Sixteen French billionaires have signed a petition urging President Sarkozy to tax them more.  Taxez-nous is the call; fairness and a sense of shared dedication are the sentiments.  “When the public finances’ deficit and the prospects of a worsening state debt threaten the future of France and Europe and when the government is asking everybody for solidarity, it seems necessary for us to contribute,” the super-rich say.

Jack would have approved.  As he said in his last epistle, "… let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world."
                                                                                                        H/T Queer Thoughts for the image

I am so sorry to hear that Jack has left us.  I keep thinking he's the only one of our current federal leaders that we routinely call by his first name.  That says it all … with Jack, we felt a common humanity; for him, we felt an ungrudging admiration. In character to the end, he left us a letter of hope and determination both for life and for his beloved party, the NDP:

Dear Friends,

Tens of thousands of Canadians have written to me in recent weeks to wish me well. I want to thank each and every one of you for your thoughtful, inspiring and often beautiful notes, cards and gifts. Your spirit and love have lit up my home, my spirit, and my determination.

Unfortunately my treatment has not worked out as I hoped. So I am giving this letter to my partner Olivia to share with you in the circumstance in which I cannot continue.

I recommend that Hull-Aylmer MP Nycole Turmel continue her work as our interim leader until a permanent successor is elected.  I recommend the party hold a leadership vote as early as possible in the New Year, on approximately the same timelines as in 2003, so that our new leader has ample time to reconsolidate our team, renew our party and our program, and move forward towards the next election.

A few additional thoughts:

To other Canadians who are on journeys to defeat cancer and to live their lives, I say this: please don't be discouraged that my own journey hasn't gone as well as I had hoped. You must not lose your own hope. Treatments and therapies have never been better in the face of this disease. You have every reason to be optimistic, determined, and focused on the future. My only other advice is to cherish every moment with those you love at every stage of your journey, as I have done this summer.

To the members of my party: we've done remarkable things together in the past eight years. It has been a privilege to lead the New Democratic Party and I am most grateful for your confidence, your support, and the endless hours of volunteer commitment you have devoted to our cause. There will be those who will try to persuade you to give up our cause. But that cause is much bigger than any one leader. Answer them by recommitting with energy and determination to our work. Remember our proud history of social justice, universal health care, public pensions and making sure no one is left behind. Let's continue to move forward. Let's demonstrate in everything we do in the four years before us that we are ready to serve our beloved Canada as its next government.

To the members of our parliamentary caucus: I have been privileged to work with each and every one of you. Our caucus meetings were always the highlight of my week. It has been my role to ask a great deal from you. And now I am going to do so again. Canadians will be closely watching you in the months to come. Colleagues, I know you will make the tens of thousands of members of our party proud of you by demonstrating the same seamless teamwork and solidarity that has earned us the confidence of millions of Canadians in the recent election.

To my fellow Quebecers: On May 2nd, you made an historic decision. You decided that the way to replace Canada's Conservative federal government with something better was by working together in partnership with progressive-minded Canadians across the country. You made the right decision then; it is still the right decision today; and it will be the right decision right through to the next election, when we will succeed, together. You have elected a superb team of New Democrats to Parliament. They are going to be doing remarkable things in the years to come to make this country better for us all.

To young Canadians: All my life I have worked to make things better. Hope and optimism have defined my political career, and I continue to be hopeful and optimistic about Canada. Young people have been a great source of inspiration for me. I have met and talked with so many of you about your dreams, your frustrations, and your ideas for change. More and more, you are engaging in politics because you want to change things for the better. Many of you have placed your trust in our party. As my time in political life draws to a close I want to share with you my belief in your power to change this country and this world. There are great challenges before you, from the overwhelming nature of climate change to the unfairness of an economy that excludes so many from our collective wealth, and the changes necessary to build a more inclusive and generous Canada. I believe in you. Your energy, your vision, your passion for justice are exactly what this country needs today. You need to be at the heart of our economy, our political life, and our plans for the present and the future.

And finally, to all Canadians: Canada is a great country, one of the hopes of the world. We can be a better one – a  country of greater equality, justice, and opportunity. We can build a prosperous economy and a society that shares its benefits more fairly. We can look after our seniors. We can offer better futures for our children. We can do our part to save the world's environment. We can restore our good name in the world. We can do all of these things because we finally have a party system at the national level where there are real choices; where your vote matters; where working for change can actually bring about change. In the months and years to come, New Democrats will put a compelling new alternative to you. My colleagues in our party are an impressive, committed team. Give them a careful hearing; consider the alternatives; and consider that we can be a better, fairer, more equal country by working together. Don't let them tell you it can't be done.

My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world.

All my very best,
Jack Layton

I was comforted this week, in a strange sort of way, to read excerpts from a book called Hooligan: A History of Respectable Fears.  Presented by Bagehot in The Economist, the retrospective recites a litany of historical precedents for civil unrest in the UK, all of which gave rise to contemporary claims that one or another societal transition would surely be the ruination of every right-thinking Briton in sight.

Take a quotation from 1951, for example:  "Parents at this time, unfortunately, do not take sufficient care in bringing up their children. They expect someone else to be responsible."

Then compare it to an example from 1932 which lamented "the passing of parental authority, defiance of pre-war conventions, the absence of restraint, the wildness of extremes, the confusion of unrelated liberties, the wholesale drift away from churches".

And, just for good measure, reach even further back, this time to 1898, when the Times declared "it is melancholy to find that some parents are not ashamed to confess that children of seven or eight years old are entirely beyond their control."

Bagehot concludes his retrospective by observing that, "for all its wit, "Hooligan" … had a serious purpose: to urge readers in 1982 to avoid moral panic and a rush to historically-illiterate judgement.  Its lessons hold just as true today."     

Amen.

Earlier this week, I asked my cab driver what he thought of the UK riots.  "Don't they [the government] realize that these things build up over years?  They should pay more attention to what's happening in Africa.  That guy who burned himself in Tunisia, that didn't just happen overnight.  People sooner or later flame out."

 "And it's not just in Africa," he continued.  "I spoke to my sister in Minnesota the other day.  She's a nurse / social worker who's helping folks who are struggling to get by.  She told me that everyone's really angry.  It's getting ugly.  Putting people in jail doesn't help."

 How much inequality and hopelessness does it take before people lash out at the authorities?  "Oh, it won't happen here on this side of the Atlantic,"  I hear people saying.  I hope they're right.

 In the meantime, even the Conference Board of Canada has taken up the cause of income inequality.  As Armine Yalnizyan of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives reported last week, "rising inequality is bad for business. That’s why Canadian businesses will soon be looking for ways to reduce it."

 Warren Buffet said it earlier this week.  Today the New York Times editorial board reiterated the key message:  "[B]urdens need to be more fairly shared between rich and poor — not as a reward to anyone, but because it is right."  

Which one of the three charts on the right represents wealth distribution in today's USA?  That was the question put to people lined up to see a Letterman show yesterday.  None of them guessed correctly – can you?

You'll find the answer here, in PBS's special report called Land of the Free, Home of the Poor. 

The report was inspired by Warren Buffet's conversation with Charlie Rose from the night before (see my blog post from yesterday), during which he observed that the market has created extremes in wealth distribution.  Curious to know whether Americans are aware of the true extent of wealth inequality these days, Paul Solman took to the streets.  He used these three charts which he took from a study conducted by two professors at Duke University. 

The charts represent the percentage of wealth owned by each quintile (20%) of a country's population (yellow being the highest quintile; continue clockwise around the pie for each of the other quintiles in descending order).  "Wealth" was defined as a person's net worth (all assets minus all debts).  For instance, in the bottom chart, the top wealth quintile owns 84% of the country's total wealth, the second highest 11%, and so on.

By now you're probably wondering just how Canada stacks up in comparison to the three charts shown above.  According to Statistics Canada, our top quintile owns 69% of the nation's wealth, the second highest quintile owns 20%, the third 8%, the fourth 2% and the bottom quintile owns 0%.  In fact, our lowest quintile had a negative net worth of $6,360,000 in 2005. 

Time to stop coddling the super-rich indeed!

Warren Buffet speaks truth to political power from a position of economic power.  In yesterday's New York Times, he bluntly said it isn't fair to tax the super-rich at roughly 21% while the middle class continues to pay almost twice as much at 36%.  He then said it all over again on Charlie Rose last night.  Clearly, fairness matters a lot to Mr. Buffet just as much as it does to you and me.

Warren Buffet is no wild-eyed revolutionary.  Indeed, he's a passionate believer in capitalism. But what sets him apart is the clarity with which he assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the system he champions.  Take job creation and the so-called trickle-down theory, as an example.  For years we've been taught to believe we should reduce taxes for corporations and rich folks so they can make sure the rest of us enjoy a decent level of permanent employment and reliable retirement packages.  Mr. Buffet tells us, in no uncertain terms, to forget that myth.  Not one person refused to invest because of higher tax rates in all his 60 years of financing the engines of America's economy.  In fact, he declared, "a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation."   

Rebalancing the tax system therefore makes sense, both in economic terms and because it would go some distance to restoring fairness in a world that seems sadly out of kilter.  I can only hope our own government is ingesting this advice.  Somehow, I'm not too optimistic.  Although Finance Minister Flaherty was also advocating a form of rebalancing yesterday, his proposal is hardly grounded in the principle of fairness.  Instead he wants "major emerging economies" and even Africa to buy more stuff from countries like us where demand is lagging.  That may be a good prescription for economic wellbeing (at least for us), but I don't immediately see how it would inculcate a sense of fair play amongst all our citizens.

Ministers of Energy from all across Canada are set to meet in Kananaskis, AB starting on July 16.  They've titled their agenda "Framing the Future of Energy".   Many of us are anticipating that the ministers will usher in a new age of collaboration, seeking to lay the groundwork for a national energy consensus rather than an authoritarian energy plan.

Alberta's Minister Liepert is a leading exponent of this approach.  He has precedent on his side – the New West Partnership that Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan launched last year.  Most notably, the three partners pledged to "treat each other as valued and respected partners" (see clause IV(1) of their International Trade Agreement).  If Mr. Liepert can persuade his ministerial colleagues to come to a similar agreement, Canada will be well served.

A new discussion document released yesterday indicates that a consensus is also growing amongst industry leaders and think tanks.  Changing the Climate calls upon the ministers to build "cooperation across the Canadian federation on energy issues".  It goes further, suggesting we strive for five outcomes:  energy security, energy affordability, a high standard of environmental performance, investment competitiveness, plus innovation and new economic growth (including green energy projects and expertise).   It's a good start.

Speaking of Senator Lowell Murray, he recently spoke at a conference in New Brunswick to honour Donald Savoie, the esteemed professor of public administration and regional development.   The Senator's keynote speech included an assessment of what might be called Canada's democratic deficit.  "It is a sad fact in our country", he said, "that most of [our institutions] which in their different ways are supposed to restrict concentration of power and restrain its exercise have been letting us down."

He addressed six key points:

• House of Commons: the Supply and Estimates process (overseeing government expenditures) has become an empty ritual
• Political parties: paid central party apparatchiks are micromanaging democracy at the constituency level, destroying an MP's (and therefore the voters') independence
  
• Cabinet and responsible government: the PMO has usurped ministerial roles, and ministers are blaming staff rather than taking responsibility  
  
• Independent public servants: abusive young political assistants terrorize departmental officials and even the police are expected to undertake political tasks
  
• Parliamentary officers: parliamentarians should not encourage a culture of zealotry
  
• Partisanship:  the abuse of government advertising for partisan purposes has to be stopped
  

Whew!  Quite a damning assessment, all told.   And all Canadians should be told ….

"I rather think something in the DNA of this government is never satisfied with a win but must try to destroy their adversaries. They are never satisfied to have adversaries. They must try to portray them as enemies."

After a distinguished career in public service spanning 5 decades, those were the words Senator Lowell Murray chose to characterize Mr. Harper's government.  Speaking in the debate on back to work legislation last Sunday, Senator Murray went on to say:

"This is the first government that I have known that has intended to divide by its action and intended to turn people against whomever, in this case, against this union. This kind of harsh and vindictive action will have long-term implications."

Ouch.  You can read the whole debate here.

UPDATE:  Hmmm ... was Senator Murray right or not?  See this article in the June 30 edition of the Toronto Star.

I received an email about Senate reform from a Mr. Robinson who lives in northern Alberta.  He addressed it to all Alberta Senators, and has kindly given me permission to post it in full on Hullabaloos.  His email reads as follows ….

I write you to express my opinion about Senate reforms.

1. Senate reform may be needed, but it should be done to ensure that the Senate becomes more effective and less party dominated and represents the interests of Canada (please note I did not say the interests of Canadians as defined as being the interests of individual voters).  The current proposed reforms appear to be designed to meet a 'populist interest as expressed by a political party'.
2. Senate reforms need to follow the constitution.  This 'plan' does not.
3. My expectation is that the Senate be a 'sober chamber of second thought' and not subject to partisan politicking.  I note that the Alberta members of the Senate come from diverse backgrounds and represent many differing points of view with some Senators being appointed by Prime Ministers of parties other than the party of the Senator.  I believe that this is how the Senate should be constituted.
4. While the current Government did campaign (loosely) to make changes to the Senate, there was never a plan expressed to proceed without consulting the Provinces as required by the constitution

I could go on, but will spare you this.

I do object to comments widely attributed to Senator Brown, particularly when he states “Every senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be.”  Senator Brown is then reported to go on to state that their (Senators) loyalty should be to Stephen Harper.  I strenuously object to these comments as being an affront to our legislative assemblies as I believe there are only two places a legislators loyalty should be given - either to their electorate (odd that only Mr Brown was elected) or to the good of the country.  At no time should a legislator be loyal only to the leader of a political party, and at no time should a member of the Senate state that Senators should be loyal to the leader of a political party as the role of the senate to provide 'sober second thought' to the Government of Canada for Canadians.  If Mr Brown's view is that held by the Senate majority then the only response is that the Senate has no function and should be abolished.

I want a Senate.  But I want a Senate that is not a rubber stamp for the Government nor one that opposes just because the majority of Senators are from a different political party.  Please send a message to the Government that the senate must be effective and not limited by the whims of the Government and or the Prime Minister.

Thank you for taking my comments into consideration.

I couldn’t have said it better myself!

UPDATE:  Senator Colin Kenny published an Op-Ed today in the Ottawa Citizen called In defence of the Senate.

Well, the Senate chamber has been anything but boring these last two weeks.  First, Brigett DePape, our youthful “rogue page”, staged her historic protest during the throne speech and called on all Canadians to follow her example of civil disobedience.  Now, today’s reports reveal that some conservative Senators are backing down from supporting PM Harper’s drive to reform the Senate, preferring instead an alternate that favours good governance principles.   I’m sensing a bit of a theme here … is civil disobedience catching on?  I must admit that I’m rather hoping it is.

The Auditor General's report on G8 spending is now official.  The Harper government deliberately hid $50 million from parliamentary scrutiny and evaded all standard accountability procedures.  Furthermore, much of the money was spent on projects unrelated to the G8 meeting.

When the Prime Minister and his closest colleagues stoop so low, when they show such egregious disrepect for our highest institutions, when they disobey the very rules that they themselves put in place with high-sounding rhetoric and self-righteous declamations just five years ago, then is it any wonder that a young Senate page might be moved to protest?  

Enough, already.   Canadians deserve better – much better.

I’m still at the Equinox Summit where folks are focusing on transformative energy futures.  The ‘future’ was originally conceived to be 2030  (hence the subtitle of the Summit) but one thing has become crystal clear – 20 years is too short.  We simply cannot achieve any kind of wholesale transformation within that time frame.  Not that we shouldn’t start changing the way we do things, of course, but neither the technology nor the socio-commercial norms are sufficiently advanced or deployed as yet.  So we have to wait.

This morning, Walt Patterson gave one of the best presentations so far. In essence, Walt challenges us all to conceive of a future in which we focus on services rather than commodities.  Imagine a building that’s covered on all sides by solar panels, whose elevator motors are mini-generators and where all energy-using devices are supremely efficient (think LED lights, e.g.).  Now you wouldn’t even need to be dependent on an electricity grid and all our angst over nuclear or coal-fired generation would be a thing of the past.  Hallelujah!

But to do that, we need to transform the way we think.  Please, start making that transformation today … take 10 minutes right now and either listen to Walt's presentation (click here to view) or, if you prefer, read his speech (click here).    

UPDATE:  Walt also has a  website... it's certainly worth the visit!

The government continues to dazzle with its fiscal finaglings, predicting a balanced budget in 3 years based almost totally on increased revenues from personal income taxes and higher EI rates (see Table 5.8).  Expenditures will increase on virtually every line item except EI benefits and something labelled ‘Transfer Payments’ under the heading ‘Direct Program Expenses’ (see Table 5.9). 

Of course, Finance Minister Flaherty is cagey with the details.  Overall, his financial plan leaves the impression that he’s taking a pretty passive stance, relying on other Canadians’ improved economic activity to bail him out of the hole he created over the past 5 years.  Parliamentary Budget Office Kevin Page thinks he’s being overly optimistic, but only time will tell.

