Reform the Senate: Two Competing Proposals

The idea for this post originated a few weeks ago. It is a pleasant coincidence that Prime Minister Harper recently announced his position that the provinces must come together on a reform or the Senate should be abolished. After reading Protecting Canadian Democracy edited by Serge Joyal I began to consider a broader range of reform choices available to Canadians. For a different perspective I invited my friend Simon Andrews to contribute his own proposal. We wrote these proposals ignorant of what the other would write. Simon is a historian who studied the early American republic. He is currently working on a project called "America, On Paper" where he exams topics through the lens of documents from the period. I asked Simon for his thoughts because we often diverge significantly on constitutional questions; I support the monarchy and he's a republican, he values the American constitution and I believe it is in desperate need of reform, to name just two points. I will warn you in advance that this is quite long, but I hope interesting.

How can we change this place to better serve Canadians?

How can we change this place to better serve Canadians? 

The Rules

Simon and I were starting from a basic set of assumptions. First the only reforms were for the Senate. There's no corresponding proposal attached for proportional representation in the House of Commons, or restriction of prorogation allowed. Second the proposal had to fit within a certain political reality that we face in 2015.

Reforming the Senate - Steven's Proposal

I think it is paramount that Canadians find a way to reform rather than abolish the Senate. Some of the major concerns in the governance of this country is the declining power of MPs and the stranglehold of party leaders, particularly the Prime Minister on power. Abolishing the Senate, if anything, would only exacerbate this problem. The more legitimate Senate could offer a valuable counterweight to executive power and help set other things to rights.

My inspiration for reforms largely comes from the Australian Senate, the United Kingdom's House of Lords and Germany's Bundesrat. My proposal is guided by a few basic assumptions. All large federations in the world are bicameral. The idea that Canada should move away from the international norm strikes me as strange. A country as large and diverse as ours needs ways to express that in its governing institutions. The Senate of Canada needs to include some democratic component to grow its credibility with the public and increase its legitimacy. The Senate must continue to represent geographic regions, minorities and isolated interests commonly excluded from the democratic representation (ex. women, or linguistic minorities). My specific proposal most resembles plans to reform the UK House of Lords. Another principle to keep in mind is that Quebec needs to be protected. It's easy to dismiss Quebec as just one of the ten provinces but its distinct political and social culture as a large minority in this country that needs to be safeguarded. It is a fair compromise and the Senate can help accomplish that. In other upper houses around the world few countries use the completely equal system found in the United States Senate. States/provinces tend to be represented on a distorted or disproportional population basis, I will be using that as a guide.

Selection

Senators must be largely elected. I am surprised that I have moved away from a fully elected Senate in my proposal but a certain number of appointed Senators could significantly improve the quality and representativeness of Senators. I am willing to make that compromise to protect the representation of minorities. I would suggest then that one third of the Senate be appointed and the rest be elected through a ranked ballot. I think depending on the province it would make sense to do province-wide contests, or regional contests. For example, in the case of PEI I don't see a reason to divide it into constituencies, but Ontario, with a larger number of Senators and distinct internal regional differences, could make the argument for a Northern, Eastern, Central, and Southwestern division of seats. That determination can be revisited every 10 years after the census and when seats are adjusted for the House of Commons.

Appointed Senators should be non-partisan and selected by a special standing committee independent of the Prime Minister. Composition of the Appointments Committee could look like the Electoral Boundaries Commissions; non-partisan, led by a jurist with technical assistance. The goal of the Appointments Commission should always be to correct imbalances in the Senate with underrepresented populations of their respective provinces and provide expertise to the body. Some groups for special consideration in my opinion would be women, First Nations, Métis and Inuit, linguistic minorities, ethnic minorities and young people. The Appointments Commission should likely consult with the provincial/territorial legislatures for their input as well as accept public feedback. The goal is to represent regions and slices of the Canadian public, not necessarily provinces.

Senators, elected and appointed, would serve an eight-year term on fixed dates, barring a double dissolution or simultaneous election with the House of Commons in the event of deadlock. They may stand for re-election if they so choose. Appointed Senators should be generally replaced after one term to infuse new blood, but they may stand for election (independently or with a party) if they so choose. In the event of a retirement, resignation or death of a sitting elected Senator the Appointments Commission should fill the seat, either with a non-partisan or person of the same party, with consultation of the provincial legislature.

Composition

Province/Territory	Current Senators	Reformed Senators (Elected + Appointed)	Population (2014)	Tier
Ontario	24	16+8	13678700	1
Quebec	24	16+8	8214700	1*
British Columbia	6	8+4	4631300	3
Alberta	6	8+4	4121700	3
Manitoba	6	6+3	1282000	4
Saskatchewan	6	6+3	1125400	4
Nova Scotia	10	4+2	942700	5
New Brunswick	10	4+2	753900	5
Newfoundland and Labrador	6	4+2	527000	5
Prince Edward Island	4	2+1	146300	6
Northwest Territories	1	2+1	41462	6
Yukon	1	2+1	33897	6
Nunavut	1	2+1	31906	6
TOTAL	105	120

*Quebec will always be in Tier 1 regardless of population changes.

Under my proposal the Senate will switch from a fixed number of Senators to a tiered system based on population. Tier 1 will be for provinces with over 10 million people, must always include Quebec and cannot number more than three provinces.

Tier System

Tier	Population	Number of Senators
1	10 000 000+	24
2	5 000 000-9 999 999	15
3	3 000 000-4 999 999	12
4	1 000 000-2 999 999	9
5	500 000-999 999	6
6	0-500 000	3

Unlike the fixed model we currently use the tiered system would be a fair and transparent way to allocate seats. The numbers I have chosen likely mean we would see a few provinces move around in the coming decades as they sit on the edge of either going up or down. The flaw with the system is that it is based on fixed population numbers. It might make more sense to use a quintile system or something like that to avoid any future problems. It is entirely possible that in distant future all ten provinces will have over 10 million people and this system would break down.

Powers

Ronald Watts' essay in Protecting Canadian Democracy makes the argument that bicameral systems work best when the two houses are distinct from each other. A reformed Senate should be comfortable vetoing or amending the legislation of the House of Commons as their legislative powers and legitimacy should roughly be equal. The House of Commons should remain in exclusive control of money bills, but the thoughtful and meaningful inclusion of the Senate in matters is paramount.

Historically in Canada the Senate has been very active in defending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution. Having the Senate approve of appointments to the Supreme Court and have a standing committee dedicated to constitutional questions might be wise. I would hope the Senate would continue its valuable contributions through studying questions and providing the country sober second thought. These studies could be transformed into more focused scrutinizing of the government to better ensure accountability. It may also be wise to have the Senate make the appointment of Parliamentary Officers, such as the Auditor General. This way they are independent of the Prime Minister and better define the Senate as a watchdog.

Canada under this Proposal

It is difficult for me to imagine that Canada would not benefit significantly from this arrangement. Obviously the fear of deadlock is a real possibility, but it also ensures that the chamber of sober second thought can have its thoughts heard. The power of the Government and Prime Minister would be significantly curtailed. Legislation would have to have greater consensus and governments would have to get the backing of a good number of the non-partisan Senators to pass their programs. More legislation would come from the Senate representing the diverse needs of the country as a whole.

Western provinces gain significantly under this proposal, but we are a much more Western country today than we are at our founding. Atlantic provinces, while reduced in influence in the Senate are not substantially so. I also believe there is significant value into improving the representation of our territories in the Senate. The inevitable conflict between the Senate and House of Commons is, in the end, positive, as both represent different, important facets of this country. That's democracy.

Reforming the Senate - Simon's Proposal

Reforming the Canadian Senate: A Modest Proposal

Though it may at times escape the attention of the average Canadian, we do indeed have a Senate in this country. Perhaps it escapes our attention because, thanks to being inundated by American news media, we’ve come to think of a Senate as an activist body. Senates do things; they pass bills, and offer amendments, and confirm executive appointments. And they filibuster, or threaten to filibuster, or threaten to threaten to filibuster. We hear of no such thing in this country, and so we must not have a Senate.

Or if we do hear tell of our fabled upper house it is in tones of disdain, dishonor and disappointment. It’s such a Canadian emotion, disappointment. Anger would ask too much of us. We can only get angry at things we care about. Who cares about the Senate? So we shake our heads and cluck out tongues, content in the knowledge that at least we know what’s right even if the men and women who govern us don’t.

But that’s not enough.

