Blacklock’s Reporter’s October 20 headline was “Vote Rebukes The Senate” following Alberta’s Monday vote. I quote its concise introduction:“The Liberal-appointed Senate yesterday faced an unprecedented rebuke after thousands of Albertans voted to abolish the Upper Chamber. It was the first referendum of its kind since Alberta pioneered Senate elections 37 years ago.Question 7 on the provincewide ballot asked: “Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to abolish the unelected federal Senate?” Ongoing hand counts of ballots gave the “yes” vote a majority of 53 percent.The results pointed to deepening disapproval since then-Alberta Senator Elaine McCoy in 2018 commissioned a Nanos Research survey that found 24 percent of Canadians wanted the Senate abolished. Asked, “When you think of the Senate, what words come to mind?”, the most common responses were “pointless” (21 percent) and “a waste of money” (12 percent).”Blacklock’s Reporter then gave a short history of the many attempts to reform or eliminate an unelected body that has been very unpopular in Western Canada for a very long time. It is no longer recognized as the “chamber of sober second thought” that John A. Macdonald wanted it to be and is seen for what it has become — basically an advocacy group for various progressive causes. Whereas the senators were once criticized for being essentially “bagmen” for the political party they served (overwhelmingly the Liberal Party), the much-vaunted “independent appointment process” announced by former prime minister Justin Trudeau ten years ago — a process that was supposed to make the Senate apolitical — has actually made the Senate even less useful than it was before the process was undertaken.An example might be useful. The indigenous members of the Senate have essentially become a lobby group for the Assembly of First Nations (AFN). There are ten indigenous senators currently serving in the Senate of Canada..The AFN constantly lobbies the federal government for more money and more autonomy for the approximately 630 Indian bands (which it calls “First Nations”) that occupy the 3,300 or so Canadian Indian reserves, which are mostly located in Western Canada. It typically uses one or more of the indigenous senators as a useful idiot to advance one of its unlimited, expensive lobbying efforts. Essentially, these senators are used as taxpayer-paid lobbyists for the AFN.One of the AFN’s pet projects is to have separate “justice systems” established and funded on each of the approximately 630 “First Nations.”This proposal was basically a rehash of one of the many totally unworkable and quickly dismissed proposals of 1988’s Manitoba Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. Aside from the fact that it would be massively expensive to establish and fund 630 separate justice systems across the country, the idea would result in an enforcement nightmare for the police. The entire notion of having dozens of separate justice systems within one country is entirely wrong and inherently unworkable.But such practical problems, the incredible cost, and the inherent unfairness of having different systems for different races didn’t stop the AFN from demanding it.The AFN formally advocated for it when it released the National First Nations Justice Strategy (FNJS). It insisted that this would “rebuild independent First Nations justice systems rooted in their own customary laws, traditions, and jurisdictions” — the usual eugenics boilerplate. [1, 2]The smart people at the AFN know that the billions of dollars that 630 “justice systems” would cost and the legal nightmares that would result mean that it would be unlikely that the federal government would go for such a dubious and expensive plan..So, they are trying to go through the back door by using one of their stooges (sorry, independent indigenous senators) to get what they can’t get directly. The hapless Senator Mary Jane McCallum is pushing a plan to use RCMP officers to enforce the many, often competing Indian band bylaws as a first step towards achieving the AFN’s ultimate goal of establishing 630 separate “justice systems.” To do this, she hopes to demonstrate how bad things are currently on Indian reserves.And they are bad. She is not making that up. In fact, she cites statistics showing that the rate of violent crime is 1,500% higher on reserves than it is in towns and cities. That’s bad.According to a report prepared for the Senate: “First Nations are confronting increasingly serious challenges including violence, homelessness and encampments, arson, drug-related activity and heightened risks during public health emergencies … A lack of effective enforcement creates a haven for more serious illegal activity.”So what McCallum is describing is very real. Indian reserves are becoming increasingly lawless. That’s despite a quadrupling of spending on reserves from 2015 to today.But her “solution” (really the AFN’s “solution”) is completely unworkable, in addition to being massively expensive. It is to make the RCMP responsible for the hopeless task of enforcing the very different and often competing bylaws of 630 Indian bands and ultimately to give each of those 630 bands its own “justice system.”.That’s no solution at all. It would result in a bottomless pit of spending for the government, a nightmare for the police who would have to enforce the bylaws, and a legal quagmire for the unfortunate courts that would have to deal with the mess.Rather than tarting up hopelessly dependent reserves, the better solution is to begin the process of phasing out reserves entirely — as Canada’s founders originally intended.For anyone who needs convincing on that point, see Cory Morgan’s homemade videos and articles on the subject in this article.But my point here is that senators should not be lobbying for special interest groups. That’s not their role. It never was. But that’s what the Senate has become: a lobby group for progressive causes and special interests.What should be done about the Senate?.The best idea is still Preston Manning’s “Triple-E-Senate proposal from many years ago.” What were those three Es?Elected: Instead of senators being appointed by the prime minister, they would be chosen by the public through popular elections. [1, 2]Equal: Every province would have the exact same number of senators (Manning proposed ten per province), ensuring smaller provinces have the same voting power as larger ones, regardless of population. [1, 2]Effective: The Senate would possess significant legislative powers — equal or nearly equal to those of the House of Commons — allowing it to actively check and challenge government legislation.That’s not going to happen anytime soon. But Alberta’s voters have sent a strong message to Ottawa that they are not satisfied with what the Senate has become. Let me be clear. There are still some very good, conscientious senators in that upper house. But the Senate as a whole has become just as “pointless” and precisely the “waste of money” that Albertans said it was.
