seriously have to reconsider the NDP stance on the Senate.

It will just be a rubber stamp with folks like Bert in it. We might just as well shut the doors and fire the lot of them. No severance pay, no pension, just hit the bricks people, you don’t work here anymore.

Or perhaps the Senators will decide to use their power of sober second thought.