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.

Whatever happens in the RCMP action, Senator Mike Duffy considers this public pursuit of justice the cornerstone of his time in Parliament, which will come to end in the Upper Chamber on May 27 when he retires.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 15, 2021.

Senator Mike Duffy has come to the end of his quest to clear his name, as he lost the chance to take his case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Last week, Duffy and lawyer Lawrence Greenspon visited the top court in the land to make their case for recuperating almost $8-million in lost salary, costs, and legal expenses.

Duffy was trying to overturn an Ontario court decision that ruled Duffy’s Senate suspension could not be challenged as it was protected by parliamentary privilege.

On Feb. 11, the Supreme Court turned down his application.

But Duffy still plans to continue his civil suit against the RCMP because, according to his lawyer, the police conducted a negligent investigation, and refused to allow Duffy to present his side of the story.

Greenspon told the media that the police also refused to allow Duffy to present emails and written evidence that could have prevented him from ever being charged criminally in the first place.

Those charges were ultimately thrown out, and the judge in the case pointedly stated that the Prime Minister’s Office should have been hauled to court, instead of the Senator, since the PMO spearheaded the strategy to discredit him.

And in that respect, the PMO was very successful.

According to his lawyer, “Everyone knows that Mike Duffy’s reputation has been forever ruined.”

Greenspon also argued that the Senate refused to reimburse Duffy for lost salary and legal fees, even after he was declared innocent in a court of law.

The civil suit also targets the RCMP because, according to Greenspon, the police carried out a negligent investigation, refusing to allow Duffy to present his side of the story, replete with emails and evidence that could have cleared his name before charges were ever laid.

Whatever happens in the RCMP action, Duffy considers this public pursuit of justice the cornerstone of his time in Parliament.

Sadly, for most people, the Duffy story is past history and there is too much confusion about the rules to care.

Once a popular journalist, his career spanned more than three decades.

CBC News journalist Rosemary Barton, interviewing Greenspon about the case, characterized the ridicule Duffy suffered as the price to be paid for public life.

In one sense, she is correct. Once Duffy crossed over from the media to politics, he certainly could expect more scrutiny and criticism.

Duffy’s ascendence to the Senate was part of a lifelong dream. Liberal and Conservative governments always jokingly referred to him as Senator, even when he hosted his popular political news show for CTV.

Duffy wasn’t the first journalist to cross the floor. CTV colleague Jim Munson was appointed by prime minister Jean Chrétien. Duffy was also joined by Pamela Wallin, who was also appointed by prime minister Stephen Harper and who also subsequently drummed out of the Conservative caucus.

Other journalists ended up in the governor general’s chair, including Adrienne Clarkson from the CBC and Michaëlle Jean from Radio Canada.

When journalists move into politics, they make a clean break from their former colleagues and might even face more criticism because they have gone from being the hunter to being the hunted.

Had Duffy remained in journalism, he would have joined the ranks of the revered, following in the footsteps of Barbara Frum, Lloyd Robertson and Peter Mansbridge. All three spent their lives in journalism and were recognized for integrity and journalistic clarity.

They never faced the criticism that follows in the wake of every political partisan.

Duffy cannot rewrite the past.

In retrospect, he probably did not realize how rough politics could turn out to be. Observing from the outside, it is hard to understand that an internal party fight can be the most damaging battle of all.

Duffy was welcomed into the Tory caucus as a star. He was a guest speaker in multiple ridings and usually drew a bigger crowd than most of the ministers.

But when the Prime Minister’s Office set out on a campaign to discredit the Senate, it mattered little that he was one of their star performers.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

And Duffy was as big as they get.

He won’t get too many supporters in his quest to clear his name. Of course, most Senators would simply like this messy chapter to disappear.

But the Duff owes it to his wife and family, and many friends across the country, to continue his fight.

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

Why would the Parliament of Canada endorse a leadership summit that limits participation on the basis of religion?

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 6, 2019.

OTTAWA—Christians only need apply.

According to the Canada Prayer Breakfast website, the annual parliamentary event held last week included a 100-person youth summit.

The National Christian Youth Summit (formerly known as the National Student Forum) was held in the Parliamentary Precinct. It was billed as the Canada Youth Summit but the recruitment and travel subsidy material said only Christians need apply. While its Facebook page says the event is open to all faiths, its website invites those who are “passionate about bringing your faith in Jesus Christ.”

Why would the Parliament of Canada endorse a leadership summit that limits participation on the basis of religion?

It is more important than ever to share stories with multiple religions viewpoints, especially among young people.

Perspectives of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism should also be reflected in any government-supported event that purports to increase the influence of religion in Canada’s political life.

Many Members of Parliament attend the annual National Prayer Breakfast, sharing a common desire to include spirituality in public decision-making.

When the country came together in support of the victims of the New York World Trade Centre attacks, 100,000 people gathered on Parliament Hill to hear prayers from diverse religious leaders.

In Canada, we have had a proud history of religious diversity. The Prayer Breakfast has been held annually since the time of prime minister Lester Pearson. The Member of Parliament who chairs a regular, informal parliamentary prayer group organizes the program.

Other religious events are often held on Parliament Hill, focusing on the special days for specific religions, like Eid, or Diwali.

Any not-for profit group can host an event on Parliament Hill, as long as certain conditions are met.

But, the Canada Prayer Breakfast is unique because it is offered under the combined authority of the Speakers of the House and the Senate.

Should the Speaker’s Office be sponsoring a religious summit that is exclusionary in nature?

The Christian youth summit is held to “meet, worship, pray and dialogue with Christian Parliamentarians, public servants, NGOs, and ministry leaders.” Would it not be important to meet with all parliamentarians, not just those who share the same religious beliefs? What happened to separation of church and state?

The choice of speakers makes it clear that this is more than a religious event. It is a gathering with decidedly political overtones.

Keynote advertised speakers for a dinner preceding the event and the prayer breakfast included a speaker from Samaritan’s Purse and a director of the Zacharias Institute.

Samaritan’s Purse, an international relief organization headed by the son of televangelist Dr. Billy Graham, has been criticized in Canada and abroad for tying its relief efforts to religious conversion attempts.

Just last week, CEO Franklin Graham called on U.S. President Donald Trump, to declare the Council on American-Islamic Relations a terrorist organization. He characterized CAIR as a mouthpiece in Washington for radical Islam.” CAIR has denied the allegations and has said it condemns terrorism.

According to a 2017 article in The Atlantic, Graham has called for a total ban on Muslim immigration into the United States. He also considers gay Boy Scouts a major threat to children but believes that God is at work in the Donald Trump White House.

“He did everything wrong, politically,” Graham said. “He offended gays. He offended women. He offended the military. He offended Black people. He offended the Hispanic people. He offended everybody! And he became president of the United States. Only God could do that.” Now, there’s “no question” that God is supporting Trump, Graham said. “No president in my lifetime—I’m 64 years old—can I remember … speaking about God as much as Donald Trump does.”

Three years ago, the Canadian arm of the organization, featured in last week’s event, fired Newfoundland volunteer Kay Cossar from Burgeo when she refused to sign an updated faith statement denouncing same-sex marriage and abortion.

She had been regional co-ordinator of Operation Christmas Child for eight years.

Samaritan’s Purse spokesperson Jeff Adams defended the firing, saying the organization’s faith statement had been amended because “the world’s view on these has changed”… “The amendments include a specific mention that ‘human sexuality is to be expressed only within the context of marriage,’ that a marriage by Biblical definition is between ‘a genetic male and genetic female,’ and that ‘human life is sacred from conception to its natural end.’”

The second speaker was Vince Vitale, a director of the Zacharias Institute. The institute bills itself as a training centre for Christian apologists. An American educational facility it offers courses on how to argue the case for Christianity, and against other religious options.

The time has come to revisit the Canada Prayer Breakfast status as a religious convention sponsored by Parliament.

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.

