T
his week, the Harper government announced aproposal to suspend Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, and Patrick Brazeau. The collective cream of Canada’s political crop of incompetency, ignorance and greed, the move was largely supported by politicians and the public, and even spurred other Senators to begin filing more complete tax returns (yes, this is already part of their job anyway, but let’s still try to appreciate the small victories). In what can only be seen as the inevitable next step, Pamela Wallin has already announced she will be pursuing a legal challenge to the suspension; actual quotes from her lawyer including: “they don’t care about the Charter of Rights” and “what we have here is the equivalent of a third-world dictatorship.”
I could write a whole article just about how disgusting and insulting it is to refer to Canada as a third-world dictatorship. Populations around the world are fighting real struggles for their rights, jobs, and sometimes lives. It is despicable that Wallin’s lawyer, Terrence O’Sullivan, would belittle the socio-economic and political situations of actual dictatorship countries by comparing the way those governments treat member politicians to how she has been treated. Wallin has been found out as a liar and tax cheat, someone with little regard for the rules. Her lawyer may have a viable challenge based on the conventional process rules for the suspension of Senators, but his comments are totally unacceptable.
At time of writing, it is unknown how Brazeau and Duffy will respond, but there likely will be some challenge to the suspension from all three senators. The bill to suspend them still has to pass the Senate, and when it does, Brazeau, Duffy, and Wallin will have the opportunity to intervene. This is on top of the legal challenge they could bring, one based on the lack of precedent for this type of punitive action. It is, I suppose, a fair challenge given the lack of history for this type of action, and our conventional procedures regarding Senator appointment and dismissal. There is a real potential for this type of action to put too much power in the hands of the legislature, giving the ruling party the power to switch Senators in and out on trivial or trumped up charges.
However, the potential for that type of abuse, especially given our political conventions regarding Senator dismissal, is small. The cases here are all dealing with significant abuses of power on the part of the Senators, and the public is largely in agreement that the suspensions are justified. The legislature, after all, is supposed to act on the will of the public. Current provisions only account for criminal behaviour by senators, having a more accountable system does not necessarily mean a carte-blanche for Parliament to change up the Senate on a whim. Further, the Senate has far less power than the House of Commons, and for the purposes it does serve, having accountable participants is of the utmost importance. Suspending a corrupt Senator does not interrupt our democratic process, and should be a relatively straightforward procedure once it is known that the Senator has acted illegally, immorally, or contrary to his or her responsibilities.
As the situation unfolds, it is extremely likely we will see the courts decide its resolution. Overall, this is likely a necessary inconvenience. It is better to establish a system of enforcement based on clear rules and procedures, than to allow this situation to become an isolated event. In fact, if the court comes down on Wallin as sternly as I believe they should, it could create an important standard for the acceptable conduct of Senators. If the court says that the government does have the power to enact these suspensions, a new reality will dawn for all Senators, where their actions, whether criminal or not, can be held accountable through punishment.
Our politicians have a long, sad history of being exposed for corruption, and then continuing on with work as usual. Even when they are removed, as happens on the rare occasion, it is often with a pension package, a severance payment, and a new board position waiting for them back at home. Imagine how the conduct of our Senators may change if they thought these luxuries were not guaranteed upon dismissal. We have already seen some impact from the Duffy, Brazeau, and Wallin scandal in the improvement of Senators’ bookkeeping. If Wallin’s challenge fails, and a new precedent is set that Senators who breach their job’s requirements will be suspended without pay, the potential for tangible improvements is truly exciting.
The Senate, limited as it is in its law-making powers, can still serve a valuable role as the gold standard for the principles and ideologies we wish to convey as Canadian. As such, it needs to be filled with citizens of the highest moral caliber; individuals with a passion and love of our country, who respect and adhere to the enormous responsibility of their position every day on the job. So far, Duffy, Brazeau, and Wallin have given us ample evidence that they fall well below any of these standards. How such people can believe that their place in our government is deserved is beyond me; however, it is the reality of the situation. Hopefully the courts will take this occasion to show them, and all Senators, that they are wrong. The appointment of a Senator comes with duties and responsibilities, and if they are not met, or if the position is disrespected, the offender should be removed.
SAM MICHAELS, Staff Writer