Senate Reform and Referedums

It is always nice seeing new friends play together happily in the playground but when it is Stephen Harper and Jack Layton who are having fun any sensible teacher will make sure the fire extinguisher is at hand.

Senate reform in Canada is long overdue and there is only one reform that makes sense -- abolish the place. It is an affront to democracy in a modern era to have an unelected institution whose principal function is to frustrate democratic decision making (well that is what "provide sober second thought" really means). In terms of regional representation and balance, in a federal state we supposedly protect regional or local interests by having regional or local governments -- provinces.

Steve and Jackie-L though have come up with an idea -- let's have a national referendum to poll the public in a more formal way about abolishing the Senate. This is a bad idea. First it serves no purpose -- we all know what the man in the street thinks -- abolish the Senate. It is only policy wonks and die hard Reformers who still think of the Triple-E Senate (a slightly worse affront to democracy).

Second, it opens the constitutional reform can of worms. Whether the referendum passes or not, the only way to implement it is through the amending process in the Constitution. This requires seven of ten provinces to sign on to the amendment. The difficulty come as each province arrives with a shopping list of amendments that will absolutely have to go along with the abolition of the Senate. Immediate deadlock will ensue. Remember the premiers of every small province will be opposed because the Senate gives those provinces greater power nationally (Danny Williams would love to say "no" and this will give the premier of PEI the one chance to have his (or her?) name known by anybody on the other side of the Confederation Bridge). Quebec will oppose because the Constitution is an illegitimate document anyway and there will be a list of things that will have to be implemented to make up for Quebec's loss of status through the abolition of the Senate. It would then just take one other province to torpedo the project.

This brings me to the third problem: the disappointment of the public. It is one thing to have Senate reform bubbling away as one of a myriad of issues that the public occasionally considers; it is quite another to have a formal referendum and then fail to follow through. The cynicism this will entrench around the democratic process is something we really do not need in our country right now.

Why has Jack Layton taken on Senate Reform? Well he knows that this is something that will appeal to his new pal Steve and will put the old school yard bully the Liberals (led by that wimp Stephan) into a tight spot. It will put Stephan in an exquisitely difficult position in fact. Immediately Stephan will have ask, "do the Liberals stand up for Senate abolition (which would destroy their last bastion of power if implemented)?" Even if Stephan supports Senate abolition he creates a quandary -- he alienates his supporters with their sinecures in the Senate and further undermines the Liberals' position as a credible opposition (since they will oppose nothing). It will be even worse for Stephan then if the senators oppose the referendum and Stephan is then called upon by Steve and his new ally Jack to discipline those unruly Liberal senators. When Stephan can't, well, we already knew he was ineffectual, right?

Thus this proposition is nothing but short term political fun for Steve and Jack, unless, of course, Stephan supports it and brings the senators into line thus having the referendum proceed. This would actually be the best move for Stephan, provided he can actually get the senators onside. It would be cynical beyond comment given that Dion will know full well that the abolition will never be implemented -- but then that is Steve's problem, not his (unless Stephan wins the next election -- now that would be a whoops).

Why doesn't Jack support a referendum on something that really would advance the NDP interest as it is likely to exist for many years to come -- say, a referendum on proportional representation with a properly funded 'yes' committee. Better still, it is a minority Parliament and the idea has appeal to the Conservatives, why not just implement some form of proportional representation? The answer to that question is that Jack has set his sights too low. He would consider it his crowning achievement if the NDP displaced the Liberals on the progressive centre/left and became the 'real opposition'. The problem with that is that the most the NDP could hope for then would be to be a permanent opposition hoping for minority governments -- the Conservatives would rule forever.

Losing Arguments -- Winning Wars

There are times that I think that those of us who do believe in the theory of human caused global warming should give up trying to win the argument and focus on trying to win the war. What do I mean? Well, there are many environmentally good things to do that can and would get done if the temptation to gloat and to pound the anti-human contribution crowd into the dirt is resisted.

I will give you two examples, one big and one little.

Obviously for those of us in the humans-contribute camp achieving a decline in the use of fossil fuels would be a good thing. Our reason for thinking so is that this would reduce the impact of human activity on the tendency toward higher temperatures and thus be more environmentally sustainable. There are two big ways to achieve this: (1) energy supply substitution and (2) reduction in dependence in overseas goods (particularly if managed in China). What my observation relies upon is the fact that there are other constituencies out there that would share goals (1) and (2) while at the same time being climate change doubters. For example, goal (1) would be supported by all sorts of people who are uncomfortable being held hostage to the hostile, Islamic communities of the Middle East. It would also be supported by the nuclear industry. Both of these communities are filled with climate change skeptics but would happily support moves towards alternate sources of energy (the trick is making sure the move is not to coal). Thus you can act together in a way that could help win the war (move away from fossil fuels) but if you tried to get agreement on why you were doing this you would likely be stymied.

