Edmonton Journal

What if PM had beaten Trudeau to it?

He would have benefited from senators’ ouster

- MICHAEL DEN TANDT

Here’s a thought experiment, purely hypothetic­al: What if Stephen Harper had done it? Imagine that last June, or last September, or last week, the prime minister had convened a rare news conference and announced that henceforth, all Conservati­ve senators, beginning with Irving Gerstein and Marjory LeBreton, would be independen­t. No more role for them on national campaigns; no more fundraisin­g; no more organizing; no more backroom advice. In an unpreceden­ted, transforma­tive shift, the governing party would gently but firmly shove all its Red Chamber appointees, the quintessen­tial Ottawa insiders, outside the circle of power.

“We tried to push through reform,” our imaginary PM tells the assembled hacks, as we pound franticall­y away on our smartphone­s.

“The opposition wouldn’t allow it. So we made appointmen­ts as required under our present system, in order to move democratic, legitimate legislatio­n past illegitima­te, unelected Liberal Senate appointees, while respecting advisory Senate elections where they occurred, as in Alberta. We did our best. But that hasn’t worked so well either, as we saw all too clearly last year.” More gasps, from the gallery.

“We continue to await the Supreme Court’s opinion about what is required, constituti­onally, for us to properly reform, or completely abolish the upper house, which as it stands is undemocrat­ic, wasteful and unacceptab­le. But in the meantime ...”

It’s impossible to say for certain, obviously, what the response would have been. We can assume, though, that there would have been an overwhelmi­ng sense of shock, as there was with Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s announceme­nt last Wednesday.

After that? Here’s a wild guess. There would have been accolades across the board, and grumpy backbiting from the Opposition, as strategist­s and pundits marvelled at the PM’s coup. A return to the Harper of old, would have been the theme. For how better to reclaim the founding principles of Reform than to irrevocabl­y, publicly sever the party’s ties with the “fat cats” in the Senate? Suddenly, NDP leader Tom Mulcair’s calls for abolition would have sounded hollow; and Trudeau’s claims to being a democratic reformer? They’d have been lost, amid the excited din.

For the question remains, and it is one that really does transcend partisansh­ip: What can be done about the Senate? We know it offends and annoys most Canadians, when they pause to think about it at all, that 105 appointees can be paid $130,000 each a year to draft policy reports that are ignored, or do party work on the taxpayer’s dime. Gerstein, for one. How, precisely, does he divide his working hours between “Senate business” and Conservati­ve party fundraisin­g? Is there a time sheet?

For this is the root of the problem that came to light last year, thanks primarily to the self-interested manoeuvrin­gs and then self-immolation of Sen. Mike Duffy. In the new post-corporate-donation, post-union-donation, post-federal subsidy world of campaign finance, fundraisin­g must be aggressive and relentless. Under this system, especially, how can a political party resist the temptation to use its sitting senators — many of whom do have a bit of time on their hands, despite their back-breaking schedule — as human cash collectors? Unless, that is, such obvious overlappin­g interests are banned?

If a referendum on Senate abolition were held today, it’s a foregone conclusion that the “Yes” would win by an overwhelmi­ng margin. It is also true that such abolition would require at least the approval of seven provinces, constituti­ng 50 per cent of the population — and possibly unanimity. Though we have yet to hear from the Supreme Court, the chances of the court’s allowing elections and term limits, without a reframing of the Constituti­on, appear remote. Moreover, imagine the situation if 24 senators from Quebec were elected, and six from Alberta were elected, and all felt entitled — on account of being elected — to not only tweak

“For the question remains, and it is one that really does transcend partisansh­ip: What can be done about the Senate?”

laws, but write them. How long would that system last? Fundamenta­l reform (and elections are implicitly fundamenta­l) probably requires that the edifice of the Constituti­on be taken apart and reassemble­d.

But practicall­y, such a process is anathema; especially at a time when the Parti Québécois is once again on the ascendant. All across Canada now, as Mulcair declares his openness to doing the “hard work” of constituti­onal reform, hands clap over ears in horror, to inner visions of Quebec Premier Pauline Marois appearing like the ghost of referendum­s past, brandishin­g her list of demands. Constituti­onal reform is not a “solution” to be embraced — at least not for now. The best, achievable remedy, therefore, is the one recently proposed; voluntary disassocia­tion between the Senate and the parties, and future appointmen­ts handled by an arm’s-length, transparen­t, non-partisan (or multi-partisan) body, based on merit.

All of which is why, from a Reform party principle standpoint, from a Conservati­ve standpoint, Trudeau’s move, in Harper’s hands, would have been nothing short of genius. It could have put him back at the top of the heap. Whereas as things stand — with Trudeau leading — the prime minister has been reduced, once again, to playing defence.

 ?? F I L E P H OTOS ?? Had Prime Minister Stephen Harper, centre, ousted Tory senators from his caucus, he would have left Justin Trudeau, left, and Tom Mulcair playing catchup.
F I L E P H OTOS Had Prime Minister Stephen Harper, centre, ousted Tory senators from his caucus, he would have left Justin Trudeau, left, and Tom Mulcair playing catchup.
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada