Last week’s Camembert-gate was a rallying point for Canada’s Senate abolitionists.
In case you missed it, the auditor general is deep into a very invasive audit of some 40 senators. Apparently he is being extremely nitpicky (as he should be) and some of the members of the Upper House are grumbling about it.
When reporters asked Conservative senator Nancy Ruth about it. She complained that she was being questioned about things like expensing a breakfast when she could have had a free one on her morning flight.
“Well, those [airline] breakfasts are pretty awful,” she said. “If you want ice cold Camembert and broken crackers, have it.”
Personally, I’m not too concerned about a couple of expensed meals, as long as they were reasonable—Bev Oda’s $18 glass of orange juice comes to mind. The problem here is that it is emblematic of an attitude of entitlement in the Senate that goes far beyond Ruth’s aversion to cold cheese.
Mike Duffy’s trial started this week. The RCMP has levied a slew of new allegations against Pamela Wallin.
And, of course and ironically, the NDP and the Reform base of the new Conservatives, immediately started calling for the complete dissolution of the Red Chamber.
I think we need to slow down here. Yes, the Senate is in need of serious reform, but I think there is a role for a second tier of government. Maybe we don’t even call it the Senate, maybe we call it the House of Review or something like that.
The fact of the matter is, in a properly functioning Parliament, which we have not had for many years, the Upper House performs an important role in providing oversight of House of Commons legislation. Senators, by virtue of their lifetime appointment are not, or at least should not, be beholden to partisan party politics.
That is certainly not the case right now.
The Senate also initiates non-money legislation. For example, one bill that recently received Royal Assent is S-211: An Act to establish a national day to promote health and fitness for all Canadians.
Okay, it’s not Earth-shattering, but it is a worthy initiative that I think most of us would probably just as soon not have the House of Commons dealing with.
Many who support abolishing the Senate, recognizing the near constitutional impossibility of doing so, have proposed having an elected Senate instead.
I don’t like that idea either. One of the goals of Senate reform, I believe, should be eliminating party politics. If we were to elect senators, how long before we run into the same dysfunction and stalemate that the U.S. Congress is constantly dealing with.
No, I don’t have a problem with appointing senators, or even giving them lengthy terms, perhaps not for life, however. We definitely need a better way of doing it, though. Allowing the prime minister to simply stack the Upper House with partisan party hacks is really the difficulty we are in right now, isn’t it?
Since senators represent their provinces, perhaps it should be up to the provinces to pick who they want to appoint. This, of course, would require some kind of vetting process, but we need to start seriously looking at this.
Nancy Ruth’s unfortunate statements last week drew attention to the fact that we really need to start a serious discussion in this country about our system of government.
In my mind that goes well past Senate reform. We must get rid of the first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all electoral regime that allows a party to achieve a majority government with as little as 35 per cent of the popular vote.
It is bad for the country. It promotes the pendulum effect of lurching the nation back and forth between extremes rather than requiring collaboration and compromise. Canada has always been about getting along with and helping each other out. Parliament, both houses, is not working any more. It is time to fix it.
