Stealing Our Democracy: The Senate Takes A Swing

Okay, now the Senate is talking about wanting to see some amendments to the Harper Government's bill to undermine Canada's democracy.

The interim report recommends: 

— Removing a provision which would allow political parties to exempt from their election expenses any money spent to raise donations from anyone who has donated at least $20 over the previous five years. Experts have called this an unenforceable loophole that would allow rich, established parties with big donors' lists to spend untold millions more during campaigns. 

— Requiring automated call service providers to retain records of campaign robocalls for three years, rather than the one year retention proposed in the bill. 

— Clarifying that Elections Canada's reduced role in promoting democracy and voter participation will not affect the independent agency's involvement in Student Vote or other educational programs aimed at elementary and high school students. 

— Specifying that both the chief electoral officer, who administers election laws, and the commissioner of elections, who enforces the law and investigates breaches, be able to inform the public of any problems they uncover in the electoral system. 

— Specifically authorizing continued communications between the chief electoral officer and the commissioner, whom the bill proposes to hive off Elections Canada and move under the auspices of the director of public prosecutions. 

— Encouraging Elections Canada to post photos of candidates on ballots, to help voters who can't read. 

— Encouraging Elections Canada to provide information about braille ballots to blind voters and to conduct a pilot project using specialized voting kiosks for the blind.

The first change on the list actually addresses one of the problematic aspects of the bill, but it is one that I consider comparatively minor.  It's a loophole that allows parties to spend stupid amounts of money contacting "previous donors" - those are people who are to a large extent already engaged in the political system.

However, it does not address the key problems with C-23 that have been identified on this blog and by others.  They have not addressed at all the issues with removing vouching, voter id requirements, the appointment of polling station officials, investigation of fraud in the electoral system and so on.

Harper's Senators are apparently acting as the trained seals that Harper likes.  They are proposing a bunch of amendments to address the "shortcomings" of the bill which do nothing to address the key problems which turn Canada's electoral system into a partisan farce on the scale of elections in Ghadaffi's Libya.  These aren't meaningful amendments, this is chaff thrown up to distract Canadians from the vileness of C-23.

The Rot Starts At The Top

Regular readers of this space will know that I am no fan of Prime Minister Harper.  

Yesterday's revelation that a "boot camp" for new Conservative Senators explicitly told the new Senators that partisan travel was a legitimate expense makes me downright furious.

Three former Conservative senators at the heart of a spending scandal were given clear directions from their leader in the upper chamber that they could bill for certain partisan — that is, political — travel when they first arrived in the Senate. 

The directions were given during a two-day “boot camp” for new Tory senators that outlined expense-claim dos and don’ts, expectations for senators, and a warning to be careful with how they spent Senate money. 

Let me be abundantly clear here:  The Senate, and the House of Commons, exist for conducting the business of this country.  NOT the business of the Conservative Party of Canada or any other party.  That the Harperites would give explicit instructions about this tells us a lot - and none of it is acceptable.

First, that they would even state that any kind of partisan travel is an acceptable expense is plain wrong. It speaks to a degree of intent to abuse the system.  In essence, the new Senators are being told "break the rules, but don't get caught - nudge, nudge, wink, wink".  I suspect that if Duffy or Wallin had only done one suspect trip in a year, nobody would be particularly outraged.  It would fall under the "cost of doing business" kind of logic that most of us understand.  However, that isn't what happened.  Instead, these two Senators were put into a position where suddenly they were doing a lot of travel on questionable business, and apparently the CPC machinery wasn't willing to invest some of the millions it raises in donations every year into funding this travel.

Second, this is little different to me than the "How to Disrupt Parliament" manual that Harper handed out to his MPs back in 2006.  It speaks to a clear intent to abuse the privileges and rights of power for partisan gain.  Make no mistake about it, the tone in the party that makes this kind of abuse of parliament and taxpayers starts at the top - look in the direction of the PMO when assigning responsibility - the man at the top should be held accountable for this.

