Why Canada Needs The Senate

Anyone who suggests getting rid of the Senate should be ashamed. Just like those who suggest eliminating the need for the Queen as a symbol of our history and our connection with the Commonwealth. So I am a Monarchist too!

We need a body for "sober, second thought" made up of experienced politicans, lawyers, business people and successful individuals in many facets of Canadian life who do NOT need to be elected to save us sometimes from the House of Commons.

Look what was said about Senate actions on the Accountability Bill that the Commons passed and which the Gvoernment wanted rammed through the Senate:

• MPs back amended accountability act
  Dec. 8, BRUCE CHEADLE, CANADIAN PRESS
  
  OTTAWA — The House of Commons unanimously accepted an amended accountability act Friday with some 90 changes.
  
  The Conservative government's showpiece legislation passed through the House without a recorded vote Friday and is now set to get royal assent and pass into law early next week.
  
  The bill received all-party support.
  
  Treasury Board President John Baird did not dispute that the bill is improved as a result of the Senate examination, which involved dozens of witnesses commenting over weeks of hearings this autumn.
  
  The "one disappointment," Baird said of the amended legislation, is that it no longer includes a move to a single ethics officer for both the Commons and the upper chamber.
  
  Senators strongly objected to that provision because the two houses are supposed to be independent of one another in Canada's parliamentary system.
  
  Apart from that, Baird said outside the Commons, "this bill is a heck of a lot stronger than it was when we introduced it on April 11. If anything, it's tougher — so we're proud of that."
  
  New Democrat MP Pat Martin, one of the staunchest supporters of the government bill, called it an "accomplishment we can be quite proud of."
  
  "We achieved significant improvements on things like whistleblower protection, eliminating patronage appointments and tying a cowbell around lobbyists' necks," Martin said in a release.
  
  Promises to bring in tough new rules on ethics and accountability formed the foundation of the Conservative election platform in the last election.
  
  In the wake of the sponsorship scandal under the previous Liberal administration, all parties made pledges to clean up government.
  
  The resulting legislation, drafted in a rush after the Tories came to power with a minority on Jan. 23, easily passed through the Commons last spring but bogged down this fall as the Liberal-dominated Senate went over the huge bill in detail.
  
  The Senate wound up proposing about 150 amendments, 90 of which were eventually accepted."

I am hoping that the Senate does the same with Bill C-3 which also was supposed to pass easily, a "slam-dunk" as Senators were supposed to think initially. I have written before that I believe that Bill C-3 is a horrible piece of legislation that should concern every business in Canada [April 26, 2006 "Bill C-3--Is Your Business Next"]

The Senators started to learn as the hearings progressed of problems which they were not supposed to hear about:

• "At the beginning, when this bill came in we were led to believe, and I am not saying there was any bad faith, it was going to be a bill that would pass easily as opposed to the division on a bill that had been proposed in the past, and it went through the House of Commons without practically any major discussion.
  
  All of a sudden we understand that there is an adverse effect for one of the strong participants in the bill."

Then the Senator pointed out a matter that the Commons ignored:

• "this government and governments will be going forward with PPPs in the future. We are hoping that more public-private partnerships will exist to share the responsibilities between the public and the private enterprise, whether it is Highway 50 or Highway 30 in Quebec or other bridges to be built. If we are not going to have respect for private projects that exist and that have been going well for 60 or 70 years, how can we expect private investors to risk, whether it is the "competing" project or the "existing" projects?
  
  I want to be sure that we can try to see how an amendment can be put through to address some of these issues. I am not asking a question as much as addressing the committee members and saying somewhere down the road we will have to sit down and discuss this. I went through the House committee proceedings and before it came here I felt this will be easy and interesting but fast. However, I am now preoccupied that future projects and existing projects can be impeded by the fact that this legislation is not probably satisfactory at this time. I just want to be on the record on that."

After, Eddie, the Teamsters, the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association and the Bridge Co. were heard, the Seantors invited back Transport Canada. The one thing that any witness that appears before the Senators should understand is not to bluff them or avoid answering their questions. Eddie tried and failed, being called a "politician" in the worst sense, Stamper and Moroun did not and were described as "candid."

Then the Transport people got slapped down when discussing P3s in the context of public and private when the Chair had enough and said in a tone that suggested exasperation"I am not convinced, but my colleagues can ask more questions." It was followed by the legal discussion by Transport Canada whose rep tried to make Section 57 that deals with matters "before the coming into force of this section" not retroactive! And was only topped by the conversation whether the Ambassador Bridge project was "new" or "an expansion." Concede and regroup would have been a better strategy for Transport Canada.

The other amusing comment was when a Senator discussed how much time "Special Acts" for bridges were taking up since one of the reasons for Bill C-3 was to avoid the need for Parliament to spend its valuable time on this type of matter. Senator Dawson asked:

• "When was the last time a bill came into the Senate and the House asking for permission to build a bridge? I have been here for 30 years, and I had not seen one within the last 30 years....Je ne veux pas encombrer le Sénat, mais un projet de loi tous les 40 ans, ce ne serait pas exagéré. "

The Senators picked up the key points:

• the government does not have the means necessary to exercise its constitutional powers and needs Bill c-3 to give it the tools required


• a number of parties have issues with respect to the legislation, not just the Ambassador Bridge and the issues are difficult ones.
  


• the government is at the same time judge and part of the process of authorization of construction of a new bridge between Windsor and Détroit close to the Ambassador Bridge

• the question of Governmental conflict of interest initially and on the impartiality of the process of authorization


• a P3 is not public but private
  


• the protection of the confidentiality of information also seems to be a source of concern


• they pointed out the confusion in Transport Canada's answers respecting the need for a "Special Act" and the EA process the Bridge Co. is going through now
  


• the right or authority to to direct traffic from Highway 401 into the P3 bridge and away from the Ambassador Bridge is certainly new as is the prohibition of the owners from selling it freely
  


• Bill C-3 is really directed at and has the effect of killing the "private" Ambassador Bridge
  


• Government oversight is acceptable and is needed
  


• Government has to have something to say about who owns the crossings at the border.
  


• "the constitutional responsibility of government to control ownership and security...that in the past these issues were debated around the table of the House of Commons and of the Senate, and from now on they will be discussed around your table....certainly two of the big players ...want to have the chance to come in front of a committee of the Senate or of the House of Commons [but they] are going to lose that power."
  


• If the Act is passed, there will no longer be an obligation on the Transport Minister to come and explain anything to the Senate and House of Commons re bridges and tunnels.

Will the Senate make amendments to strengthen Bill C-3 and make it consistent with what Transport Canada said it wanted rather than what the Bill actually says? Will some protection be built in for the Ambassador Bridge Co.?

The Senate could pass it as written as the House did (with a few insignificant changes), throw it all out as not needed, delay doing anything for political points, pass part of it dealing with health, safety and security and study the rest, or make signifcant amendments to balance Transport Canada's needs and the concerns of the various parties who appeared in front of it.

We will start finding out this Tuesday when the Senate does its clause-by-clause discussion.