Notwithstanding all Sen. Nancy Ruth’s good work, last week’s cheese outburst will sadly constitute her Senate legacy.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 2, 2015.

Notwithstanding all Sen. Nancy Ruth’s good work, last week’s cheese outburst will sadly constitute her Senate legacy.

OTTAWA—Let them eat cheese. Or maybe not, according to the latest maladroit sortie from the Senate.

Senator Nancy Ruth is known for blunt candour. She is someone who charts her own course, Camembert be damned.

A twice-failed Progressive Conservative candidate, she was appointed to the Senate by Liberal prime minister Paul Martin.

The Senate’s first openly declared lesbian, Ruth crossed party lines in the last provincial election to support Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.

Nancy Ruth eschews the normal Canadian convention of having a last name.

She traded in the Jackman nomenclature she was born with for a Senate appellation that combines her first and middle names.

Her family tree boasts an impressive, bipartisan political pedigree spanning three generations. Her grandfather was the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, her father was a Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament, and her brother Hal Jackman, is a respected philanthropist and former lieutenant governor or Ontario.

Nancy Ruth has been active politically and financially in support of quality causes for years. She founded the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, (LEAF) the Canadian Women’s Foundation and a women’s studies chair at Mount Saint Vincent University.

LEAF is probably the single most significant catalyst for women’s equality challenges to the Canadian status quo.

She sits on the advisory board of Equal Voice, a national, non-partisan body devoted to promoting the election of more women to the House of Commons.

Notwithstanding all her good work, last week’s cheese outburst will sadly constitute her Senate legacy.

Anyone familiar with the current climate of fear in the Red Chamber will understand how Nancy Ruth’s boiling point was reached.

But the public has zero tolerance for high-flying, cheese-eating politicians, so the defence of her breakfast expense claim fell on deaf ears.

How much of the so-called Senate scandal is really based on fact, and how much is simply the result of a political pileup against an outdated institution?

Senator Mike Duffy’s criminal trial starts this week complete with eye-popping, hand-wringing revelations that will go right to the Prime Minister’s Office.

Pre-emptive PMO damage control started in earnest last week.

According to news reports, the Senate’s criminal net is spreading wider, with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police filing documents to build a case against Senator Pamela Wallin. Cpl. Rudy Exantus outlined 150 misreported invoices, including expensing of a trip to Toronto for an election night broadcast as a Conservative pundit, a partisan act the police claim is a personal activity.

That statement itself exposes a grave police misunderstanding of the work of a Member of Parliament.

If television appearances are deemed “personal” in nature, not a single leader should be allowed to defend party policies on air except from the foyer of the House of Commons.

And if political broadcast attendees are guilty of misuse of Senate funds, what about the parties that vet panel participation?

How can Wallin be guilty of expensing a political appearance but party event organizers are somehow innocent of participating in the fraud?

That makes about as much sense as the police charging Mike Duffy for receiving a benefit, and exonerating Nigel Wright for paying it.

A simple review of the nature of the expense claims filed with the court, will reveal something a lot more scandalous than misfiled expense claims.

Senators sitting on private boards put themselves in an untenable conflict of interest, not with the cost of a plane ticket but with the decision-making neutrality required of public office holders.

Wallin sat on the board of CTV, and Porter Airlines, amongst others. Both those organizations are federally chartered and depend on the national government for their licences to broadcast and fly.

The real Senate scandal is that Parliamentarians are even allowed to sit on private boards while they are appointed to serve the public interest.

This conflict is huge, and has nothing to do with bad cheese trays.

No doubt, opaque accounting methods, and sketchy conflict rules are the entrails of a bygone era.

But a lack of transparency and clarity in Senate rule making is sinking the whole system.

It is just so much easier to simply trash the Senate than to clean it up.

The Nancy Ruth Camembert cauldron last week made for great copy.

And it became another nail in the coffin of Senate credibility.

Her impolitic comments reinforced the image of an out of touch Senate elite.

Our collective obsession with eating habits and disinterest in real Senate substance is painful to observe.

But that’s politics, eh?

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