We have a Senate. It performs no useful function. It is a stain on our national character. But it’s ours. It may have become perverted, twisted into a wild parody of its original purpose, but there is a reason it exists to begin with. There is a reason for bicameralism. There is a reason for an upper house and a lower house, for wanting to balance differing national and regional interests against each other. As it stands Canadians look upon majority governments as good and natural and minority governments as aberrant and unpleasant. We have lost our taste for debate, it seems. We prefer government to function smoothly. We want the Prime Minister to take us by the hand and show us the way forward. And with all the power the office of Prime Minister enjoys, why not? Even in a minority situation, the government almost always holds the winning hand. Challenges from the House can be met with any number of constitutional countermeasures from prorogation to dissolution. Meanwhile the Senate spends public money, makes a show of examining legislation put before it, and hums along doing nothing of any great import. What average Canadian can name their Senator? Or do they belong to us at all? Perhaps we don’t know them because they represent interests all their own, and are beholden to a much smaller constituency than we thirty million strong. 

But look again to our southern neighbors. Look at what a Senate can do. Functioning bicameralism is messy, yes, contentious, un-Canadian in its apparent disorder. But maybe that’s what we need. Maybe something to shake us out of our complacency, something that introduces a degree of dynamism into the very core of our political process. A reformed Senate could do this. Or at the very least the process of attempting reform should spark debates we’ve long been in need of in this country. We are in danger of becoming a ceremonial democracy. Canadiana reclines on her pedestal, bedecked in cobwebs, enshrouded in dust. We need to put the old girl through her paces,

We need to reform the Senate.

Philosophy

While many aspects of American political culture are the farthest thing from being worthy of emulation, the logic that underpins their basic constitutional framework is by contrast quite measured and sensible. The Framers of the United States Constitution, notwithstanding how their work has since been interpreted, gave careful consideration as to how different social and human forces could be harnessed, regulated, and balanced in such a way that weakness and ambition could be made to benefit the greater public good. American bicameralism is perhaps the crowning achievement of this attempt at creating a stable, well-adjusted government that was at once consistent and regenerative, restrained and dynamic. 

This is because bicameralism makes sense. A country as large and complex as the United States or Canada, with as many strong sub-federal units of government, could not hope to be easily represented in a single elected body. There are too many different interests, too many social classes, too many factors that might push and pull on prospective legislators to support policies that reward or deny the layered and often competing sovereignties of which such large nation states are composed. There are, to continue with the present example, things that concern Americans as citizens of a single country composed of many diverse geographic regions and communities. There are also things that concern Americans as citizens of one of the fifty distinct, sovereign political and cultural communities that comprise the American federal union. Sometimes a person needs to have their needs represented as a citizen of Beaumont, which just happens to be in Texas, and sometimes they need to have their needs represented as a citizen of Texas itself. This is a subtle but fundamental distinction because these dual sets of needs are not always compatible. Yet they all must be heard, debated, compared, contrasted, and reconciled. A unicameral legislature, unless located in a sparsely-populated community, would be ill-equipped to do so.

Furthermore, representation by population alone must obviously favor more populous regions. Texas has more congressmen than Rhode Island, New York more than Delaware. This makes sense within the logic of majority rule, but a true democracy must make considerations for the least among its citizens. The smallest minorities and the tinniest constituencies must have their day, lest the majority became a tyranny unto themselves. Rhode Island may contain among the smallest overall percentage of the total American population, but as a state it is the legal equivalent of Texas, New York, or even mighty California. Its citizens must not be punished for being born or choosing to reside in Warwick or Woonsocket by having their elected representatives’ voices continually drowned out by the legion that are their big-state contemporaries. In some sense, in some forum, little Rhode Island’s voice (or PEI’s voice, or Newfoundland’s voice) must be made to carry equal weight. 

We call this forum the Senate.       

Selection

In order for our Senate to conform to the democratic logic discussed above it must become two things first and foremost: equal and elected. If Canadian Senators are to serve the function of representing the citizens of this country as members of the distinct political and cultural communities we call provinces, they cannot do so as the appointees of a grateful Prime Minister who at the end of an election cycle owes perhaps one favor too many. If Ontario is to have Senators they must represent Ontario. They must be able to speak to the issues that concern the people of Ontario, and they must have the confidence of same if their claimed authority is to mean anything at all. At present Ontario’s twenty-four senators represent the province in name only. No one who resides in any of Ontario’s communities chose them, and so their legitimacy as popular representatives in a nominally democratic system is entirely non-existent.

Yet this cannot be enough. The people of Ontario must feel as though they are being accurately represented by their Senators, but so too must the people of Prince Edward Island feel as though their Senate delegation has an important role to play in the legislative process. As it stands said deputation possesses but four members, and thus their interests must ever be subsumed into those of the greater Maritime Provinces if they hold out any hope of moving the legislative needle. Some might protest that this is simply the nature of compromise. PEI cannot act alone, and so it must negotiate in order to have its voice heard. But this is true in the House of Commons, is it not? There too smaller provinces must hustle their way into getting their regional concerns placed on the national agenda.