Like the Economic Action Plan ads which are really little more than CPC propaganda, what we have here is another example of a government which is willing to abuse taxpayer funds for partisan purposes.  Canadians are paying for Harper to publish partisan propaganda - no more, no less.  Now we find out that Harper's Senate appointees are being given specific instructions on how to abuse the funding of the Senate so that they can further their partisan work.  Makes one wonder just how much of the same kind of thing is going on in the House of Commons with his caucus.  (I know that I seldom see anything from my MP except for the occasional leaflet which is completely devoid of actual content)

More so than any Prime Minister before him, Harper has gone to enormous lengths to corrupt Parliament from the ground up.  From clear violations of Canada's election laws (remember the "In-and-Out campaign financing in 2006?), to electoral fraud in 2011(yes, I hold the CPC responsible for the Robocalls mess - their database was used for it, and I do not accept the "it was hacked" line), a manual for MPs on how to disrupt parliamentary business, a steady rebranding of Canada's government using CPC colours, and now we learn that the Senate has been instructed on how to abuse the finances provided to run that body.

I have seen a few apologists for the Harperites point to Mac Harb and a couple of other Liberal Senators and claim that "the system has been broken for years".  Yes, it has - no argument there.  The issue is the lengths to which Harper has abused the system, especially when he was elected in 2006 on a promise to provide Canadians with more open and accountable government.  He has provided anything but.  In fact, the corruption under Harper is far, far worse than what we have ever seen on any previous Prime Minister in living memory.

The Duffy Scandal Keeps On Giving

In some respects, what is coming out regarding Mike Duffy this week is not really a big surprise.  However, it is important.

First up, we have a set of court document filings that bring out some very interesting points regarding timeline, and in particular how that timeline relates to the story that Harper has related to Canadians.

1. The documents reveal the RCMP is investigating Duffy over not just one, but three separate fraud allegations:

• For expenses perhaps fraudulently claimed for Ottawa housing and per diem costs, because Duffy said his primary residence was in P.E.I.
• For possible fraudulent per diem claims submitted while he was vacationing in Florida or while he was campaigning for the Conservative Party in the last federal election.
• For accepting, perhaps fraudulently, a payment from Nigel Wright, the prime minister's top aide, in exchange for a deal that would allow him to pay back his inappropriately claimed expenses quickly and without protest and for a promise a Senate report would "go easy on him."

2. Amid opposition party demands for an investigation, the RCMP, of its own volition, began investigating Duffy in March. That was two months before a Deloitte audit of Duffy's residency, commissioned by the Senate, was made public, and before a Senate committee voted to refer Duffy's expenses to the RCMP.

3. Although Duffy claimed his primary residence was in P.E.I., the documents reveal he's lived in Ottawa since 1971. However, he applied for a P.E.I. driver's licence on Dec. 22, 2008 — the same day it was announced he had been selected for appointment to the Senate.

4. In passport applications in 2007 and 2012, Duffy gave his Ottawa address as his permanent residence.

5. The documents reveal the Conservative Party initially believed Duffy owed only $32,000, an amount the party was apparently willing to pay. This amount may refer to the $34,000 the Deloitte report calculated Duffy had claimed in housing costs in Ottawa and per diems during the 18-month period of Deloitte's examination.

It is not clear why the party didn't know that Senator David Tkachuk, at the time chair of the Senate committee on internal economy, had written Duffy on Feb. 27 telling him he actually owed $90,172.

6. Lawyers for Nigel Wright, the prime minister's former chief of staff, told the RCMP that when Wright gave Duffy $90,000 he didn't know about any fraudulent claims on Duffy's part. But Wright was in contact with Senator Tkachuk during the time Deloitte was preparing its report, and it was Deloitte that discovered Duffy had claimed per diems for being on Senate business while on vacation in Florida.

7. It is not clear why the chair of the Conservative Fund, Senator Irving Gerstein, thought it was OK for the party to bear the cost of $32,000 for Duffy, but not $90,000.

8. Wright, in a statement given when he resigned, said he accepted "sole responsibility" for the decision to give money to Duffy. But the documents reveal that Wright's lawyers told the RCMP that three other senior people in the Prime Minister's Office knew about the $90,000 cheque, as did Gerstein.

At Huffington Post, they took the time to go through the documents and compare the timeline in the court filings with the version of the story that Harper has been trying to convince the public is "the real story":

Under intense questioning about the affair throughout the spring, Harper repeatedly insisted that his chief of staff, Nigel Wright, acted on his own when he decided to give Duffy $90,000 to reimburse the Senate for invalid expense claims.

"Those were his decisions. They were not communicated to me or to members of my office," Harper told the House of Commons on June 5.

