The sad reality is that all the recent hullabaloo over the Senate likely won't produce changes more substantive than making lifelong senators subscribe to the same travel expense rituals as the rest of us mere mortals.
It's still possible that the antics of senators Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin will take a political toll on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government, should the reasonable assumption prove correct that Harper knew a lot more than he is letting on about his former chief-of-staff Nigel Wright's $90,000 personal cheque. But it's also possible that the Duffy kerfuffle will be forgotten by the next election, which is two years away.
As for a more substantive demolition/reconstruction of the Senate, the eagerness to do that might wane when Canadians realize just how tough it is to implement meaningful change. Sure, there's a current mood for change - or so a smart politician such as Premier Brad Wall seems to think, given his recent push to abolish the Senate.
"It is time, not just because of the current scandal, but I think just because of what's been a long-running debate about the Senate," said Wall, whose government passed a law in 2009 for a provincewide vote to select potential senators.
He now thinks such Senate reform is impossible.
"I'd also like to see money trees in Saskatchewan, (but) they're not going to happen."
It was a typically clever Wall quip, although one wonders about the premier's belief in money trees. Given that he signed orders-in-council last week hiking his director of communication Kathy Young's salary to nearly $160,000 a year while increasing the salary of his least senior communicator James Parker to almost $120,000 annually, Wall at least must have a secret money bush hidden somewhere in his office.
As for Senate abolition, Wall seems to be underestimating the challenge involved.
To do that would definitely require a constitutional amendment, which in turn needs the support of at least seven provinces representing at least 50 per cent of Canada's population.
Despite the outrage most Prince Edward Islanders feel over Duffy's conduct, it is not a slam dunk that two of four Atlantic provinces or Quebec would give up whatever advantage they think they have from being over-represented in the Senate.
More importantly, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne seems to have reversed predecessor Dalton McGuinty's position in favour of abolishing the Senate. Without Ontario on side, abolition of the Upper House is a non-starter.
Perhaps we could have meaningful accountability without opening the Pandora's box that is the Constitution. But how?
Straight Senate elections? Term limits? As Wall has noted, nothing makes a politician less accountable than the prospect of not having to seek re-election.
An idea that comes primarily from the left ties Senate reform to another of its favourite hobby-horses: proportional representation. The theory being put forth is that Senate appointment and/or elections would be tied to the federal election every four years, with Senate representation tied to the popular vote in each province. For example, based on the 2011 results in Saskatchewan, the Conservatives (56.3 per cent) would get three of the six Senate seats, the NDP (32.3 per cent) would get two and the Liberals (8.6 per cent) would get one.
The problem, however, is that no party gets a majority of the vote nationwide, so the opposition would always dominate the Senate. House of Commons bills would then be caught in gridlock, so this idea would simply replace old problems with new problems.
Others, mostly on the right, argue that an easy solution is "recall" legislation, similar to what exists in British Columbia and several American states. This would certainly empower the public when it comes to removing political appointees such as Duffy, who is thumbing his nose at calls to step down.
But to achieve an appropriate threshold for a successful recall - say 30 per cent to 40 per cent of a province's population signing a petition - would be time-consuming and costly. And it could easily be hijacked by special interests or political groups.
The sad reality is that we haven't had Senate reform or abolition before this because it's difficult to do.
The best to come out of this mess might be to force senators to actually live in the provinces they purport to represent, or at least force them to submit their taxi receipts like the rest of us must do.
Original Article
Source: thestarphoenix.com
Author: Murray Mandryk
It's still possible that the antics of senators Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin will take a political toll on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government, should the reasonable assumption prove correct that Harper knew a lot more than he is letting on about his former chief-of-staff Nigel Wright's $90,000 personal cheque. But it's also possible that the Duffy kerfuffle will be forgotten by the next election, which is two years away.
As for a more substantive demolition/reconstruction of the Senate, the eagerness to do that might wane when Canadians realize just how tough it is to implement meaningful change. Sure, there's a current mood for change - or so a smart politician such as Premier Brad Wall seems to think, given his recent push to abolish the Senate.
"It is time, not just because of the current scandal, but I think just because of what's been a long-running debate about the Senate," said Wall, whose government passed a law in 2009 for a provincewide vote to select potential senators.
He now thinks such Senate reform is impossible.
"I'd also like to see money trees in Saskatchewan, (but) they're not going to happen."
It was a typically clever Wall quip, although one wonders about the premier's belief in money trees. Given that he signed orders-in-council last week hiking his director of communication Kathy Young's salary to nearly $160,000 a year while increasing the salary of his least senior communicator James Parker to almost $120,000 annually, Wall at least must have a secret money bush hidden somewhere in his office.
As for Senate abolition, Wall seems to be underestimating the challenge involved.
To do that would definitely require a constitutional amendment, which in turn needs the support of at least seven provinces representing at least 50 per cent of Canada's population.
Despite the outrage most Prince Edward Islanders feel over Duffy's conduct, it is not a slam dunk that two of four Atlantic provinces or Quebec would give up whatever advantage they think they have from being over-represented in the Senate.
More importantly, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne seems to have reversed predecessor Dalton McGuinty's position in favour of abolishing the Senate. Without Ontario on side, abolition of the Upper House is a non-starter.
Perhaps we could have meaningful accountability without opening the Pandora's box that is the Constitution. But how?
Straight Senate elections? Term limits? As Wall has noted, nothing makes a politician less accountable than the prospect of not having to seek re-election.
An idea that comes primarily from the left ties Senate reform to another of its favourite hobby-horses: proportional representation. The theory being put forth is that Senate appointment and/or elections would be tied to the federal election every four years, with Senate representation tied to the popular vote in each province. For example, based on the 2011 results in Saskatchewan, the Conservatives (56.3 per cent) would get three of the six Senate seats, the NDP (32.3 per cent) would get two and the Liberals (8.6 per cent) would get one.
The problem, however, is that no party gets a majority of the vote nationwide, so the opposition would always dominate the Senate. House of Commons bills would then be caught in gridlock, so this idea would simply replace old problems with new problems.
Others, mostly on the right, argue that an easy solution is "recall" legislation, similar to what exists in British Columbia and several American states. This would certainly empower the public when it comes to removing political appointees such as Duffy, who is thumbing his nose at calls to step down.
But to achieve an appropriate threshold for a successful recall - say 30 per cent to 40 per cent of a province's population signing a petition - would be time-consuming and costly. And it could easily be hijacked by special interests or political groups.
The sad reality is that we haven't had Senate reform or abolition before this because it's difficult to do.
The best to come out of this mess might be to force senators to actually live in the provinces they purport to represent, or at least force them to submit their taxi receipts like the rest of us must do.
Original Article
Source: thestarphoenix.com
Author: Murray Mandryk
No comments:
Post a Comment