RETURN TO MINISTER CONTROL
Canada’s parliamentary system appears to be in shambles. The problem can probably be attributed to a variety of reasons. Most, if not all, are due to the change in the way members of all parties are willing to sacrifice integrity, truthfulness and in some cases apparently, honesty to the principle of party power.
A recent example is the Liberal/NDP accusation and counter accusation of inappropriate actions said to be sexual harassment. After Liberal leader Trudeau suspended the accused until the claims could be either proven or otherwise dealt with NDP leader Mulcair claimed the Liberal action was wrong. Some media analysts sided with Trudeau claiming it was the only action available since the complainants did not have an option except to involve an opposition leader. Others claimed it should have been handled behind closed doors without disclosing the accused perpetrators names. Some even suggested the people involved should have laid charges involving the police in dealing with the criminal activity.
Without a way to process the complaints by parliamentarians internally, the accusers felt police involvement would jeopardize the complainant’s reputations. Those complaining apparently claim a form of discrimination if publicly identified. On the other hand the accused males have been publicly identified. It is difficult to comprehend where sexual equality lies in the situation. The entire situation appears to have strong political attack overtones. Media analysts appear to be in disagreement with respect to the direction for resolving such complaints.
The situation reflects the ineptness of the Ministry of the Status of Women not to have foreseen such a circumstance arising. Parliamentarians are more and more intermixed in gender identification and like everywhere else in society subject to sexual harassment and inappropriate sexual behavior. Ministry staff should have foreseen the possibility of such an occurrence and advised the Minister of the possibility. The Minister apparently knowing that this type of behavior was prevalent among parliamentarians should have had the foresight to direct the ministry to investigate the possibility of structuring preemptive legislation for presentation to the House for consideration. That is the minister’s responsibility ahead of political maneuvering for the sake of politicking.
Party power is the most important item on every party’s agenda. Paying homage to the party faithful runs a close second and appeasing potential voters, especially those uncommitted to any specific party is third, although extremely important to every party. In the recent past particularly, the three items meant winning a majority, becoming the official opposition, or losing so badly party reorganization becomes the most important item on the agenda.
Every member at all levels will tell anyone listening of the great work their office does in solving constituent problems. Most requests of course are submitted by party supporters although often people with personal situations needing political intervention will cross party favoritism lines to get help. In the past when meeting a politically attuned person on the street or in a coffee shop and striking up a federal politics conversation the response was one of interest and a desire to get a point or opinion across. Today the same scenario usually brings on a shrug and comment about losing interest in politics. The attitude should be ringing warning bells for politicians of all political stripes. Declining voter interest combined with lower than ever voter numbers probably means the Canadian parliamentary system could easily crumble making parliament inconsequential.
One of the most glaring changes since year 2000 is the lack of knowledge by appointed Ministers with respect to the workings of their ministry. Today it seems when a ministry is criticized by the opposition for an issue, that minister often indicates, “I didn’t know it was happening.” The alternative is making excuses that don’t stand up under scrutiny, or when challenged by other parties or the media. In the past appointment of a minister was a signal to closely examine the workings of the ministry to make certain there aren’t any surprises that can’t be answered at the time of any query. That has always been the sign of a competent and knowledgably minister.
In the same vein the recent change of the Senate from a prestigious “House of Serious Second Thought”, to a place for rewarding partisan political supporters is bad enough. However media reports of the senior appointees reflecting dishonesty and corruption are equally shameful to most Canadians.
A recent example is the Liberal/NDP accusation and counter accusation of inappropriate actions said to be sexual harassment. After Liberal leader Trudeau suspended the accused until the claims could be either proven or otherwise dealt with NDP leader Mulcair claimed the Liberal action was wrong. Some media analysts sided with Trudeau claiming it was the only action available since the complainants did not have an option except to involve an opposition leader. Others claimed it should have been handled behind closed doors without disclosing the accused perpetrators names. Some even suggested the people involved should have laid charges involving the police in dealing with the criminal activity.
Without a way to process the complaints by parliamentarians internally, the accusers felt police involvement would jeopardize the complainant’s reputations. Those complaining apparently claim a form of discrimination if publicly identified. On the other hand the accused males have been publicly identified. It is difficult to comprehend where sexual equality lies in the situation. The entire situation appears to have strong political attack overtones. Media analysts appear to be in disagreement with respect to the direction for resolving such complaints.
The situation reflects the ineptness of the Ministry of the Status of Women not to have foreseen such a circumstance arising. Parliamentarians are more and more intermixed in gender identification and like everywhere else in society subject to sexual harassment and inappropriate sexual behavior. Ministry staff should have foreseen the possibility of such an occurrence and advised the Minister of the possibility. The Minister apparently knowing that this type of behavior was prevalent among parliamentarians should have had the foresight to direct the ministry to investigate the possibility of structuring preemptive legislation for presentation to the House for consideration. That is the minister’s responsibility ahead of political maneuvering for the sake of politicking.
Party power is the most important item on every party’s agenda. Paying homage to the party faithful runs a close second and appeasing potential voters, especially those uncommitted to any specific party is third, although extremely important to every party. In the recent past particularly, the three items meant winning a majority, becoming the official opposition, or losing so badly party reorganization becomes the most important item on the agenda.
Every member at all levels will tell anyone listening of the great work their office does in solving constituent problems. Most requests of course are submitted by party supporters although often people with personal situations needing political intervention will cross party favoritism lines to get help. In the past when meeting a politically attuned person on the street or in a coffee shop and striking up a federal politics conversation the response was one of interest and a desire to get a point or opinion across. Today the same scenario usually brings on a shrug and comment about losing interest in politics. The attitude should be ringing warning bells for politicians of all political stripes. Declining voter interest combined with lower than ever voter numbers probably means the Canadian parliamentary system could easily crumble making parliament inconsequential.
One of the most glaring changes since year 2000 is the lack of knowledge by appointed Ministers with respect to the workings of their ministry. Today it seems when a ministry is criticized by the opposition for an issue, that minister often indicates, “I didn’t know it was happening.” The alternative is making excuses that don’t stand up under scrutiny, or when challenged by other parties or the media. In the past appointment of a minister was a signal to closely examine the workings of the ministry to make certain there aren’t any surprises that can’t be answered at the time of any query. That has always been the sign of a competent and knowledgably minister.
In the same vein the recent change of the Senate from a prestigious “House of Serious Second Thought”, to a place for rewarding partisan political supporters is bad enough. However media reports of the senior appointees reflecting dishonesty and corruption are equally shameful to most Canadians.