But the RCMP, which has launched a criminal investigation into the matter, says in a court document that Wright recalls telling three other senior people in the Prime Minister's Office about the transaction.

Wright had not been interviewed by the Mounties at the time the document was filed in court by lead investigator Cpl. Greg Horton, on June 24. But the document recounts a June 19 meeting with Wright's lawyers, Patrick McCann and Peter Mantas.

The lawyers told the RCMP that Wright recalls telling his assistant, David van Hemmen; Harper's legal adviser, Benjamin Perrin; and Chris Woodcock, director of issues management in the PMO, about his intention to personally give Duffy the money to reimburse the Senate.

Anyone who believes that Harper was not fully briefed on what was going on in his own offices has to be either deluding themselves or they would believe someone trying to sell them the Brooklyn Bridge on the street.

Beyond Harper lying to Canadians about this whole fiasco, is the emerging evidence that Senator Duffy was not, and is not today, a resident of the region that he is supposedly representing.  This isn't just a matter of recently moving either.  Duffy has lived in Ottawa since 1971, and two passport applications list his Ottawa address as his permanent residence.

Why is this significant?  Because it calls into question whether Duffy should even be permitted to sit in the Senate as a representative of Prince Edward Island.

Referring to the Constitution documents for Canada, we find the following qualifications for a Senator:

Qualifications of Senator
23. The Qualifications of a Senator shall be as follows:

1. (1)  He shall be of the full age of Thirty Years;
   
2. (2)  He shall be either a natural-born Subject of the Queen, or a Subject of the Queen naturalized by an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of One of the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, before the Union, or of the Parlia- ment of Canada after the Union;
   
3. (3)  He shall be legally or equitably seised as of Freehold for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Free and Common Socage, or seised or possessed for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Franc-alleu or in Roture, within the Province for which he is appointed, of the Value of Four thousand Dollars, over and above all Rents, Dues, Debts, Charges, Mortgages, and Incumbrances due or payable out of or charged on or affecting the same;
   
4. (4)  His Real and Personal Property shall be together worth Four thousand Dol- lars over and above his Debts and Liabilities;
   
5. (5)  He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed;
   
6. (6)  In the Case of Quebec he shall have his Real Property Qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that Di- vision. (13) 
   

At the time he was appointed to the Senate in 2008, he didn't even hold a driver's license from PEI.  In other words, all of his legal documentation likely showed that he resided in Ottawa.  I don't think that this has changed one iota.  For the sake of appearances, Duffy applied for a PEI Driver's License in 2009, but a subsequent passport application in 2011 listed his Ottawa home as his permanent address.

In short, Duffy fails the residency test in the first place.  Given that the Governor General appoints Senators on the advice of the Prime Minister, I think it is fairly clear that not only is Duffy's seat in the Senate highly suspect, but further that Harper is complicit in a fraudulent appointment.

Duffy Is The Canary In The Corruption Coal Mine

The story swirling around Mike Duffy changes faster than the Tory spin machine can keep up with.  A few days ago, Duffy had allegedly repaid the $90K in ineligible expenses.  Then yesterday it comes out that he hadn't actually repaid them himself, but rather someone in the PMO had handed Duffy a cheque for $90K.

But, let's dial back a ways to the beginning of this story, shall we?

Back in February, auditors were asked to investigate the residency claims of several senators, including Mike Duffy.

At that time, Duffy stated:

“As a Prince Edward Islander, born and bred, I am proud to represent my province and its interests in the Senate of Canada,” Duffy said in the statement.

“I represent taxpayers with care, and Canadians know I would never do anything to betray the public trust. I have a home in Prince Edward Island as required by law. I will have no further comment until this review is complete.”

Amusingly, a few days later, we learn that neighbors near Duffy's alleged "primary residence" on PEI hadn't seen him there very often at all.  Which, of course, raises questions as to whether or not Duffy is even eligible to sit as a Senator for PEI at all.

In march, Duffy promised to pay the expenses back.  In itself, that seems to be the honourable and appropriate thing to do.

During April, Duffy claimed he was going to do nothing until the results of the audit were in only to turn around a day later and claim that he had already paid the amount outstanding back.  The Conservative politburo in the PMO has lost control of this story - it has spun so far out of control that they cannot bury it.  The most recent twist of a "gift" of $90K to Duffy from a high level PMO staffer just smells wrong.  Not necessarily strictly wrong, but morally and ethically suspect.  To claim that Harper didn't know about it seems less than believable, especially given Harper's known track record as a micromanager.  Paying the money back smacks of a cover-up (which it is), and the longer this goes on, the worse it looks for both Duffy and the credibility of the Harper government.

