A mere 58 minutes. That’s it. That’s all.

We were promised an hour, perhaps as much as an hour and a half. And yet here was Michaëlle Jean, solemnly invoking “Divine Providence” at precisely 3:47pm this afternoon, just about 58 minutes after she welcomed “honourable senators, members of the House of Commons, ladies and gentlemen.”

Some 6,000 words passed in between, each delivered in that breathy, deliberate way of the Governor General’s. But this was not quite the excruciating test of endurance for speaker and listener alike, not nearly the epic we were told to expect. Once more we are faced with a government full of ambition and promise, unable to ultimately deliver. Once again we see the danger of unrestrained hope. Continue…

The Speech from the Throne in 2006 was 2400 words. The Speech from the Throne in 2008 was 4100 words. This afternoon’s edition is touted as exceeding 6000 words. It is expected to take the Governor General somewhere between an hour and four days to deliver. So, if you’re watching at home, get comfortable and make sure you have a supply of non-perishable food stuffs and fresh water nearby.

I’m off to the Senate gallery to watch, eventually lose interest and ultimately pass much of the time doodling in my moleskine.

The text of the speech will likely be posted here at some point around 2:30. Use the comment thread to discuss your favourite parts. I’ll be back later.

Senator Elaine McCoy makes the case for a reformed, but still appointed, Senate.

Consider what happens now when you elect someone to go to Ottawa. No sooner have they spent their first term in office than they’re emailing home to explain why they voted for something their constituents didn’t want. The reason, of course, is party discipline. They’re “whipped,” i.e., told to vote with their party or else leave caucus. Most stay and do what they’re told. Without the party, it’s very difficult to get re-elected.

It would be no different for senators if they were running for election. Most would run as party candidates. What we’d end up with is nothing more than 105 more backbenchers. Right back, in fact, where we started. So let’s start again. Let’s take the proposition that an independent, appointed Senate is, after all, Canada’s last best chance for democracy.

Senator James Cowan cordially partakes of the ancient art of open-letter writing.

As Minister of Justice, and as a personal proponent of a strong law-and-order agenda, you have a duty, which I am sure you recognize, to uphold the truth and not mislead Canadians.  Accordingly, I am confident that you will wish to quickly correct the record, and agree that the Liberal opposition in the Senate has not in fact “obstructed” your Government’s anti-crime agenda.  To the contrary, the greatest delays to the implementation of your agenda have been due to your own Government’s actions in failing to bring bills forward for debate, dragging your feet in bringing legislation into force, and most significantly, proroguing Parliament.

The Canadian Press story to which Mr. Cowan elsewhere refers is here.

Something like 750 words on the last of the Progressive Conservatives on Parliament Hill.

She defines herself as socially progressive and fiscally conservative. And by her estimation, the Harper government has been neither. Tied by partisan affiliation to the past, working within an institution many consider antiquated, McCoy seems rather contemporary. She uses Twitter, has created an elaborate website (albertasenator.ca) dedicated to “meaningful, informed, open discussion” and regularly blogs about matters of policy and legislation. Last fall, with statistics and graphs, she doubted whether legislation on cigarillos would result in fewer children smoking. She speaks now of early childhood learning as a Progressive Conservative ideal: both socially and economically sound. She says, “I’m very fond, privately, of decrying the messaging, the narrative, that comes from our leaders these days of being positional instead of visionary and pragmatic.”

Suggesting new constraints on a Prime Minister’s power to request prorogation? Pitching specific measures to deal with unemployment? Promising to restore funding to Status of Women Canada? Talking of a national strategy on brain disease? Proposing Senate reform? Committing himself to child care? Speaking sharply about the Karzai administration? And now preemptively opening discussion on potentially contentious questions of foreign policy?

What, precisely, has gotten into the leader of the Her Majesty’s loyal opposition?

Continuing in the new Liberal tradition of proposing actual policy alternatives to the Conservative government, over the weekend Michael Ignatieff served up his own ideas for how to reform the Senate. He’d limit terms to 12 years, and look at passing the appointments through some sort of arms-length board or commission.

This is, I think, a better proposal than Harper’s current plan, which – assuming he isn’t just dicking around – seems to be to stack the Senate with incompetents, blind partisans, and other pieces of ambulatory play-doh, and hope that when he figures out what he actually wants to do, they’ll be more than happy to play along.

A few remarks, sort if in response to some good comments under Aaron’s post:

Yes, the Liberal-dominated Senate asked to send Harper’s bill establishing 8-year limits to the Supreme Court. But the 12-year limit might have a better chance of passing as a unilateral (i.e. non-constitutional) change, since that is pretty much the actual average tenure of Senators. The bonus is that it would have the effect of equalizing Senate appointments.

I like the idea of a public appointments commission, but I wonder if it might actually make the chamber more effective if it retained some provision for partisan appointments as well, like the hybrid system for appointing life peers to the  House of Lords. Conquest’s second law has it that any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing. Maybe, but given what we know about bureaucracies in Canada, at the very least the appointments commission will be open to the charge by the government of the day that it has become politically compromised. A mechanism for some partisan appointments will help offset that charge, while giving the Senate a healthy representation of partisans.

Together, Ignatieff’s proposed changes will have the effect of increasing the Senate’s legitimacy and effectiveness as a deliberative body, which I think ought to be its primary function. With legitimacy will come a sense of political responsibility, which means that these might need to be accompanied by a third change, viz., some attenuation of the Senate’s powers, assuming we want to retain the more-or-less unicameral character of our system of responsible government.

Cripes, the Senate is a can of worms. Still, I think that Ignatieff’s proposal, though sketchy, already has more promise than whatever it is Harper hasn’t in mind.

Michael Ignatieff proposes senate reform.

Ignatieff proposed a 12-year term limit on Senate positions and an arms-length committee tasked with vetting candidates. ”I’d even go as far as to limit the prime minister’s prerogative to appoint senators. That is, I’d pass (appointments) through a public service appointment commission, so we scrub it and get the best possible appointees.”

The new senator, speaking to reporters this morning. “And what is worse, are politicians who say one thing while the cameras are running but do another when they think no one is paying attention … Michael Ignatieff wants you to believe that he is tough on crime, but when push came to shove, Canadians couldn’t count on him to protect their safety. After months of Liberal stalling and delays, Ignatieff’s Liberals gutted this important piece of legislation. Canadians are fed up with unelected Liberal senators doing Ignatieff’s dirty work and standing in the way of action to protect victims and get tough on dangerous criminals. Michael Ignatieff needs to explain to Canadian why his own unelected Liberal senators gutted this special measure and he needs to tell his Liberal senators to support it when it is reintroduced and Canadians expect nothing less.”

Conservative Party, Dec. 10, 2009. “When the cameras are rolling, Ignatieff wants you to believe that he is tough on crime. But when push comes to shove, Canadians can’t count on him to protect their safety. After months of Liberal stalling and delays, Ignatieff’s Liberals have gutted our Conservative Bill and put children’s safety at risk. Canadians are fed up with unelected Liberal Senators doing Ignatieff’s dirty work and standing in the way of action to protect victims and get tough on dangerous criminals. Michael Ignatieff needs to explain to Canadians why his own unelected, Liberal Senators gutted this important piece of anti-crime legislation and instruct the unelected Liberal Senators to reverse these changes – Canadians expect nothing less.”

Stephen Harper, Nov. 21, 2009. We believe strongly that Canadians’ freedom is enhanced when journalists are free to pursue the truth, to shine light into dark corners and assist the process of holding government’s accountable.

CBC, today. Harper flew back from Switzerland today.  While in the air his office announced the appointment of five new Senators and the Supreme Court ruled he has the power to decide to ask if Omar Khadr could be repatriated. What does Harper have to say about these developments? Nothing. Journalists travelling with Harper are being kept on the plane to ensure the Prime Minister doesn’t face any questions in his short jaunt from the bottom of the staircase to his waiting limousine.

You new senators are Bob Runciman, Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, Vim Kochhar, Elizabeth Marshall, and Rose-May Poirier. Runciman, for one, has already proven a valuable member of the team.

In 1985, opposition leader Bob Runciman was part of Frank Miller’s minority government. He recalls Rae was instrumental in engineering the Tories’ downfall. Miller was in a weaker position than Stephen Harper, because the Liberals had won slightly more of the popular vote and Miller’s margin of victory was only four seats. The NDP — with Rae as leader — held the balance of power…

As last week’s parliamentary shenanigans unfolded, Runciman got in touch with his Conservative colleagues on Parliament Hill to give them the benefit of his experience. ”I immediately sent my friends at the federal level my encouragement to prorogue the House, because one of the mistakes we made was not resisting,” he said.