It is rather an odd position for someone who has never been elected and stands to keep her job for a total of 33 years without a single review by anyone. Senator Denise Batters is scheduled to retire on June 18, 2045.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 22, 2021.

OTTAWA—The internal fight in the Conservative Party has once again shone a light into the dark places of the Chamber of Sober Second thought.

And the illumination is sobering.

Senator Denise Batters is supposedly leading a fight for democracy.

It is rather an odd position for someone who has never been elected and stands to keep her job for a total of 33 years without a single review by anyone. Batters is scheduled to retire on June 18, 2045.

Meanwhile, she is using all her efforts to secure the firing of her leader, who has actually gone through a convention and an election, where his right to a seat in Parliament was affirmed.

Of course, the majority of attention is focussed on Batters’ petition to oust Erin O’Toole.

But for the past eight years in the Senate, she has been using to same bully pulpit for an anti-Liberal political agenda.

Three years ago, Batters was forced to apologize when she attacked parliamentary secretary Omar Alghabra for speaking out against Saudi Arabia because he was born there. Most of her tweets are littered with claims that the governing Liberals are sticking it to the west.

Like any Canadian, Batters has the right to speak out. But to use her voice as a Senator to engage in partisan fights is a misuse of her nomination.

In the case of the Tories, being dumped from caucus will not likely stop her campaign.

However, it will dampen the enthusiasm of followers, as expulsion from caucus is not a great route to re-election.

When Justin Trudeau fired two ministers, he was accused by the opposition of being a misogynist by the very people who are now attacking Batters.

Tories are getting a lick of their own stick, and it has nothing to do with being against women.

Other Conservative caucus members will close ranks. Batters’ petition may actually reinforce O’Toole’s position as most members close ranks to support him.

Even the anti-vaxxers in the Conservative caucus have to tread carefully, as they would have little success in running in the next election as Independents. Exile from caucus is a death sentence for most politicians.

But Batters does not need to worry about re-election. And that brings me to the issue of term limits.

Does it make sense to name a partisan politician to a 32-year tenure in the Parliament of Canada without any checks or balances on their use of the Senate as a personal bully pulpit?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau abolished the Liberal Senate caucus in an effort to take politics out of the place. In the short term, it seems to have been a successful move. But in the long term, the decision could have grave repercussions in the case of a constitutional crisis.

The prime minister could have accomplished the same goal by ensuring that Senate appointments be made for a fixed term.

When Jean Chrétien was in power, he imposed de facto term limits by generally appointing older, wiser Canadians who were already inching toward their 75th birthday.

He was also keen to name those who would serve less than six years and therefore be ineligible for a partial Senate pension.

The length of some Senate appointments, and eligibility for lucrative pensions, was the subject of much criticism so Chrétien found a deft way to solve the problem without having to amend the Constitution.

Batters’ campaign is going to serve as a reminder that partisan work in the Senate can have a poisonous effect on the body politic.

But even though she was tossed from the caucus, there is nothing stopping her from continuing a taxpayer-funded campaign against her party’s leader.

It is very easy for someone who has a guaranteed job for the next 24 years to launch a political attack that costs her nothing.

Batters can also work to consolidate disaffection with the current leader, again on the taxpayers’ dime.

But O’Toole has his own weapons, including the legislation that allows his caucus to expel recalcitrant members by a vote of 20 per cent of the caucus.

When Trudeau expelled two caucus members, Tories attacked him for doing it personally, without a vote of caucus approval. They also claimed the firings were based on misogyny.

O’Toole also fired Batters directly, without the benefit of a caucus vote.

Potential dissidents have been threatened with expulsion if they follow Batters.

Nobody played the misogyny card in this firing. Instead, all eyes are on the unelected status of a Senator who campaigns against her own party at public expense.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, June 26, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—The great thing about the first two years of a new government is that people are willing to cut the team a lot of slack.

The challenging thing about the last two years of the same mandate is that patience has worn thin and people want results.

The months leading up to the midpoint are crucial in sketching out a direction that can stand the test of time, and the next election.

The Liberal rollout last week of a new security package sets the stage for a positive midterm review.

The massive, 139-page legislative package, championed by Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, was widely praised as striking a balance between the individual right to privacy and collective right to security.

C-59 was also seen as curbing the overarching unchecked powers that C-51 had awarded to police and spy agencies including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Communications Security Establishment.

Conservative critics attacked the new bill for tying the hands of police, and New Democrats said the proposed changes did not go far enough.

Legal experts on both sides of the security/freedom spectrum were cautiously positive. In particular, they praised the tone of ministers in support of the proposals.

Former Public Safety minister Steven Blaney was all bombast in defence of the police and security right to avoid scrutiny in pursuit of terrorists. Goodale, an old hand at the political balance game, was more circumspect in his position. He emphasized the right of citizens to be free from intrusive police powers, while affording police the law enforcement tools to keep the country safe.

By all accounts, the legislation will clean up serious anomalies in existing no-fly zone listing disclosures while continuing some secretive powers awarded in the previous legislation.

The creation of a super review agency to oversee all security measures infringing on citizen rights was widely lauded as an effective way to harness police powers.

As a backdrop for a midterm agenda, the legislation on safety and security is a potential start.

However, there were storm clouds gathering on the Liberal horizon last week, in relation to the showdown between the House of Commons and the Senate on who actually controls public spending powers.

Early in his mandate, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed to building a new relationship of trust with the Senate. His persective and subsequent appointment reforms, were sorely needed to re-establish public support for the Red Chamber. The previous government, pursuing a deliberate strategy to discredit the Senate and pave the way for Triple E constitutional reform, had succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.