A second, smaller example flows from the future response to the fires in California. From a climate change perspective this gives an opportunity to lobby against urban spread by highlighting the dangers of permitting the building of suburbs in the urban-forest interface. This goal can be furthered by aligning with fiscal conservatives who naturally should want to resist public aid to bail out uninsured or under insured homeowners who will undoubtedly be seeking (US) Federal and state aid to defray the costs of their bad choices of living in a firetrap. The introduction of new building codes designed to reduce the possibility of such fires (which will inevitably drive up the cost of building in the interface or make it impossible) would also help in this regard. The point is the same, a natural alliance exists between fiscal conservatives who should be persuaded that the public should not be required to subsidize private misjudgments and the anti-global warming segment that is built on a shared vision of outcome but not reasons.

Passing Time

There is a part of me that longs to be a conservative. Not a conservative of the type that presently occupy the halls of power in Ottawa, but a conservative in the sense of a person who thinks that change for change’s sake is not necessarily a good thing. Of late I have been thinking that there are a number of things that I see as dying arts whose loss will really change our society. Sadly their passing is largely going unmarked and they are going un-mourned for they are each passing quietly by fading out of our lives.

I am going to (eventually) comment on four of these: playing cards, baking bread, making music and conversation.

The first of these is a trivial matter, the art of playing cards. When I was growing up for reasons that do not merit going into, I often (very often) found my self at school early. We were not allowed into our classrooms and the library (despite the legend of the school library, it was pathetic) was out of bounds, so the early birds were gathered in a foyer to kill time under the occasional supervision of the custodian. To pass the time we played cards – a game called 120’s or auction.

Auction is a game that is not played (except by expatriates) west of Cape Breton but amongst Newfoundlanders of my parents’ generation and above, it (and its variants) was one of the leading social pastimes. Played in fours or sixes with partners it was a whist-like game that was simple enough to allow for drinking, eating and loud conversation during play. It also had a body of informal rules of play superimposed upon Hoyle’s rules (it is in Hoyles under another name) the failure to follow marked one as either not attentive or a novice. Daring not to play trump (if you had one) as the last member of the defending team on the first round was a crime that would bring mild rebuke in the afternoon, loud condemnation in the evening when the kids were asleep and the alcohol out.

In university I played less auction – there were more mainlanders around who did not know the rules – and played more hearts, sergeant major, whist and bridge. At Memorial the main venue for this was the Physics Societyor the Chem Cafe. In two years at Memorial the only discernable connection between the Physics Societyand physics that I could find was the location of the room and the fact that the children of the physics professors seemed to all be members. Otherwise the only physics that was studied or discussed there was the fluid dynamics of liquids with high ethanol content. The Chem Cafe was also a locale named food service centre, although perhaps more aptly named given some of the peculiar colours, scents and flavours that would emerge from the kitchen. It was likely the only place where French fries could be considered a healthy choice given the relative dangers of the alternatives.

On any given week day one knew that a stroll to the Physics Society would find a group of people around the table in the centre of the room playing cards and discussing (generally in a heated fashion) some topic or another. The group would very quickly accommodate a new arrival finishing whatever game was at hand posthaste and moving on to a game that could accommodate the arrival of an additional person. When time for a class came (provided that the student was inclined to go) the game at hand would similarly be re-arranged to accommodate the loss of a player and the games would carry on. Except for the mandatory Sunday closing and the occasional Saturday night drink fests, I expect there was always a card game in progress at the Physics Society. It was there that I learned bridge and hearts as well as numerous interesting facts about the denizens of St. John’s (there are number of now doctors, lawyers and politicians who would not necessarily want the gossip that was passed around at the Physics Society in the mid-1980’s to make the streets today).

The great card game continued through Grad School and Law School – my roommates and I played cribbage and there was a grad school crowd who played hearts and bridge. The last great hurrah of my card playing career was at the Bar Admission Course. This was a program administered by the Law Society of Upper Canada after the completion of Law School and the articling year. It was six months of tedium and ha snow largely been abolished. However, it only took half days and the study was not that difficult (it was a true study-to-what-will-obviously-be-on-the-exam type of course), particularly given that it was marked on a pass/fail/honours system and there was no benefit to getting an honours. For most of the course there was a group of four of us who would get together at least once a week in the afternoon and play bridge. Again, we shot the breeze, although now the topics became more serious and more obviously linked to the beginnings of our real lives. We ate a lot of good food (my father went through a period of making dill pickles which exactly corresponded to this phase) and drank better grades of alcohol.

Then it ended. Our foursome went its separate ways (first to big firms, then to separate cities – two in Ottawa, one in Toronto and one in Victoria) and for some reason I never really found another card playing clique. At first it was easy to chalk up to being too busy but as time has gone by it seems pervasive. I know no-one in my circle of friends and colleagues who plays cards of any sort on a regular basis. There are no regular foursomes for bridge. The weekend auction sessions do not happen. No-one plays hearts, whist or cribbage except on an occasional nostalgic basis. A number of us have talked about getting together to play but it never seems to get organized and there do not seem to be enough players around for it just to happen.

Busy-ness is one thing which has killed cards but I do not think it is the only thing. At a very deep level the blurring of lines between generations and the diminishment of admiration for older generations is a major factor. Growing up in Newfoundland, and I think other places, card playing was seen as an adult activity. Being invited to join the adults to play auction meant that you could be trusted to sit still, know the rules, concentrate and play. You had to earn your place, literally, at the table by showing the maturity to not whine, need too much help or to suddenly leave the table.

Another thing is the growth of computer games. Even without a handheld computer game as long as you have a laptop you have an instant amusement centre which does not require the trouble of organizing a group of people or committing a block of time. Indeed, on my own computer there is a game of hearts which effectively changes one of the most social of games (e-mail me if you want to know our off-colour name for hearts) into a type of solitaire.

Finally, and this ties to my next blog posting on this topic, there is the death of the art of conversation. Playing cards was typically not and end in itself. Instead it provided a pastime around which a social gathering could be constructed. The real centerpiece of that gathering was the conversation that ensued before, during and after play. These conversations ranged from pure gossip to wide ranging discussions of politics and religion (which could sometimes end the games with a fight) but they were an essential part of the play at whatever level they were pitched. For some reason now it seems that we do not desire – or rather pursue -- that kind of conversation in our lives anymore on a regular basis and without that the type of cards I played until my late twenties has no reason to exist.

Two Blows for Democracy in the Courts

The Globe and Mail today reports two decisions which are blows for democracy. I will add links to the decisions once they are available on Canlii (or elsewhere).

The first involves Stephen Harper and a defamation (libel and slander) law suit that has been brought against him by a disgruntled Conservative candidate. A master (a type of administrative judge) in Ontario has ruled that the principle of parliamentary privilege protects the Prime Minister from having to testify at examinations for discovery (pre-trial interviews) until Parliament has been in recess for a period of at least forty days. The master mused whether or not the principle made sense in the modern era, but ultimately held that it was the law. Jean Chretien benefited from a similar ruling a few years back when he was excused from testifying about his spell as Indian Affairs Minister at a major aboriginal trial until after Parliament recessed.

The reason behind the principle is simple: a sitting member of Parliament should be tending to Parliament's business, not the Court's. The practicality of that adage should be evident from the experience of Bill Clinton (who was held not to be protected from discovery by the American executive privilege) and as result got significantally distracted (as did the whole American body politic) by the Starr investigation, the Lewinsky Affair and, ultimately, the impeachment hearings and trial. Similarly, when Mr. Chretien did testify he spent several days in court (and undoubtedly several days preparing) to essentially testify to nothing. One strongly had the feeling that the calling of Mr. Chretien was nothing more than a 'Hail Mary' pass which fell short and ended up looking like a stunt. If done while he was in office it would have been a fiasco.

While it might be said that these are infrequent occurrences, that, of course, would change if such law suits could be brought. At present there is no point in bringing such cases as Parliament rarely is in recess for forty days during a Prime Minister's term. Thus the desire to drag a sitting politician into court to testify cannot be satisfied (there are other methods for challenging government actions) and so such actions are not brought. If such actions could be brought we would see a lot more of them.

The second blow for democracy came from Justice Paul Perrell of the Ontario Superior Court who ruled that the forfeit of deposit rules for Federal elections are unconstitutional. The Federal Liberals, with the support of all of the existing parties, brought in a variety of election reforms designed to streamline the election process and make it more serious. These laws operated largely by penalizing parties that did not cross certain thresholds at the polls. These penalties included loss of party status, seizure of party assets and loss of deposits. The Rhinoceros Party (along with the Communist Party of Canada and a number of small Christian parties) was the first fatality but the wounded include the Green Party.

