What the Next Election Will Really Be About
A Terrified
Middle Class
What
follows is a simple reprint of a column by Colby Cosh
In the May
12 issue of
MACLEANS
And
just like that the scene was set for the 2015 federal election. An
overstatement, perhaps, but what a week: The RCMP ended its investigation of
Nigel Wright, Elections Canada dropped the “robocalls” inquisition, the
government retreated on changes to the Fair Elections Act, and the Supreme
Court delineated conditions for alterations to the Senate. Meanwhile, amid all
this slate-cleaning, the New
York Times handed the Conservatives
a windfall, announcing that the median after-tax income in Canada had surpassed that of
the U.S.
The
Supreme Court’s decision in the Senate reference is a turning point. For 30
years and change, our renovated judicial branch, armed with dreadful power to
dispose of and revise laws, has been able to play the role of defender of
minorities and enforcer of sacred rights. It sees itself probably as having a
similsr function vis-à-vis the Senate question: protecting the interests of
small provinces thsat entered Confederation on certain terms.
In
practice the Court has made federally led reform or abolition of the Senate
impossible for generations. And though the decision was unanimous, the Courts
reasoning is less than overpowering. Like those who have opposed the Prime
Minister’s approach to reform, the justices complained that term limits would
improperly “ imply a finite time in office” for senators- while insisting,
without much explanation that the age limit imposed in 1965 poses no similar
problem. (Throwing the old people out of an assembly whose name means “house of
old people”? A trivial detail.)
The
Court also found that it is unconstitutional for the Prime Minister to use the
results of a consultative election to choose suitable candidates. He can use an
Ouija board: that’s not a change to the “method of electing senators.” Chicken
entrails? No problem. Use a professional polling firm? Fine. Only “elections”
as such are deprecated.
The
full implications of the ruling are unclear. The court was asked to rule on
federal legislation providing for Senate elections. Such elections have been
held in Alberta, and winners appointed, with no
federal framework. Were these votes unconstitutional? Would future ones be? If
not, are elected senators already in the chamber illegitimate? What about Mike
Shaikh, the “senator-in-waiting” next in line for a seat? Is he the only
qualified person alive who cannot be appointed?
Almost
everybody will find something to dislike in this decision and its general
effect is to fortify the odious present form of the Senate. There is no further
avenue of appeal. The rule of stare decisis binds future Supreme Courts in a
manner in which Parliament can never bind Parliaments. These truths must now
sink in with Canadians- including the NDP’s Senate abolitionists- as never
before. It does not help that the Senate ruling follows close on the Justice
Marc Nadon business, in which a strong lone dissent rather shamed the majority
of the court. - as never before. It does not help that the Senate ruling
follows close on the Justice Marc Nadon business, in which a strong lone
dissent rather shamed the majority of the court. Haps a long honeymoon has
ended.
The
other story with long-term implications is the New York Times middle-class splash,
echoed around the world. For Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, who have spent a year
hammering the theme of middle-class anxiety, this must be unpleasant. The
immediate countermove has been to say “Sure, we’re doin well compared to the U.S.: It’s in the toilet.”
(Sorry President Obama!)
To
this approach one can only say “Lots of luck.” Every adult Canadian has spent his
entire life comparing his station to that of analogous Americans. And anyway
the Times’ charts have the median Canadians beating the median
German, Dutchman, Swede, Briton, and Finn.
The
Times did not mean to make mincemeat out of Canadian Liberal strategy, but I
predict the Grits will respond by adopting Thomas Piketty as their totem.
Piketty is a French economist whose new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, is the intellectual
blockbuster of the year. He believes he has discovered an iron law, whereby the
rate of return on capital must exceed overall economic growth, fostering a
return to the 19th Century style social classes and quantitative
inequality. Piketty advocates a global wealth tax in order to humble rising
capital in the way two world wars did- with fewer exploitations, one hopes.
Piketty
as his book title suggests, means to be the new Karl Marx. As an empirical
analyst of inequality, Piketty has been universally celebrated. Marx was an
outstanding data-digger too. Unfortunately, his entry into the racket of
flogging historical laws may have been the single most catastrophic decision
ever made by an individual. But Piketty’s updated line- that the middle class
people everywhere are right to be anxious about scary, posh rentiers in monocles
and top hats- offers the Liberals an
obvious escape from a tricky corner. Remember where you heard it first.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
I think I read this as
Tax the 1%.
Don’t you?
Blaine Barrett