One might be tempted to look upon this as simply an individual Senator overreaching their privileges.  That is certainly easy enough to do, after all Duffy is but a singular senator, and one who comes from a background of considerable privilege both in his personal life and as a reporter on Parliament Hill before he became a Senator.

Then we have the revelation that he was claiming significant expenses on his Senate expense account whilst campaigning during the 2011 election campaign.

Social media and newspaper reports offer a glimpse of how Duffy's busy campaign schedule overlapped with the Senate business he reported to auditors:

— On April 5, Duffy spoke to the Kootenay-Columbia Conservative association in British Columbia. His travel claims indicated he was on Senate business.

— On April 8, candidate Sandy Lee tweeted that she was meeting Duffy in Norman Wells, N.W.T. Lee's campaign paid Duffy $209.01 in expenses. His travel claims indicated he was on Senate business.

— On April 21, Duffy was reportedly campaigning with candidate Scott Armstrong in Nova Scotia. Armstrong's campaign paid Duffy $409.91 in expenses.

— On April 28, Duffy appeared to have a busy day in the Toronto area, campaigning with candidates Maureen Harquail, Wladyslaw Lizon and Gin Siow. Lizon's campaign paid Duffy $169.45, as did Siow. His travel claims indicated he was on Senate business.

— On April 29, former cabinet minister Lawrence Cannon tweeted a picture of Duffy at an event outside of Ottawa that same day. The Deloitte audit listed Duffy as being in Ottawa on Senate business and claiming a per diem.

If Duffy collected daily Senate expenses while on the Conservative campaign trail, taxpayer may have paid twice: Conservative candidates who paid for Duffy's hotel stays would have received federal rebate money for those expenses.

Duffy's campaign events did not end there. On at least five other occasions documented in media reports, Duffy campaigned with Conservative candidates. He did not tell Deloitte about his campaign calendar, forcing Deloitte to list his activities as "undocumented."

In essence, taxpayers were paying for Duffy to travel around Canada campaigning for the Conservative party.

The first thing that comes to mind is that ALL Senators expense claims during the election campaign need to be reviewed.  If it is in fact a "normal practice" for Senators to claim travel expenses while on the campaign trail, that needs to stop.  Now.  An election campaign is not in any meaningful sense of the word "Senate Business".

However, this is but one thread in a much larger tapestry of Conservative dirty tricks during the 2011 election campaign.  Consider, for example the infamous Robocalls Scandal where Conservative telephone calls to constituency residents were used to direct voters to non-existent voting stations.  As if that were not enough, we also have Peter Penashue's resignation as a result of irregularities in campaign spending.  While there is no excusing Duffy's actions, he is in some ways the proverbial "canary in the coal mine".  He has been just naive enough that he has been caught out in a web of lies, deceit while his hand was firmly in the cookie jar.

Politics is a dirty sport at the best of times, and few if any politicians can claim to be entirely clean.  However, under Harper, things have sunk to levels far below those which Mulroney's government sank to in the late 1980s.  This is blatant corruption and pork-barrel politics at its worst.  While the events around the Airbus Affair certainly did not pass the smell test, they had a degree of ambiguity to them.  What we are seeing today is much more blatant in the degree and extent of the corruption and abuse of Canada's system of governance.

At the rate that he is going, Harper's legacy to Canadians will at its best be the redemption of Brian Mulroney.

Gearing Up For An Election, Steve?

So, I see that the HarperCon$ have decided to start combining issues ... in this case by re-introducing their legislation to kill the gun registry, but in the Senate this time.

Realistically, the last two attempts to pass this legislation failed in the House of Commons because the HarperCon$ either allowed it to fail by taking no steps to bring any of the opposition onside - mostly so they could whine and bellyache about how "dysfunctional" parliament was.

This latest maneuver is little more than an attempt to get the Conservative "base" in Alberta wound up over two issues at the same time. They'll find it particularly easy to whine about how the evil senate gets in the way of government legislation, and because there is little chance that this legislation will ever get to the House of Commons before parliament is dissolved next, it means that the Con$ can whine further about how "undemocratic" that is. Ignoring, of course, the fact that the legislation has about as much chance of passing in the House of Commons as it did the previous two times.