In practice what this regime (which has been struck down a piece at a time by the courts) has done is serve as a significant impediment for new parties to emerge. Thus it has entrenched the role of the existing parties and makes it close impossible for smaller parties or issue oriented parties (say like the Reform Party) to build momentum over a series of elections. I may not particularly have liked the late lamented Reform Party or like the various right-wing Christian outfits that spring up around a variety of issues and I certainly know many who detest the Green Party, but if our democracy is to work properly they and the people who support them have to have their shot. Too my mind, the health of a democracy is not just measured by the ability of such groups and their supporters to run and win, but it is also reflected in their ability to run at all and to have their views put forward without impediment. They may be marginal but they should be given an equal chance to prove that they are not or, if they are, to change that. If that means a few rhinoceros run through our polls on the frivolous fringe, well, so be it.

Have an Artistic Halloween

All of us Victoria based ghouls and ghasts have an opportunity to take in a bit of Halloween culture that should not be missed. The Victoria Philharmonic Choir (Victoria's premiere full scale choir) is mounting two shows of the season appropriate Spectre's Bride by A. Dvorak (I have not figured out how to pull up fancy accent marks in blogger), at 8 pm on October 30 and 31, 2008 at the Farquarhar Auditorium (at UVic). Given that it is only weeks from having to listen to endless cycles of Christmas Muzak whereever we go and sit through endless choir Christmas concerts, why not take advantage of a chance to hear Halloween music? I admit Dvorak will be a bit heavier going than 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' but you are over teh age of six, right?

The Indian Tax Exemption

There is nothing that elicits quite so much excitement in a discussion about aboriginal affairs in Canada as the notorious tax exemption embodied in s. 87 of the Indian Act. In the popular mind this exemption renders Indians 'tax free'. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the exemption is a very narrow exemption tied to a historical policy where the governments set aside small tracts of land (the reserves) and then said that everything else was free for the taking.

In practice this means that for most Indians the tax exemption is worth next to nothing. When most of the reserves were set up, particularly outside of British Columbia, great pains were taken to make sure that land that might be potentially useful for settlement, agriculture, forestry, mining or most any other purpose was excluded from the reserves. Thus, there are a few reserves that are situated anywhere that is likely to produce jobs, rent or resource revenue that would lift anyone living on them above the level of destitution (there are a few spectacular exceptions to this rule). Thus most Indians make their income and spend their money in the 'commercial mainstream' and thus pay taxes on their income and transactions like every other Canadian. A recent pair of rulings from the Federal Court of Canada (Horn and Williams) made clear the narrowness of this exemption in holding that a business arrangement designed to extend the exemption to work done for the community in Toronto failed to get the benefit of the s. 87 tax exemption. Sadly, that picture does not make for such good rhetoric about race-based tax systems and the like.

Northern Ontario and Diners

I am just back from a bit of a cross-Canada expedition, part of which saw me visit a couple of towns in Northern Ontario, including Kenora.

Northern Ontario does not impinge much into the minds of either Newfoundlanders or British Columbias, but when I visit there two things always strike me. One is just how much like rural Newfoundland and British Columbia Northern Ontario is. This is despite the fact that the trees are what most British Columbians would think of as weeds (although Newfoundlanders would recognize them as familiar) and the Canadian Shield is not like the geography of either of our two bookend provinces. Nevertheless, there is the combination of empty space, towns emerging out of the forest and vast distances which stikes a chord.

When I woke up on Tuesday morning (after flying to Winnipeg and driving like a demon to Kenora the night before), I had a quick shower and headed north to Grassy Narrows. When I went out to get in my car I was struck both by the silence and calm of the town -- something that is not all that common in any city, even St. John's and Victoria. I snapped a picture of the view just outside the hotel, which is situated beside Lake of the Woods.



I then also got to indulge in one of my favourite small town pastimes -- find the good breakfast diner. While Kenora, like most every other human settlement in North America and Europe, has its McDonalds, I found an excellent breakfast at Ted's in downtown Kenora.


No-one at Ted's was wearing a suit or tie (I felt a bit overdressed with a sports jacket on). The coffee comes in one brand. The waitress/cashier seems to know everyone by name and made a point (I noticed) of saying megwich to her Ojibway customers and speaking French to a couple of the (what appeared to be) truckers sitting at one table. The eggs and bacon were excellent; the toast was buttered; the hash browns were a mountain (though I did resist the latter).

While these palces don't necessarily need my encouragement (it was packed), I exhort you all: resist the packaged food -- eat at your Ted's today.