As the only party in Parliament with an ambivalent position on the Senate, you could be forgiven for expecting the Prime Minister to unearth a constitutional expert to help draft out the party’s policy—now that the old ones have been thrown out—on the much-maligned institution. Instead, he’s decided to assign his personal attack dog Pierre Poilievre as minister of state for Democratic Reform.
The NDP has reiterated its popular position on the Senate. The party wishes to abolish it. It remains to be seen how this popular, yet tenuous position should hold up in a country still divided over its last constitutional debates.
Under new leader Justin Trudeau, the Liberals have clearly stated that the problem with the Senate lies in the appointees and not the institution itself. Much of that position seems pragmatic rather than ideological given the party’s reluctance to threaten the country with another constitutional debate.
So far, the Prime Minister has asked the Supreme Court for guidance on the powers of Parliament, whether it could unilaterally impose elections, term-limits or even its abolition. Nevertheless, there has been little clarification as to the government’s position regarding any means necessary to improve the Senate, yet it claims to favour reform.
Long forgotten are the demands of the then-Reform Party of the ’90s. The Triple-E Senate, more of a concept than a precise policy plan, is no longer seriously discussed.
What exactly has taken its place on the Conservative agenda? Perhaps we will find out when he pronounces the Throne Speech announced for the fall or the Conservatives’ rescheduled policy convention in October.
Politically, Senate reform is a minefield. Does the government side with a highly unpopular institution recently plagued by a Conservative-dominated scandal, given the Prime Minister himself crusaded against such an institution for a decade? Or does the government embark on a constitutional battle with the provinces, especially Quebec, over Senate reform when it has showed absolutely no interest in dealing with its premiers?
This political trap has not been lost on the PM. That is exactly why he’s appointed his favourite and most loyal mudslinger to the file. Poilievre has convincingly taken and given back the blows at Harper’s side and he’s been rewarded with a spot in Cabinet. This allows the PMO to keep a firm grip of this file while throwing a player in the ring they know will fight tooth and nail for the win.
The public pays the price for this political game. When a debate of this importance and complexity is twisted and spun for political advantage—by all three major parties in this case—what is lost in the mess are the facts, the truth about the matter, and the relevant arguments.
Ironically, the debate about democratic reform is shaping up to betray the very foundation of democratic institutions.
Public opinion is strongly affected by sensational news emanating from the Senate. I will go on a limb and assume more Canadians are aware of the Duffy-Wright scandal and the other Senators’ expense account issues than the Senate’s January report on Canada-U.S. retail price gaps or its more recent bipartisan amendments of the union-disclosure bill.
Instead of being offered three different positions founded in democratic theory, rooted in its constitutional tradition and adapted to Canadian realities, Canadians risk being offered three strategic positions showing little concern for the state of Canadian democracy and leaving its citizens with little valuable information to form an opinion.
If Canadians are to make a decision on abolishing or reforming the Senate, you would expect most of the discussion to focus on the institution, its role, its effectiveness, and therefore its relevance.
Most Canadians remember from their high school days that the Senate was meant to represent the less populated regions, allow representatives to offer their views on legislative matters without the immediate threat of seeking re-election and offer a “Sober Second Thought” according to Canada’s first Prime Minister. Yes, it was originally thought there was an advantage to nominating Senators: their immunity from re-election would allow them to offer a long-term approach to policy.
Certainly, each of these aspects of the Senate’s mandate has evolved and deserves individual assessment.
However, there is another potential role for an effective Senate which receives little attention despite its increasing relevance. With scores of academics spilling ink on the increasing powers of the PMO and the public seemingly concerned, should the possibility of the Senate acting as a counterweight to the PMO not at least be part of the discussion?
It is difficult to imagine how the PMO’s influence in the House of Commons and on the executive process might be limited. However, the Senate was intentionally formed as a counter-balance to the House of Commons and de facto, the PMO.
Now, you wouldn’t find many analysts to suggest it’s been doing just that, quite the opposite after the Duffy scandal, but it is a leap of logic to suggest that because Senators haven’t been doing their jobs properly that the job itself is worthless. We find little support for the abolishment of the police force when cases of abuse surface.
If Canadians are to throw out the baby with the bath water, let them at least be informed of what exactly is being thrown out.
In the reality of the politics of 2013, all these theoretical questions may be superfluous. Politicians are lining up for an election in 2015, and are more worried about the labels on their products than their quality. That’s why Stephen Harper has invested his money in the marketing man—Poilievre—rather than focusing on improving the product he will offer.
Harper seems to have estimated he will score points pitting Justin Trudeau as the defendant of the Senate, while mowing Mulcair’s grass on one of his most popular positions.
What might be even more concerning for Canadian democracy is that Senate reform simply provides an excellent example of a commonly-occurring tendency in today’s politics. Increasingly, resources and attention are directed at the mudslinging that’s taking place in front of the cameras, while the content of policy escapes the public eye.
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: JEAN-LUC MARCIL FERLAND
No comments:
Post a Comment