While this maneuver will play well in Alberta, I'm less convinced that it will make that much difference elsewhere in the country. Frankly, given some of the horrendous legislation the HarperCon$ have proposed, I'm glad that the Senate has been able to put the brakes on some of it.

Steve Stacks The Senate

So, Harper has appointed 18 senators.

Mr. Harper has always believed senators should be elected and he refrained from filling most vacancies while trying to make the upper chamber more democratic. Those efforts ran into roadblocks erected in Parliament and by Ontario and Quebec.

Oh yes, Mr. Harper's half-baked attempt at Senate reform - formally call Bill C-43, and was one of the most ridiculous bills tabled by the HarperCon$ in 2006. It did not deserve to pass - any more than Harper's equally ridiculous (and now irrelevant) "fixed election dates" law. (which he saw fit to ignore this past fall)

“We've invited the provinces to hold elections. We've put an electoral bill before the House of Commons. But for the most part, neither in Parliament nor in the provinces has there been any willingness to move forward on reform.”

Wow, can you hear the tone of petulant whining in this quote? My goodness, Mr. Harper, you must really be missing the point. Nobody buys that your "reforms" are meaningful.

What really irritates me about these appointments comes in two forms:

1. Mr. Harper is making these appointments during a prorogue of Parliament that he triggered to avoid a confidence vote that he would likely have lost. As far as I'm concerned, along with a bunch of other patronage appointments made during this period of parliamentary limbo are simply a demonstration of how Harper abuses his position.

2. As The Toronto Star points out, Harper has tried to attach strings to these senatorial appointments:

According to Harper’s office, today’s appointees have all promised to support his plans for Senate reform, including eight-year term limits. But they are not bound to run for election themselves.

So - in short what Harper has done is bought his votes in the Senate, by insisting that they vote for whatever brain damaged legislation he puts forth.

Mr. Harper neither understands nor appreciates the function of the Senate in Canada as a check and balance to the often fractious House of Commons. He apparently believes that Senators are subject to the same kind of arm twisting and thuggery that he routinely applies in the House of Commons caucus.

[Update 23/12/08]
Comments on this article are closed before they degenerate any further.
[/Update]

So Much For Harper's "Principles"

For a man who has been on a tirade about senate reform for years, it's amazing to me how quickly Harper lowers himself to tradition when he's suddenly under pressure.

Of course, in typical HarperCon fashion, it's all the opposition's fault:

The Tories want to avoid the possibility that the 105-member Senate gets filled with members opposed to Senate reform -- or with separatist leanings.

"The Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition has indicated it plans to fill the Senate with coalition members and this includes the prospect of appointing senators who do not believe in Canadian unity," the official said.

I see ... so Harper's round of appointing senators (none of whom will have been elected - in spite of his previous arguments that they should be voted on by the citizens) is really all out of fear of the "Evil Coalition"™ - uh huh. I'll put better odds on Harper is simply being dishonest with Canadians, and continuing to play his petty partisan games, all rooted in his ideology.

Just as his repeated suspensions of parliament are anti-democratic, so is his approach to Senate Reform - which appears now to be just empty words.

Stephen "Senate Refooooorm" Harper - Reprise

I'm a few days behind on articles, but when I looked this article on Harper's plans to resurrect his "senate elections" legislation, it was clear that the author has thought about things in considerable depth.

He concludes with the following statement:

There are many arguments in favour of this change, and it might actually make Canadian democracy - and the Prime Minister and his government - more accountable and representative. But again, such a change is too important to be undertaken without a great deal of public discussion.

The IRPP has published a much more detailed analysis - it's worth the time to read it - before Harper starts attempting to dictate a lame-brained "reform" policy without discussing it with the rest of Canada.

The Irony, It Burns!

So, now that a bill that Stephen Harper doesn't like has passed the House of Commons, he is now asking that the Senate squash it.

That would be the same Stephen Harper who just a few weeks ago was threatening to collapse the parliament if the Senate didn't pass his utterly brain dead "get tough on crime" bill, and has been very disrespectful of the Senate.