If the Senate is to be something different, then let it be different.

Every province and territory, regardless of size, will elect between five and ten senators, for a maximum of one hundred and thirty members. Elections will be held on a proportional basis, with citizens voting for their party of choice on a province-wide basis and seats being allocated from prepared party lists in accordance with the percentage of the total vote that each party receives. A Senate election in Quebec, for example, in which the NPD receive 40% of the vote, the Liberals 30%, the Bloc 20%, and the Conservatives 10%, would, with ten seats available, result in a Quebec delegation composed of four NDP Senators, three Liberals, two Bloc, and one Conservative. These are purposely round figures, of course, but the logic is clear enough. Senators will be elected to six year terms with no limit on re-election, and Senate elections will be as closely coordinated with House elections as possible.  

Powers

Because the seat of executive government in Canada will remain in the Commons one of the most important roles a reformed Senate can fulfill is that of holding the government to account. This is a role the Australian Senate has performed to great effect, and considering how easily recent Prime Ministers have made use of our loosely defined constitutional conventions and the prerogative powers at their disposal via the office of Governor-General such a check is absolutely essential. This can be accomplished by, on the Australian model, vesting the Senate with a number of regulatory, investigative and accounting responsibilities as expressed through a robust committee structure. Among other things it could potentially fall under the purview of the Senate to investigate government budgets and policy implementation, conduct audits of various publically-funded organizations, and generally direct inquiries to government ministers and other public officials. This theoretical supervisory role would be facilitated by the fact that the reformed Senate, whose members would be elected proportionally, and the House, whose members are elective via FPP, would infrequently be dominated by the same party. Thus, even in case of a strong majority in the House of Commons a reformed Senate would be more likely to have its seats spread across a larger number of parties and would consequently be more inclined to check the power of the government of the day.  

This being the main role of the reformed Senate, their legislative responsibilities would be somewhat reduced when compared to the Commons. Though they would be capable of originating, approving, rejecting or amending most forms of legislation on an equal footing with the House, they would not be able to create or alter appropriations bills. That they would still be able to reject appropriations – thus blocking supply, in the parlance of Westminster – could potentially lead to a deadlock with the House, specifically in cases when the government refuses to resign having maintained the confidence of the lower chamber. Such an eventuality could be avoided by putting in place a relatively simple procedure. In a slight twist of one of the provisions of the UK Parliament Act of 1911, the Prime Minister could be vested with the authority to dissolve the Senate as they can now dissolve the House in order to call an election, but only once an appropriations bill has been approved by the Common and rejected by the Senate three times in succession. This would permit the Senate to exercise some degree of input and oversight concerning the parliamentary appropriations process while simultaneously ensuring that constitutional crises do not become a regular fixture of Canadian political life.

Beyond its regulatory and legislative roles, the reformed Senate would also be responsible for confirming the nomination of the Governor-General and of the Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. This would serve the purpose of both lessening the powers of the Prime Minister as well as increasing democratic input into the selection of some of the most important officers of the Canadian government. Under the current status quo the Governor-General is for all intents and purposes an appendage of the Prime Minister’s office, chosen by them for reasons which do not bear explaining to the Canadian public. In that sense the Governor-General, though it isn’t often stated, is to some degree beholden to the PM for their position. Traditional or not, this isn’t a tenable state of affairs. Permitting Senate confirmation would at the very least give the provinces, as embodied in the Senate, some say in who ends up wielding the very important constitutional powers vested in the monarch’s vice-regal representative.  

Comparison

Simon and I took very different approaches to address problems we jointly perceive. This is the debate we should be having in this country. I would take some of his points and incorporate it into my own for sure, such as the appointment of the Governor General. Throwing our hands up or arguing whose Senators are more corrupt does absolutely nothing to advance Canada. I see flaws in Simon's proposal, and I am certain he will have issues with mine, but even still both offer citizens more than what abolition does on its own. The status quo is unacceptable, but we need an upper house, so, as a country, let's discuss what we can do. Please feel free to comment and share your thoughts on these proposals and check out Simon's blog for more of his work. 

Book Review: Protecting Canadian Democracy edited by Serge Joyal

Protecting Canadian Democracy: The Senate You Never Knew lands in 2015 with a dull thud. Serge Joyal, a Canadian Senator for the Liberal Party, assembled this book to defend the value of the Senate as it currently stands. It includes essays from political scientists and politicians on the positive features of the Senate, how it can be reformed, and why reforms have failed. The book was originally published in 2003 and it shows considerably.