In the meantime, the Finance Minister is trumpeting significant cutbacks in program spending. But Mr. Flaherty anticipates cutting a mere $4 billion out of a total annual budget of $300 billion.  It’s not necessary, really … all he needs to do is reverse the corporate income tax cuts slated for 2011 and 2012 (roughly $6 billion dollars) and he’s ahead of his game.  So why bother?

Canada’s very own Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics has done it again.  Working in partnership with the University of Waterloo, Perimeter has launched its Global Science Initiative by convening 17 young international leaders in science, engineering, the environment, strategic communications and public policy.  Not one one them is older than 30, but none seem daunted by the outcome they’ve been asked to deliver – a vision for the world’s energy systems in 2030.

Dubbed the Forum, these young men and women are benefitting from a rich array of resources to help them in their task.   Extensive background documents were prepared in advance by established knowledge holders;  various  experts from around the world are presenting specific data and engaging in lively Q & A sessions with Forum participants;  a bank of senior advisors is on hand to ‘ground truth’ ideas and challenge assumptions;  and all the while, a bevy of Institute staff and volunteers are busy catering to everyone’s smallest need.  

Hopes are riding high on this small group of carefully selected young people.  The big challenge is to conceive of this century’s energy solutions in the context of systems … in fact, in the context of a series of interlocking systems that vary in scale, in location, in content and in ultimate purpose.  The sheer complexity of these systems has so far prevented simple answers and simplistic political, industrial and / or community accords across a diversity of nations, commercial interests and technological platforms. 

Whatever happens at the end of this exercise, the Perimeter Institute is to be congratulated on its initiative.   The Institute is certainly living up to its founder’s intentions.  Mike Lazaridis endowed the Institute with $170 million of his own money just 12 years ago.  When it came to naming his brainchild, he reached for a word that commemorated Rim’s great success and evoked an image of pushing the boundaries of knowledge.  The Perimeter Institute’s sponsorship of conversations among young and old and between developed and developing nations, all enriched by a diversity of technical and social perspectives is bound to contribute to productive outcomes in due course.

Former Senate Page issues news release as follows:

Ottawa/- During the reading of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s throne speech today, a young page was yanked from the Senate Chamber as she tried to hold up a stop sign placard reading  “Stop Harper.”
 
“Harper’s agenda is disastrous for this country and for my generation,” Brigette Marcelle says. “We have to stop him from wasting billions on fighter jets, military bases, and corporate tax cuts while cutting social programs and destroying the climate. Most people in this country know what we need are green jobs, better medicare, and a healthy environment for future generations.”
 
Brigette Marcelle, 21 and a recent graduate from University of Ottawa, has been a Page in the Senate for a year, but realized that working within parliament wouldn’t stop Harper’s agenda.
 
“Contrary to Harper's rhetoric, Conservative values are not in fact Canadian values. How could they be when 3 out of 4 eligible voters didn’t even give their support to the Conservatives? But we will only be able to stop Harper's agenda if people of all ages and from all walks of life engage in creative actions and civil disobediance,” she says.
 
“This country needs a Canadian version of an Arab Spring, a flowering of popular movements that demonstrate that real power to change things lies not with Harper but in the hands of the people, when we act together in our streets, neighbourhoods and workplaces.”
 
To arrange interviews with Brigette Marcelle:
 
613 – 898 – 0021

Photo by Reuters

Well here I am, sitting in my seat the requisite 30 minutes ahead of the ceremonial start-up. 

2:55pm: Finally, after 30 minutes of idle chatter, the Speaker processes with several black gowned clerks and calls us to order.  He prays, and then says "there being no business, Senators, do you agree to await the arrival of His Excellency the Governor General?" Of course we say ayes, then the red robed Supreme Court judges come in, we all continue to chat ... and wait ... and chat ... and wait ....

Well, the chat is useful ... I learn that the Cons want 10 committee chairs out of 15 and the Libs have acquiesced. 

Oh, oh ... a ragged, somewhat out of tune trumpet blast ... the GG is here.  Our Black Rod (the personal representative of the Queen) is sent to summon the House of Commons ... and so we wait ... and chat ... and wait ... and chat ... and wait ...

3:07pm: The Commoners are here ... their new Speaker Shear reads the requisite words in English then French.  Is he nervous? He veritably gallops through ... now it's the Senate Speaker's turn ... slower, with a tad more sense of ceremony ... finally, the speech begins ...

The GG starts with grand statements of aspiration, 2011 as our 150th anniversary and families ....

Healthcare, jobs and low crime rates are top of the list.  The Budget will be introduced on Monday ... bragging about the stimulus package.  Promises new tax credits and low tax rates.