Harper's been itching to redesign - or replace - the Senate with something created in his own image for years. Of course, anything he does will be very limited unless Harper's willing to attempt a constitutional amendment. (a process which I don't think Canadians are willing to consider at this time, as it would oblige reopening certain discussions around Quebec and the First Nations that are, well, sticky)

However, there is a grand irony that Harper finds himself bound to asking the Senate to put the brakes on a bill that the House of Commons has passed. It wasn't very long ago that he was screaming about the Senate overriding the will of Canada's elected house of parliament.

This in fact underscores my long held point about the Senate - namely that the Con$ don't understand it's existence, history, processes or the balance of powers that are involved. Harper has been so caustic towards the Senate, I'd almost consider passing this bill to be a well delivered slap in the face to PMSH. (Oh yes, and the claim that it would push the government into deficit is an utter falsehood. It would only push the government into deficit if the HarperCon$ government lacks the requisite intelligence to adjust their fiscal budget.

If the Senate is going to be called upon to kill a bill, it will be Bill C-484, which is nothing less than another piece of TheoCon inspired garbage aimed squarely at a woman's right to control over her body and reproductive destiny. (and no doubt has Chuck McVety positively drooling over the prospect of 'putting those uppity feminists back in their place')

Senate As Jury Duty?

With our politicians rumbling once again about "Senate Reform" - or if you are Jack Layton - abolition, it's not a bad idea to consider the question of what form should a revised senate take.

This proposal is mildly intriguing, as it proposes constituting the Senate through an arbitrary (and hence apolitical) means similar to that of forming a jury for a criminal trial.

Perhaps that isn't entirely a bad idea, after all we do elect our MPs in the House of Commons (and theoretically, politicians are just "guys off the street", right?), so why wouldn't a "jury duty" approach work?

As a selection process it sounds only marginally less messy than an election, and subject to a variety of manipulations.

The more critical problems that arise come out of the subtleties of both law and politics. Unlike a jury trial, where the judge provides a certain amount of guidance to the jurors in understanding the applicable bits of law, I'm not at all sure who would be able to provide that guidance to the "Jury Senate", especially when the Senate has to be able to parse through not just legalities, but also the smoke-and-mirrors that politicians routinely use.

The next point of issue would be that such a process remains subject to criticism as "undemocratic", with substantially less accountability than is present in the current system. Without spending a significant amount of time addressing the role and powers of the Senate in the parliamentary processes, I don't see how this would actually work.

I also suspect that continuity could be a huge problem. One of the intended reasons for the Senate is to have a body in the legislative process that is persistent across multiple sittings of the House of Commons - providing a degree of continuity to the process - and hopefully some sanity compared to the fractious nature of debate in the House of Commons. Even if you replaced a third or a half of the Senate each year, there is still a great deal of challenge around people learning the legislative game in Ottawa, and learning to balance the imperatives of legislation against the practicalities of law.

A poorly educated oversight body could easily be more damaging than the current Senate is capable of being.

Lastly, I think the notion of viewing the Senate as a form of "jury" is a gross misrepresentation of the role. Such a mischaracterization means that there is a substantial risk that a lot of the "selected jurors" would be burnt out very quickly by the political process in Ottawa. Politics, like management is not easy work, nor is it the kind of work that everyone is well suited to.

The Venting of Hot Air

I see the Con$ are busy trying to play to Jack Layton's tune on abolishing the Senate.

I would suggest strongly that Mssrs Layton and Harper review this section of the Constitution before they go off on their next little tirade about senate reform or abolition thereof.

In particular, I would draw their attention to the following sections:

38 (1):

(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by

(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.

and

42 (1):

(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):

(a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(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;
(d) subject to paragraph 41(d), the Supreme Court of Canada;
(e) the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and
(f) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces.

If you thought the arguments over Meech Lake or Charlottetown were nasty, I suspect it would be nothing compared to the debates that would rage over restructuring parliament.

Harper, and Layton, dream of making their mark in history - I would suggest that they both start by knocking off the rhetoric and taking the time to start understanding this nation's Constitution. Even if they were to make a motion to abolish the Senate, that is only one step in a long process - which, I suspect, only a handful of provincial legislatures would agree to readily.

I'm not saying that changing the senate is necessarily a bad thing, but it has to be crafted carefully, and with a great deal of deliberation. Simple abolition would place Canada in the unique place of being the only large democracy without an upper house that can act in counterpoint to the often fractious House of Commons. That would not be good for Canada in the long run.