What Protecting Canadian Democracy does well is make a case for the status-quo Senate and explain how it came to be. The book is a collection of essays so it is difficult to assess as a whole as the strength of each individual essay and its effectiveness varies significantly. The best essay in my opinion is "Forty Years of Not Reforming the Senate - Taking Stock" by Jack Stillborn. Stillborn, as the title suggests, outlines all of the major proposals to reform the Senate from the 1960s to the 2000s. The interesting thing about this is how proposed reforms for the Senate have evolved over time. Senate reform pressure originated in the belief that the body had to better represent the provinces, perhaps transforming it into something like Germany's upper house, the bundesrat. In the 1980s, originating mostly from Western Canada, proposals for Senate elections and seat redistributions gained greater prominence and has largely been central to the debate since. I had heard that the Senate had been criticized since the time of Confederation, but I had assumed it was from the perspective of democratic representation. I was surprised to see this was a relatively recent intellectual development in Canada.

According to a few of the authors the Senate was one of the most contentious parts of the negotiations what led to confederation. The explanation is simple. At that time the colonies understood that Ontario's much larger population would dominate the House of Commons. A wise observation given that Ontario makes up a third of the House today. The Senate offered the opportunity to provide a counterbalance. Many of the authors make the argument that the best feature of the Senate is that it represents minority populations and regions within the country. This seemed to be part of the original formulation of the Senate.

Another valuable essay in the collection is "Bicameralism in Federal Parliamentary Systems" by Ronald L. Watts. The Canadian Senate stands out from other upper houses around the world for having an appointed upper house. Watts also pointed out that the trend in recent decades has not been to eliminate upper houses but give them better ability to hold the government to account. This essay provides excellent comparison on how upper houses can function and possible avenues of reform.

I wish to be clear. This book does not fail because Stephen Harper became Prime Minister, but because of the actions the current Prime Minister has put in place since 2006 has left fewer of the virtues expounded in this volume intact. Many of some of the most compelling arguments made in defence of the Senate seem to hardly apply any more. The institutional memory of the Senate was badly undermined when Prime Minister Harper allowed a large number of vacancies to accrue. In the 1990s the Senate released twenty major reports which helped shape policy and political discourse in this country. In many ways they provided a cheaper alternative to royal commissions. Perhaps I am ignorant but the Senate seems to have failed to uphold this tradition in the past fifteen years. I have to imagine this in part is due to the declining number of senators during Harper's early premiership. The Prime Minister Harper appointed a large number of Senators all at once, foregoing his pledge to reform the body which introduced a large class without being introduced to the Senate's traditions. I should note that as I write this 22 vacancies have piled up again.

Perhaps the biggest criticism of the Senate is that it is increasingly losing its credential as the house of 'sober second thought'. In the 1990s the Senate amended only about 7% of the legislation introduced. It was considerably higher in decades past. Between 2000 and 2013 the Senate did not give royal assent to 75 bills. The cause of the vast majority of these appears to be prorogation or dissolution and not the deliberations of the Senate itself. Of course when the Senate goes against the will of the elected House of Commons it can stir controversy because in the mind of Canadians it lacks legitimacy. This is the fundamental contradiction that the authors in this book seem to say is irrelevant, that the appointed model can work and gain legitimacy if Canadians better understand its work.

Serge Joyal and David E. Smith, among others, offers avenues for the Senate of Canada to be reformed. Senator Joyal accepts the consensus view that amending the constitution is not reasonable and explores some of the non-constitutional options. Most of these reforms seem sensible to me, but don't address many of the basic issues people have with the appointed upper house.

Defending the Senate as an institution in the current status quo is difficult for a simple reason. Like the House of Commons it requires many players to act on good faith and carry out their duties sincerely. The Senate could hold impressive and dignified Canadians and legal and policy experts, but that is left entirely to the discretion of the prime minister. There is nothing preventing any prime minister from appointing a wholly unrepresentative group with no better qualifications than loyalty to his/her party. I think this book could badly do with a revision to address some of the obvious decline the upper house has suffered since 2000. I would recommend a selection of the essays, particularly the ones cited above, for those interested in exploring Senate reform. For more casual readers I would say pass on this one, it fails to provide enough insight on the current Senate. 

