Quite obviously, what's top of mind for an exiled Ottawanian such as myself is the three-way Senate shame show currently underway on the Hill. I'm fairly certain if ever I'm in a position of power, for example PM of Canada, I shall think twice before appointing any professional communicators (especially journalists!) to life term senior legislative posts. And I shall think twice (if not thrice) before engaging them in a PR battle over (quite frankly) trumped up administrative charges to do with their travel claims (of all things). Oh yes, in Canada such things do a scandal make...
But really, the very qualities that made Duffy and Wallin such ideal CPC aristocrats, sharp-tongued efficacy in the case of the former, and patrician (yet suitably partisan) gravitas in the case of the latter, have certainly made for a series of VERY bad days in the PMO that first appointed them. On second thought it might have been best to stick with more Brazeau-esque mediocrities, far easier to ignore when political exigencies (and fiscal bloodthirst from "the base") demand public firings to right all perceived wrongs. I mean his speech was OK, but compared with Duffy's Deus Profundis Spenthriftus Maximus, or Wallin's Great Expectations (But Unclear Travel Policies) oratories, Brazeau's feeble "Stephen Harper, you lost my vote," pleadings have made him the least compelling (or quoted) player in this high political drama.
The great question begged (and begged, and begged...) by all of this: why do we bother with this partisan gong show, known as the Senate of Canada, in the first place? I mean really, has the Senate's "sober second thought" mantra ever seemed more of a grim joke than today?
Duffy and Wallin are not victims, that much has to be said. Nobody who gets a surprise second career doing year-round stump speeches and working the $1000/plate fundraising dinner circuit can lay claim to anything approaching the label of "hard done by."
Brazeau was not a great choice for the Senate, and his rude treatment by CPC operatives is clearly a far cry from the promises made at the start of this patronage journey, but he's done more damage to himself than has anyone else, and so his dismissal makes a certain kind of sense. Even if the terms are a bit hazy...
Except. Well, except all of that is subjective, anecdotal and deeply unfair in the light of due process. Because really, the other great question begged: what does one do when Senators behave badly?
Nobody has provided any objective answer to this most salient of questions, but instead a highly improvised (and highly paid) kangaroo court has been convened. What Duffy and Wallin (and to a lesser extent Brazeau) have argued, to my mind effectively, is that for this to be anything but the end of the Senate, the Senate does in fact have to do its purported job and rise to this challenge. It must second guess a hastily drafted motion to summarily fire three members, and it must defer the allegations and possible consequences to a formal committee to study this whole thing in greater detail. In plainest terms, the Senate must affirm that due process takes time and that no motions will be considered until all the facts are known, all evidence is gathered, and all parties can have their proverbial 'day in court.'
And if I believe that the above will actually come to pass, it's high time I finally sobered up myself.