So far, there's no talk of cutting the deficit .... hmmmm ....

3:19pm:  Ach ... I see William Elliott is here (RCMP Commissioner) ... didn't he resign already?  Good grief ...

More bumph on business ... sigh, this is not new, is already happening and sadly shows a piecemeal approach.  Industrial strategy?  National energy consensus? No way ... not even close!

Again, a National Securities Commission is promised despite the current law suits against it by many provinces. Sheesh ....

One or 2 short sentences now about cutting the deficit ... no details, of course but (we've heard it before) no cuts in transfer payments.  As so many have been saying, how on earth ...?

3:25pm:  I've had my head down and missed the page who proudly lifted her sign "STOP HARPER" ... don't you just love independent youthful commitment?  She was swiftly escorted out ... sigh ....

Why the Throne Speech is still droning on, I don't know.  Whatever legislation he didn't get through before, he's going to push it through now.  Including citizen's arrests ... how lovely, a nation of snitches and snatchers ... and abolition of the long gun registry etc., etc.

25 minutes and still going ... ah, at last, some concluding type comments?  But sadly not ... now we're into more repeats ... Senate reform, First Nation reform, eliminate public elections financing, MP review of Court appoiontments ... sounds more and more like the USA, doesn't it?  Scary ...

3:40pm:  Whew, we're done (if not done for)!

The Commoners are leaving, soon the GG will go, then the judges and now the senators get back to business.

As is traditional, we introduce a bill (the Railway Act) as Bill S-1 just to show that we can do our own thing and not slavishly follow the gov't's agenda.  A lovely bit of history hearkening back to the time of kings and barons! 

Immediately, however, it's moved that we debate the Throne Speech ... so much for tradition ...

Today a new Parliament began, an event that has occurred only 40 times before in the 144 years since Confederation.  So, what should we hope for?   I suggest we hope for three things – policy, propriety and parliamentary supremacy.

Policy first: Canada needs several far reaching, forward looking strategies for success in the 21^st century.  We lack, for example, any form of industrial strategy and we’re sorely in need of a national energy consensus that would lead to cohesive and positive outcomes for the whole nation.  Canadians appear to agree.  Although they’re somewhat scattered in their responses, they recently rated jobs as a 2^nd priority (after health care) in a structured Nanos poll, and put investments in research and development ahead of crime, armed forces and senate reform (which came dead last – no surprises there).   My hope is that, with a majority, the Prime Minister will finally stop playing retail politics and start making policies that benefit all Canadians.

Secondly, I hope all parliamentarians practice propriety during the new session.  A lack of appropriate behaviour has plagued previous sessions, leading all of our democratic institutions into disrepute.  If stability truly is the hallmark of a majority government (which I doubt), then we should hope for meaningful discourse on the merits of program and policy proposals.  Partisan potshots and personality assassinations should be foresworn in favour of rational debate by all MPs and by all senators. 

Thirdly – and this is a long shot, I admit – I would welcome a return to true parliamentary supremacy in this session.  Backbenchers and the Senate are both meant to act as a brake on uncontested executive actions.  MPs abdicated their responsibility in this regard years ago; senators have increasingly done so under the partisan leadership style inspired by PM Harper. This unfortunate erosion has arisen, in part, because parliamentarians have forgotten or deliberately obfuscated constitutional distinctions between executive and legislative roles.  Dale Smith helped clarify the distinctions last Monday by pointing to a paper by Philippe Lagasse.  Titled Accountability for National Defence, Lagasse’s paper illustrates the difference between executive prerogative and legislative supervision.  The author goes on to recommend a return to conventions such as ministerial responsibility and legislative control of the public purse.  Canada would, in my view, benefit greatly from reinstituting such practices … imagine a world in which ministers of the Crown would no longer hide behind defenceless civil servants (as Bev Oda tried to do) or bury key policy shifts in gargantuan omnibus budget bills. 

Yes, well, we can but hope ….

My much loved husband, Miles Hudson Patterson, passed away last Saturday.  He died as he wished, peacefully, in his sleep, at home.  A celebration of his life will be held at the Calgary Golf and Country Club on January 21, 2011, from 3 to 7 pm .  That's where we celebrated our wedding in 1988, as pictured to the right.  Without doubt, it's been the best 23 years of my life … Miles and I were soul mates, as like as like can be.  He was kind, generous, intellectually curious, and genuinely funny with his dry wit and abiding love of the English language.