The Wonders of the Senate

When the Fathers of Confederation established Canada's Constitution, the British North America Act in 1867 (now referred to as the Constitution Act 1867 to distinguish it from the Constitution Act 1982 [Charter of Rights]), they decided that Canada would be governed by two legislative bodies - the elected House of Commons and the appointed Senate. The Senate was supposed to serve as a legislature of "sober second thought."

We wouldn't care to comment on the "sober" element, but we can certainly speak to the aspect of "second thought!" This is due to the fact that any "thought," second or otherwise, seems to be an elusive presence located somewhere other than within the Senate.

The Senate, for the most part, consists of appointed nonentities loyal to the Liberal party, who are there only to receive the annual salary of $65,000, plus $10,000 expenses (the latter is not taxed) and to obediently and unquestionably follow orders delivered to them by the Prime Minister and his paid advisors. As a result, the esteemed Senate is little more than an agent of the government, with its Minister being the Senate House Leader who runs the "show" - and a "show" it is - completely lacking in substance.

While some of the Senators may raise their "concerns" about the legislation put before them, unfortunately, like good little soldiers, when it comes to a vote, they dutifully support the legislation as instructed.

Very few Senators are exceptions to this - anomalies that can be counted on one hand. Outstanding among these exceptions is Senator Anne Cools who was called to the Senate in 1984 by Prime Minister Trudeau. Senator Cools spends hundreds of hours personally researching and drafting her speeches. She thinks and acts and votes completely independently. She tries with all her considerable will and intellect to fulfill the role truly intended for Senators by our founding fathers. Nevertheless, her conscientious efforts largely fall on sterile ground.
Examples of the Senate's failure to provide constructive, thoughtful input into the issues of the day are numerous, but the inadequacies of the Senate were never more apparent than in June of this year when the Senate had before it, three vitally important Bills which will have far-reaching ramifications for Canadians. These three Bills, however, were hustled through the Senate at mind-numbing speed.

Bill C-23 (Same-sex Benefits)

The Senate Constitutional and Legislative Committee had no intention of doing anything except to whip this Bill through as soon as humanly possible. In this regard, the Bill was stick-handled through the Senate Committee by Senator Serge Joyal who is a well-known homosexual. (Similarly, in the House of Commons Justice Committee, Bill C-23 was pushed through by two prominent homosexual MPs, Real Ménard, BQ, (Montreal Hochelaga), and Svend Robinson, (Burnaby - Douglas). The obvious conflict of interest of these MPs in protecting "their" legislation appeared to be of no concern to anyone, except REAL Women.

Senator Serge Joyal first tried to pretend that the central point of Bill C-23, which was to give financial benefits based solely on homosexual sexual activity, was a matter already settled by the Supreme Court of Canada in the controversial case M and H handed down in May, 1999. Senator Cools, however, corrected this inaccuracy, and pointed out the irrationality of providing benefits based solely on sexual activity. Senator Cools, who was also a member of the Justice Committee, raised thoughtful questions at the Committee hearings, but her concerns about the Bill were ignored by the other Senators who bowed instead to Senator Joyal's "expertise" on the matter.

Even Senator Nicholas Taylor from Alberta, a Roman Catholic father of 10 children, who dared to fault the Bill on the grounds that it didn't go far enough to include other economically dependent couples, backed down and supported the Bill in the final vote.

At third and final reading on June 14, 2000, Senator Cools tried one final time to speak out against the Bill and then formally declared her objections to it. Only one other Senator did so - Conservative Senator Roch Bolduc, who had at one time served as a Deputy Minister in Quebec (1969 - 1973). All the other Senators - Liberal, PC and Independents - didn't utter a peep against Bill C-23.

Bill C-19 (The International Criminal Court)

This Bill creates very serious long-range ramifications for Canadians. (See Bill C-19, The Frightening International Criminal Court, p. 20). While REAL Women faced a very hostile House of Commons Justice Committee when we appeared before it on May 30, 2000 to discuss this Bill, at least the Commons Committee took some time to review the Bill and did submit some amendments.

Sadly, the same cannot be said for the Senate, the legislature of "sober second thought." As dreadful as REAL Women's experience was before the House of Commons Committee, it was preferable to the Senate's reaction, which was that most of the Senators blindly passed the Bill without even reading it!

REAL Women had applied to appear as a witness on Bill C-19 before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, and was relieved to learn that the Senate would not be reviewing the Bill until the end of September when the Senate returned from the summer recess. This decision, however, was almost immediately overturned by the Prime Minister's office under pressure from Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy.

Senator Landon Pearson, who is a lackey for the Prime Minister's office (her son, Michael, is one of the Prime Minister's advisors), suddenly insisted that Bill C-19 be placed on the Order Paper.

Without notice, Bill C-19 appeared on the Senate Order Paper on June 22, and Senator Cools requested an adjournment of the proceedings until the following Tuesday so that she could speak to the Bill. Senator Dan Hays, Liberal Deputy Leader, however, obviously following orders, jumped into the debate stating that there must be second reading of the Bill so that it could go to Committee for review that day. He stated if there was an adjournment, as proposed by Senator Cools, the Bill would be lost. Senator Cools then moved again for an adjournment, but when the Speaker called for a vote on her motion, not one of the 43 Senators present in the Chamber voted to support it. The Bill went immediately to Committee.

The Senate Foreign Affairs Committee promptly met and decided that it was not necessary to hear witnesses on the Bill except, of course, the Minister himself, Lloyd Axworthy. REAL Women, therefore, was denied an opportunity to raise its concerns about the controversial Bill. Once Mr. Axworthy had completed his enthusiastic praise, the Committee quickly returned the Bill for third and final reading without daring to change so much as a comma.

