So, Senator Patrick Brazeau, arrested and held in police custody on suspicion of domestic violence, possibly sexual assault. Stephen Harper reacted immediately by expelling him from caucus – so far so good. But then came the immediate and not unexpected boneheaded comments from the commentariat with its ad homenim attacks and visceral hatred for the Senate, apparently based solely on the received wisdom of the ages, and not upon reality. For example, NDP MP Charlie Angus insisted that Stephen Harper remove Brazeau from the Senate entirely – err, except that he can’t do that. You see, there’s a reason why Prime Ministers can’t arbitrarily remove Senators – because it’s the job of the Senate to hold the executive in check. If a Prime Minister could remove Senators at will, then he would do so anytime they became a nuisance to him, and replace them with more compliant models. That kind of protection from arbitrary removal is actually a design feature – it allows them to speak truth to power without fearing for their jobs. And while yes, they can be removed through an internal process, it’s a pretty high bar that’s set in order to ensure that their jobs aren’t under threat when they oppose the government of the day. And yes, many Senators do take advantage of that, even when it’s inconvenient to the Prime Minister that appointed them, because that’s their job. While the received wisdom is that they are all hacks napping until their retirement, a lot of good work happens in the Senate that simply isn’t talked a lot about, mostly because there isn’t a lot of drama behind it. Add to that this concern-trolling about being “democratic” or “accountable” without actually understanding what those terms mean in their holistic contexts, and it’s when things start to spiral out of control.
But back to Brazeau. There were investigations into his housing allowance, his previous tax exemptions, and now apparently his travel expenses. He’s been problematic from the start – entirely of his own doing – and one could see his public unravelling over his Twitter feed. But then that leap of logic plays out in the critics of the Senate, most especially in the media. Suddenly Brazeau becomes emblematic of how the Upper Chamber needs to “clean up” or how it’s had a “tough year” – never mind that those “tough year” criticisms are largely bogus. Examples cited include Senator Zimmer’s May-December romance, the onset of now-former Senator Fairbairn’s dementia, and the fact that Senators are *gasp!* doing their jobs and calling into doubt the constitutionality of the government’s planned reforms, which, guess what, had little constititutional merit. How these are supposed to be reflective of the “decline” of the institution is a mystery to anyone who applies a modicum of critical thinking. When you add the housing allegations of Mike Duffy and Mac Harb in with Brazeau’s, that’s a total of three out of 105 Senators facing allegations – allegations which are being investigated seriously. While every jaded reporter in this city looks to the host of whatever show they’re on and says “No one really expects the Senate to do anything about this” obviously hasn’t been paying attention because the Senate, conscious of its PR problems, does take it seriously. That’s why it put in transparent attendance rules with financial penalties after the scandal of a couple of absentee senators, and why there is a public acknowledgement that they are investigating in this particular case. Oh, but a couple of bad apples are suddenly emblematic for calls for the Senate’s abolition – as if that were either a) feasible, considering that abolition would require the unanimous consent of the provinces and that is never going to happen ever, or b) desirable, considering that we had another example this week of the Senate needing to do the job of due diligence and oversight for MPs when they abdicated their responsibilities once again. And no, none of the “reform” proposals will actually do anything about any of these supposed indictments, just like Senate elections won’t prevent May-December romances or the onset of dementia, as several boneheaded columnists were suggesting last fall. That isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be questions asked, and that there isn’t accountability for the quality of appointments, but that rests solely with the Prime Minister. But the fact that our political pundit class is more invested in repeating bogus received wisdom rather than actually learning anything about our political institutions or separating bad apples from those institutions as a whole, is a disappointing reminder of our collective civic illiteracy and intellectual dishonesty when it comes to having grown-up discussions about Parliament and politics in this country.
Meanwhile, the CRTC has confirmed that the company that did the Conservative push-poll in Saskatchewan last week is the same one affiliated with the “Pierre Poutine” robocalls in Guelph during the last election, for what it’s worth. Pundit’s Guide gives a history of Electoral Boundaries Commissions in Canada, and the “gerrymandering” of the ridings in Saskatchewan now at plan.
Mark Carney went to London to face the Treasury Select Committee in advance of his new job, and apparently charmed the lot of them.
Here is another look at late-term abortions and some of the factors involved, and why “born alive” is far more problematic that those three rogue MPs would have us believe.
Here are the three things you need to see from last night’s political shows. Not included are the ignorant and wrong things that everyone opined about the Senate while they piled on in the wake of Brazeau.
And this year is the 250th anniversary of the Treaty of Paris, and the subsequent Royal Proclamation – arguably far more important to the development of Canada than the War of 1812, but is guaranteed to barely receive mention by the government because the political sensitivities in Quebec remain after all of this time.
Up today: The government is expected to unveil its latest round of Criminal Code changes, this time focused on mentally ill offenders.