Dear Jack:

You're starting to sound like a CPC party member. His latest blathering about abolishing the senate is pulling a line straight out of Stephen Harper's underwear drawer.

He said the Senate is outdated and undemocratic, but the NDP still wants Canadians to have a say on its future.

So...you just throw it away? Sorry Jack, but you've just demonstrated how little you really understand. Like Harper's piddling Bill C-43 which he couldn't seem to ram through parliament, simply abolishing the Senate isn't doing us any favors either.

I suggest that Mr. Layton review the legal constructs that surround the Senate, as well as its practical role in parliament (which is actually quite limited). Simply abolishing the Senate leaves us with a parliament that has no natural "counter check" on bills passed. While the Senate may irritate me in a dozen different ways, having a second set of eyes that is not beholden to the often turbulent currents of public opinion is a good thing for Canada. In the past it has forced the House of Commons to go back and place limits on the more dangerous clauses of legislation that could be used to unjustly abrogate the principles of civil rights, and equality before the law.

Senate Reform, whether it is making the senate elected or removing it altogether is not trivial, nor should we treat it as such. Among other things, any meaningful reform involves a constitutional amendment - anything else is little more than legislative window dressing. If we are going to go down the path of creating an elected Senate, that's fine, but let's examine what we expect the role of that Senate to be.

Similarly, if we are going to outright abolish the Senate then we must ask what kind of structure do we put in place to act as a counterweight to the House of Commons.

If we fail to do so, we will create a situation where even greater powers will devolve to the courts and the Governor General. (and, I would argue that both bodies would find themselves swamped with demands to overturn Parliament's excesses)

Layton needs a wake-up pill ... or a serious boot to the head. If he doesn't focus his efforts on countering Harper's legislative agenda in a meaningful way - instead of playing to it - the leader of "Canada's Effective Opposition"(™) will have allowed the CPC to damage Canada very badly indeed.

He may think he's scoring political points right now, but what Layton's really doing is pissing off everybody who might consider voting for him - largely because he is acting more and more like a Conservative Party shill every day.

Harper Shows Us What He Really Thinks

... and it's contempt for Canada - or at least our Parliament:

“As one Canadian political scientist I know likes to say, when we look at Australia, we suffer from ‘Senate envy,' ” Mr. Harper told Australian senators and members of Parliament, to their great amusement, in the opening lines of his speech this morning.

“In Canada, senators remain appointed, not elected. 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.”

Please Mr. Harper, STFU! If you wish to reform the Senate, I suggest you begin by putting forward a proposal that doesn't royally screw up the balance of power and responsibility in our government's houses, and doesn't emulate the system of perpetual conflict that we see in Washington.

In the meantime, you might gain some traction at home by demonstrating a degree of respect for your colleagues in both houses of Parliament.

Of course, Harper's contempt for anything other than toadying sycophants has been demonstrated repeatedly - during the last election, and now in his international stage sniping at his colleagues in Canada's parliament. This is not a man who is ready to reform anything - he has neither the breadth or depth of vision to see beyond his own blinding ideology.

It is unusual for world leaders to wade into domestic squabbles when they have been given an international podium. But Mr. Harper regularly criticizes his opposition while abroad, and the Senate is one of his favourite targets.

Liberal senators, who hold a majority in the chamber, decided not to vote on a bill that calls for eight-year limits on Senate terms until its constitutionality had been tested in the courts.

But that bill and another that would create a process for electing senators were killed by Mr. Harper's decision to prorogue Parliament.

Take note here - Harper's pending bills WERE NOT killed by the Senate - they were killed BY MR. HARPER'S DECISION to prorogue parliament.

When the Con$ start braying about how the bad old Senate killed their legislation, remember to slap them around with that little fact.

[Update 11/9/07]
A few people are speculating that Harper may move to eliminate the Canadian Senate if he can't have his way with it.

It should be noted that doing so would be an extremely complicated thing to do, as the existence of the Senate is written into the core of the Canadian Constitution.

In fact, any legislative changes to the role and structure of the Senate would ultimately be bounded by the roles and responsibilities set forth in the Constitution of this nation. I doubt that Canadians as a whole have much appetite for another Con$ervative Prime Minister attempting to monkey with that document. (anybody else remember the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords?)

So far anything Harper has done to effect "democratic reform" has ultimately been little more than poorly disguised window dressing.
[/Update]