At third reading on June 28th, on the government side, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Liberal Senator Stollery, at least acknowledged that there were problems with Bill C-19. He stated (page 1833, Hansard):

Honourable senators, I believe that the members of the committee felt - although I do not speak for my colleagues because they can speak for themselves - that there were problems with Bill C-19. There are some areas that could be changed and possibly amended. I know that some would say, "Well, then, why did you pass it?" We passed it because we thought it was better to pass it than to leave it.

He then went on to state that the Senate would do an ongoing three-year study of the issues and concerns arising from Bill C-19. This concession, however, has little merit in reality. We are reminded of the old adage, "What good does it do to shut the barn door, after the horse has gone?" So the Senate will take a leisurely three-year look at the Bill, but since it has already been passed into law, it is hard to see how this appraisal can be of much help.

Another Senator, Marcel Prud'homme, also objected to the unseemly haste with which the Bill was pushed through without study. He stated (page 1835, Hansard):

The government has decided that these bills are to have priority. However, if you want to have respect for yourselves as senators, the time will come, as I said yesterday on another bill - and I shall keep saying it until either I give up or someone makes some necessary changes - when we shall have to decide whether or not we shall continually proceed under these conditions.

… I feel we, as senators, should not accept being pushed around in any way, shape or form. We should do our duty as we see fit, as we were asked to do when we were appointed to the Senate, a house of reflection where you do not get nervous.

…I do not think the Senate should be treated in this way - more so when I see it written in the report that they 'regret,' and words like 'obedience.' I am not here to be obedient to anyone. Sometimes I regret not being a part of a major party again so that I could be more useful here.
Senator Cools then spoke against the Bill's hurried passage through the Senate (Hansard, pages 1837 & 1838):

… Am I correct in my understanding that the intention is to pass this bill today? What is the urgency? I had understood that this was not an urgent bill. However, it appears to have suddenly taken on that status, and some of us want to know why that is so. There is no reason in the world to rush a bill and not to hear witnesses, honourable senators.

… Could we have some serious explanation about why this bill, which suddenly came upon us in the last two or three days, is now being rushed through the Senate? If it is such an urgent matter, the bill could have been brought forward last week or the week before.
(Cont'd on page 11)
… I was trying to find out if we are expected to pass this bill today. If that is not the intention, then I should like to speak to this bill. It is a serious matter. This bill would create a novel court. It is an extremely unique and important matter and it should be properly studied. It is a shame and a pox on this chamber that we are not giving this bill the study it deserves.

… The bill is condemned by the committee's own report. I am sure other senators have put this fact on the record. The
tenth report of the committee expresses great regret that the committee did not have sufficient time, and then it turns around a few lines later and states that the subject matter should be studied for three years. It seems to me that this is an extremely serious matter. The committee report has said that these matters are deserving of study and, in point of fact, matters to which the committee itself did not give sufficient attention. That is very serious and, to my mind, very damning.

… There is absolutely no reason why this bill could not come up as the first item when we return in September.

… the bill could have come forward in a timely way and it could have been given he proper study that it so adequately deserves. There is no reason in the world why it did not get the sort of attention it requires.

Senator Cools' straightforward comments were ignored, and when the vote was called, hers was the only recorded vote opposing the Bill. All the other Senators, following instructions from above, put aside any concerns they may have had about it and either abstained or blindly voted for the Bill.

The Clarity Bill C-20

Now, here was a Bill that the Senators could really sink their teeth into - because it directly affected them. This was due to the fact that the Clarity Bill provided that, in the event that Quebec voted to secede from Canada, it could only do so if the referendum question was clear ("a clear expression of the will of the population") and constituted the views of a "clear majority" of the people as determined by the House of Commons only. Horrors!

Under Bill C-20, the Senate would then have no say on this crucial matter (even though The Constitution Act of 1867 required the assent of both legislative bodies to validate any legislation). However, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a 1998 decision entitled: Reference re: Secession of Quebec, contradicted this and concluded that only "elected representatives," i.e., Members of the House of Commons, should decide this critical issue. The Supreme Court of Canada, of course, has never had any hang-ups about the rule of law since it is a law unto itself, answerable to no one, so it was undisturbed about the unconstitutional nature of the Clarity Bill.

There were other objections to the Clarity Bill as well. In particular, there was a concern that Canada was supposed to be indivisible and, therefore, the Crown had an inescapable duty to protect the country and also the rights and freedoms of its citizens who oppose secession, such as native groups in Quebec. Further, the decision to sever Canada should not be made by the House of Commons alone, but should require the authorization of the whole of Canada.

In early June, there were 55 Liberal Senators, 40 Tory Senators, 5 Independent Senators and 5 vacancies. A few of the Liberal Senators did, this time, object to aspects of the Bill. These Senators included Senator Anne Cools, and surprisingly, Senator Serge Joyal, who raised strenuous objections to the Clarity Bill. This apparently unsettled our Prime Minister who regards the Clarity Bill Act as his own personal political legacy to the nation. Not to worry, however. He promptly filled the five vacancies in the Senate with individuals who, absolutely to no one's surprise, supported the Clarity Bill. Ah, democracy in Canada!

The Clarity Bill was passed in the Senate on June 28th - 52-34 - the day before the Senators rose for the summer recess. On the final vote, however, the only Liberator Senator brave enough to defy the Prime Minister was Senator Anne Cools who put forward her recorded opposition to the Bill.

On June 29, 2000, all three of these extraordinary Bills received Royal Assent (i.e., passed into law). The wonders of the Canadian Senate.

Please write to Senator Anne Cools to thank her for her lonely struggle in the Senate to protect children and their families and to uphold the dignity and integrity of Parliament. Her address is as follows:

Honourable Anne C. Cools
Senate of Canada
Parliament Buildings
Room 178-F, Centre Block
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A4

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS