It’s not just the hollow outrage rising from those who appointed Mike Duffy and Pam Wallin to the chamber of sober second paycheques. It’s not just the ruthless (and largely unremarked-upon) removal of Senators Marjory LeBreton and David Tkachuk from the scene of the crime, stripped of their positions and sidelined by obviously displeased powers-that-be. It’s not even the lingering whodunit surrounding the $90,000 Nigel Wright slipped to his frenemy from the tiny island province of Kanata.
No. Each of these minor mysteries is captivating. But they’re relatively predictable echoes of the scandal currently gripping the Senate.
What really doesn’t square is the enormous scale of the prime minister’s pending response to this miserable mess. Is he actually going to swat away Pam Wallin’s tastes in travel with the axe of constitutional change? Does Mike Duffy’s place of residence justify an effort to corral seven of 10 provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population? Are Patrick Brazeau or — God help us — Mac Harb worth the open agony of a national referendum?
You would think not. But, in the view of the government it seems, you would think wrong.
Pinned in the treacherously open ground between summertime audits and October’s speech from the throne, the government is trying to shoot its way out with promises of Senate reform and even hints of abolition. Insiders boast that Harper will turn this issue against his critics by becoming the nation’s most fierce advocate of change, the most vocal opponent of the status quo. And if the Supreme Court won’t go along? Or the provinces? Or — best of all — Justin Trudeau? Fine. Then Stephen Harper will stand alone with the people. He’ll fix the Senate with his bare hands or, by God, he’ll run the joint right out of business. Hell, he might even put its future on the ballot in 2015 and let voters have their own say.
All this is triggered, of course, by Conservative fears that this issue has unique resonance around the water cooler. Voters may not know what the Senate does day by day (who does?) but they sure understand the concept of unpoliced perqs and privileges. The PMO rightly worries that such examples can assume symbolic heights, undoing the government’s carefully groomed image of parsimony. It’s also the kind of story that stirs a reaction from the base, producing angry refusals for contributions and torn-up membership cards in the mail. If you doubt the lengths to which Harper’s team will go to sever any connection to such risks, look no further than Bev Oda — dumped from cabinet and chased from Parliament for the sin of a $16 glass of orange juice. When it comes to protecting the brand, these guys don’t screw around.
But that doesn’t mean they don’t screw up. And make no mistake, steering the government into the peat bog of constitutional talks — an unavoidable consequence of even contemplating Senate abolition — would be a colossal misjudgment. It violates at least two of Harper’s most valued precepts for successful governing.
First, it contradicts the prime minister’s commitment to incrementalism. Steady, sometimes stealth-like change has been a hallmark of Harper’s tenure. Such sudden and massive surgery to our parliamentary system just because senators can’t be trusted to oversee their own expense accounts would be a startling departure from form.
Second, the government places its eggs — all of them — firmly in the basket of sound economic management. In 2015 Harper hopes to campaign on a balanced budget and the promise of a strengthening jobs outlook. This is the kind of priority that demands singular focus and consistent reinforcement. It allows no room for fights over the amending formula, clashes with the Péquistes and the rollout of a national referendum replete with Yes and No camps, each dutifully registered with Elections Canada.
Constitutional change — which is what Senate reform requires — is the foam insulation of political priorities. It swells into every crack and sliver of a government’s focus. It suffocates its way across a prime minister’s agenda until it lodges and hardens there, satisfied only when there’s no space or oxygen left for competing items of interest. Even the economy.
Which is why something about all this simply doesn’t square.
Sure, people are angry at those senators who abused their privileges. Harper gets that. But do voters really give a tinkers’ damn about the Senate itself? Are they willing to see abolition shoot to the top of the nation’s list of priorities? Don’t bet on it. And don’t bet on Harper actually doing it.
Oh, he may say he will. We’ll read more summertime spin on the subject from his advisers. No doubt the speech from the throne, as promised, will even dedicate a whole paragraph to the issue. But it’s nothing more than sandbagging.
So, look for Harper to pull another Attawapiskat. Pushed by public outrage, he’ll voice his own frustration and pledge concrete action. But don’t waste your time waiting for the followup. Don’t check in later to measure the change. There will be none. Frankly, there can be none.
To launch this government into a true process of constitutional change would be utter madness. Harper knows it. We know it. Let’s just hope that Pierre Poilievre knows it. Would be sad to think he’s wandering around under the misconception that he has a real job.
Original Article
Source: canada.com/
Author: SCOTT REID
No comments:
Post a Comment