At the beginning of the Liberal mandate, most Canadians believed the Senate was a profligate, out-dated institution which sorely needed to be abolished.

By liberating Senators from the discipline of party lines, the prime minister promised a whole new way of governing.

That is welcome when Senate positions generally align with those of the government. But when a budget measure is reversed by an unelected body, there are serious constitutional implications which cannot be ignored or easily brushed aside.

At the end of the day, with all its warts, even party-based Senate committee work has, in some instances, evolved into intelligent challenge to conventional thinking on controversial issues.

In this term, senatorial improvements to end-of-life legislation ended up setting the stage for a better bill which was subsequently passed by the House of Commons. In that instance, the system worked effectively and provided a better outcome for all Canadians.

In the mid-course budget impasse, a group of unelected Senators is usurping the role of the House of Commons in the passage of spending measures.

By abolishing the escalator clause in liquor taxes, the Senate is amending tax law in a way that neither the constitution nor the prime minister envisioned.

The country has had escalator clauses on gas taxes for years, and such a measure currently kicks in every time any traveller fills up at the pump.

The choice of booze appears to be a curious commodity for which the Senate has decided to take a principle-based stand. But it did before the House rejected the amendments and the Senate in the end passed the bill.

But some Senators, including diehard Liberal Joe Day from New Brunswick, argue that amending a House money bill has been a longstanding practice. Liberals tried it unsuccessfully in the last century, attempting to block passage of the hated goods and services tax.

At that time, the Progressive Conservative government adopted the same response as todays’ Liberals. They both believe the right to tax belongs to government.

Mid-stream waters are proving to be rather murky.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

For the same reasons Prime Minister Justin Trudeau chose to embrace parity in his Cabinet, he should welcome the opportunity to turn the Senate on its head, and its body.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 11, 2016.

OTTAWA—It is 2016, eh! All the more reason for the countrywide Senate parity push. The unprecedented number of vacancies provides an historic opportunity.

When a non-partisan body, representing women across the political spectrum can achieve consensus on the need for Red Chamber equality, you know the political winds in Canada have shifted dramatically.

From the first woman prime minister to multiple female leaders, from prominent Conservatives to renowned New Democrats, there is near unanimity on the issue amongst political women.

That, in an of itself, is no minor accomplishment, as women of different political stripes are no different from their male counterparts, when it comes to philosophical leanings and opposing positions on multiple issues.

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau explained his decision to promote Cabinet parity, his logic was simple and compelling. He did face some pushback from the usual suspects.

However, the broad public support for his leadership far outweighed any dissenters, and the obvious quality of his Cabinet nominees muted any criticism.

Simply appointing women to the Senate will not, in and of itself, be universally supported. However, the appointment of quality women candidates from multiple fields would signal a sea change in the Senate appointment process.

As the Prime Minister has already promised to consult widely on Senate nominations, he certainly has plenty of leeway to recruit the best possible candidates in the circumstances.

And the strong support from a broad spectrum of women means that even parties hoping to kill the Senate will not likely balk at this radical reform proposal.

The Senate of Canada is currently struggling to defend itself against charges of obsolescence, mediocrity, and even claims of outright criminality.

The public backlash caused by allegations against Senator Mike Duffy and multiple other suspended and retired Senators is enormous. Even those Canadians, including political activists, who have witnessed good Senate work first hand, are saying little in defence of the Chamber of Sober Second Thought.

Normal Senate supporters are surprisingly quiet on matters of reform and nominations. The Senate has become the political institution that everyone loves to hate. All the political parties are keeping their distance.

It is clear that the current government has no appetite for reopening the Constitution. Thus, proposals for radical change to the Senate’s current modus operandi cannot include constitutional amendments or abolition. Likewise, the naïve suggestion that some provinces will willingly relinquish Senate seats in favour of others is also a non-starter.

With all those caveats, it is difficult to see how a forward-thinking prime minister could reinvigorate the Senate and restore public trust in an institution that has actually served our country effectively over many years.

A decision to undergo a complete facelift of the Red Chamber would serve dual purposes. By achieving parliamentary parity, the face of the Senate is changed forever, and in a positive way.

Canada’s Senate has been the ultimate old boys’ club in large measure for almost 150 years. While we certainly have witnessed some strong women Senators, at no time has the institution reflected anything near equal representation in gender or race.

The closest we came to parity was during the tenure of former prime minister Jean Chrétien. He actually appointed more women than men during his term. Prime minister Paul Martin continued that trend. Had prime minister Stephen Harper followed suit, we could have already achieved Senate parity today. That did not happen.

Harper’s unconstitutional refusal to appoint any Senators whatsoever has left the current government with a huge challenge and a unique opportunity. Democratic Reform Minister Maryam Monsef has exhibited a willingness to reshape the House of Commons, with an aggressive timeframe to achieve electoral reform.

The government has promised that an end to “first past the post” voting will be in place before the next election. That is no small order in a political landscape littered with reform corpses.

The move to Senate equality would be striking and permanent. By embracing the parity recommendation proposed by dozens of women leaders across the country, the government could send a clear signal for change.

House of Commons equality cannot happen in one election. It has not happened in more than a century.

Senate gender parity is within the grasp of the government. For the same reasons the prime minister chose to embrace parity in his Cabinet, he should welcome the opportunity to turn the Senate on its head, and its body.

A strong group of new Canadian women Senators would certainly send a clear message.

This is 2016.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.