The Mike Duffy Trial and the Marring of Canadian Politics

Senator Mike Duffy of Prince Edward Island (theoretically) is on trial related to the misuse of public funds and the abuse of his office. The acceptance of $90,000 as a bribe and the petty corruption that has already been revealed in the five short days of the trial are enough to give anyone pause. But the Mike Duffy trial goes far beyond the criticism of the man itself. Observers of the trial say that perhaps the most damning aspect of the trial is that his actions may merely be an extreme form of common practice at the heart of Canadian politics. The rot is deep in the Senate, that much is clear.

The Senate is a tragic institution. If it were a functioning body it might do a great deal to balance out the unrestrained power of the Prime Minister, as is the case in Australia. Instead the Senate is the most outwardly sanctioned bastion of public corruption in the country. The litany of abuses are many and scandal in the Senate is as old as the institution itself. Unlike say an ambassadorship the duties and requirements of senators are much more poorly defined. Instead we require them to serve a certain amount of time to be eligible for their generous compensation and benefits.

Aside from the Senate's dereliction as a proper check on the House of Commons it does a disservice to politics in general in this country. The average citizen sees no difference between Senator Mike Duffy and the MPs and candidates who will stand for election in about six months. Mike Duffy has the curse of being famous and infamous. As a well-known figure his story carries weight that the backroom fundraiser given a cushy job would not normally attract. While not all politicians deserve to be hit with the broad Mike Duffy brush it is certainly fair to question the health of the institution and the judgement of the Prime Minister who appointed him.

As Althia Raj wrote in the Huffington Post, Mike Duffy is putting Prime Minister Harper as much as anything else on trial in this case. The testimony and documents submitted so far paints a bleak figure of a greedy Senator using public funds to aggrandize himself and enrich his party. The Mike Duffy trial is alluding more and more to the fact that the Senate may simply be an embezzlement machine for political parties to grant the ultimate patronage to their backers. Troubling does not being to describe it.

What's worse, while this trial is likely to harden Canadian cynicism on the topic of Canadian politics it is unlikely to sway voters decisively in the coming election. I've heard it all before far too many times, "They're all corrupt anyway." Ultimately though the Prime Minister has to be judged in part by the caliber and actions of a man that he appointed and for a long time defended before throwing him under the great metaphorical bus.

This trial cannot be anything less than a condemnation of the status quo in Ottawa. Reform is desperately needed for the Senate, meaningful reform, likely requiring constitutional amendments. Otherwise Mr. Duffy's trial and the scandal of Prime Minister Harper will not be the last of its kind.

Ford, Wallin, Brazeau and Duffy: Satisfying the Mob

I am a pretty nerdy guy. This much is evident for regular readers of this blog. One of my favourite things to nerd-out on is history. Recently I have been reading about republicanism and the French Revolution. The French Revolution is definitely one of the more interesting chapters of human political history, in my opinion. One of the things that makes it interesting is the contrasts between it and the American Revolution which occurred short years before. One factor that existed in the French context that never materialized in the American was the importance of public opinion, commonly referred to as the mob.

Mob justice or the calls from the public for blood is as old as human society itself. I do not understand the anthropological/sociological reason why, but maliciousness and cruelty emerges from people when you put them in a group, disguise their individuality and confront them with controversy. Watching the fallout from Mayor Rob Ford’s revelations about drugs and alcohol to the world, literally, was paired against the discordant gleeful chirps, snarky comments and catcalls from the public galleries of radio, Facebook, Twitter and wherever else.

Anyone who reads what I have written about Rob Ford knows that I am no fan of the mayor of Canada’s largest city. I would never have voted for the man, nor have I supported him in office very often, but I take no pleasure in the public disgrace he now finds himself. I am embarrassed by Rob Ford as a person from the Greater Toronto Area. I think he makes my region, province and country look bad and that we deserve a substantially better caliber of mayor at city hall. I believe he should resign, but I cannot side with those that seem to take such heart in the man’s downfall, nor cheer while it happens.

When the news broke that Senators Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau were being suspended from the Senate without pay I was in first in favour of the action. However, as time passed I realized they were being pushed out to cover up the abuses that they and their party masters had participated in. The revelation by Senator Duffy definitely reinforced this perspective. However, when the Conservative government in the Senate made this motion I saw a live poll on CBC that suggested that over 60% of viewers wanted to see them turfed out.

For those who transgress against us we want to see them suffer. Bring them to the public guillotine where there bright lights and cameras hum and let’s see a little humiliation and suffering to satiate our anger. As I suggested this isn’t a recent phenomenon. Bev Oda’s, former Conservative MP for Durham, $16 orange juice pales in comparison to millions misspent by Treasury Board Secretary Tony Clement (CPC – Parry Sound-Muskoka) in his own riding that was earmarked for border improvements. But the abstract is less likely to rile up a mob than the concrete.

Everyone I mentioned I believe should have resigned and then be quietly allowed to exit public life (or sit as an MP, depending on their error). It’s the public reaction and the call for blood that I find difficult to stomach. Mike Duffy has a documented heart condition and it is understandable why he hid behind it once the storm began. It is ironic that with the massive number of professional and citizen journalists, media outlets, Twitter and bloggers that our discourse seems only able to focus on one story at a time. Why is that? I suppose an answer might be found back in that mob in the streets of Paris; despite the many peering eyes there can only be one speaker and the mob answers with the din of a single voice.

What do these public witch hunts (which has uncovered witches) communicate about public life? What member of the business, academic, intellectual elite would look at the events of the past week and embrace the chaos and thrust themselves into it? The optics are terrible. Ford and his supporters believe the man never had a chance and he was hounded by the media, destined to fail. Can anyone expect a fair trial in the court of public opinion? Once a story breaks opinions solidified and politicians forced to deal with the consequences, even if they are ultimately vindicated.

French Revolutionaries soon learned that the mob hungers for blood and that there is no true end. I wonder now if we are struck in a mob fueled by scandal and we eagerly ferret out the next controversy until someone gives. It seems an unhealthy way to run a democracy or a government regardless of the mob’s satisfaction. 

Our Teflon Prime Minister?

There is a certain beautiful irony that the same week the Prime Minister Stephen Harper (CPC – Calgary Southwest, AB) revealed that his government had made significant progress towards a European trade deal that the Senate scandal reared its ugly head. Mr. Harper is in his seventh year as prime minister of Canada. The natural length that party leaders stay in power is about ten years, which means that like many politicians he is seeking to enshrine a lasting legacy.

According to Paul Well, reporter with Maclean’s Magazine and author of the new book about Stephen Harper, The Longer I’m Prime Minister, Mr. Harper wants to fundamentally change Canada. He has tried to make Canadians comfortable with the idea of a governing Conservative Party and stave off the return of the Liberals. Interestingly, if you look at Canada’s history you’d see long periods of Liberal governance punctuated by brief-to-decade-long stints of Conservatives/Progressive Conservatives. To many (especially Liberals) this is the natural order of things. Mr. Harper would like to permanently change that.

The Canadian-European Trade Agreement, if accepted, will be definitely one of the items Mr. Harper is credited for long after he leaves office. However, much like the last Conservative PM, his trade deal may well be passed but his party could be run off on a rail.

As every major news broadcast and newspaper is reporting, Senator Mike Duffy, Senator Pamela Wallin and Senator Patrick Brazeau are fighting tooth and nail against a motion in the Senate that would suspend them indefinitely without pay. In a last move of desperation they have, understandably, turned against their former masters in the Prime Minister’s Office and decided to attack. Unlike previous incidents where an errant MP had been kicked out, Mr. Duffy and the others are mired in scandal, and they have paperwork to pull down their former comrades.

This has been the news for over a week now. On Monday afternoon Senator Duffy publicly released documents that revealed that the Prime Minister misled the public/parliament about his knowledge and actions related to this scandal. Last week in my Worth Reading I cited an article my Chantal Hébert where she suggested the Harper leadership team is losing control of the caucus.

Now, this isn’t Great Britain or Australia and it is highly unlikely that Mr. Harper will be suddenly and unexpectedly removed from office, as Margaret Thatcher was. The next election is not expected until October of 2015, two years from today. Will the electorate’s rage simmer for that long? Will the Conservative’s popularity dip dangerously low?

Journalist David Akin tweeted this on Monday:

Perhaps bigger news in that Ipsos poll: Election today who do you vote for? #LPC 31 % #NDP 31 % #CPC 29 % #cdnpoli
— David Akin (@davidakin) October 29, 2013

These numbers are incredible and reveal for the first time since Stephen Harper became their leader that they have polled third. It seems possible that the reek of the scandal has turned off enough voters to at least send them temporarily into the arms of the NDP and the Liberals. This type of scandal badly hurts Conservatives among their base. The NDP’s consistent message to abolish the Senate may be gaining traction.

I am too cautious to believe that this is the end of Prime Minister Harper. The man has weather scandals before, serious ones that challenge his credibility as a leader. This one is clearly a shot closer to home and more dangerous, but it is unlikely without a caucus revolt to send him out. Caucus could revolt, but with not obvious heir(s) apparent the Conservative MPs likely fear fracturing their party. For Canadian political nerds, we certainly are living in interesting times.

Worth Reading – August 15, 2013

This is my last Ontario-based Worth Reading for a while. Tomorrow at about this time I’ll be leaving for the airport and on westward. I am excited, though understandably a tad nervous. On to the articles!

From iPolitics, the author suggests that the recent slate of candidates running in Toronto Centre to replace Bob Rae may signal a return of the political intellectual. The piece does not suggest that political intellectuals are great party leaders, but form a critical backbone to cabinets and effective caucuses. I am inclined to agree.

In the Ottawa Citizen, we need a better Senate and abolition does not do enough to improve our governing structure. This seems correct to me. As has been pointed out many times, federations similar to Canada all have functional upper chambers to balance state/province interests against the central government. Basically, I’d favour copying Australia completely, but I understand how difficult that is.

Don Lenihan in iPolitics interviewed James Rajotte (CPC – Edmonton-Leduc, AB) on what silences MPs. Rajotte says that anyone that claims the PMO and its staffers are silencing MPs needs to basically grow a backbone. Rajotte points to other issues, such as media coverage of MPs who speak out. Worth a read for sure.

Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak (PCPO – Niagara West – Glanbrook) refuses to face a leadership review. 

Excellent piece from the Globe and Mail highlights some of the more troublesome observations from the e-mails discovered in the course of the gas plant controversy. Staffers and advisors to Premier McGuinty come across as remarkably cynical and devious, it is not flattering, nor I imagine unique.

Based on the above information, the Opposition is calling on Premier Kathleen Wynne (OLP – Don Valley West) to cut ties to Don Guy. 

Corky Evans (Fmr. BCNDP – Nelson – Creston) offers an open letter about his thoughts about the current state of the British Columbia NDP. Evans calls on the leader Adrian Dix to resign, citing Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff as examples of fellow damaged goods. That isn’t the interesting part. Evans’ assessment of what has gone wrong with the party is the interesting part. He suggests the central control and destruction of internal dissent has crippled the BCNDP. I believe this could be applied to all parties in Canada to some degree. 

And finally, a video...

Worth Reading – May 31, 2013

This post was delayed, which I posted about yesterday, because I got news about a job opportunity in the Northwest Territories. It is entirely possible by this time next month I’ll be living in my new home in the Arctic. This will obviously mean a lot of changes for me and my life (new frontrunner for understatement of the year). At this point I am not sure how this will affect my blog. I intend to continue to write, but the content of the blog will probably change so that I am writing more about my new community.  

Steve Paikin the very talented people at the Agenda on TVO assembled an incredible panel to discuss scandals and their effect on Canadian democracy. Three journalists discuss the issues facing the Parliament, Queen’s Park and Toronto’s City Hall. The roundtable was expanded to include some really interesting voices and perspectives. 

From The Hill Times, Prime Minister Harper’s statements about the Duffy Senate scandal do not match the timeline. 

Everywhere I went when I was in Toronto on Saturday I heard people talking about the Fords. This story was a big part of the reason why. The Globe investigates the Fords' connections to the drug trade.

Last week Elijah Harper passed away. Mr. Harper was a prominent Aboriginal leader from Manitoba and played a critical role in Canada’s history. Truly a great man. 

Toronto’s Spacing offered a two-part column on the new Metrolinx plan. The first part was examining Ontarians’ attitudes to potential funding models based on a poll they conducted. The second column discusses the actual tools Metrolinx is proposing.  

Gwen O’Mahony, a defeated BC NDP MLA, who won unexpectedly in a by-election last year, offers some keen advice to her successors about being a good public servant. I found this letter oddly touching, it’s a shame Ms. O’Mahony couldn’t continue her work.

The Star reports on the proposed Metrolinx funding program. 

The Globe and Mail puts the Metrolinx plan in a political light. Support for Metrolinx is a political problem and will test the resolve of the Wynne government, and the commitment of the opposition parties to moving Ontario forward. 

Perhaps my favourite piece from the week, a journalist at Metro News tackles Doug and Rob Ford’s claims about their “incredible” fiscal record. I wish journalists would write more pieces like these. Governments too often get by on rhetoric and not facts.

This is a funny one that may be more sad than funny. An economist breaks down the value of the Senate. Trust me, give it a read.