Right Hook JJ McCullough, OP Columnist Now that the Conservatives are finally in power, what is the future of Senate reform? Here’s a speech I'd like to hear Stephen Harper give: “My fellow Canadians, good evening. Several months ago, Canadian voters were generous enough to trust my party with the obligations of government and myself with the office of Prime Minister. In that election, Canadians elected 308 competent men and women to the House of Commons, and as a result the nation has a leg- islature that is representative, democratic, and diverse. The House of Commons, however, only represents half of Canada’s parliament. Along with the 308 elected mem- bers of the Commons, Canada also has a second house of parliament—the Senate. The Senate, as you are no doubt well aware, has been a source of great controversy in this country for many decades. Its members are not elected, obey no term lim- its, and are not accountable to Canadian voters. I believe very strongly that the Senate must play a meaningful role in Canada’s government. In a federation such as ours, it is important for one house of parliament to represent the interests of the collective national population, but so to is Now for the Senate... it equally vital that the second house represents the inter- ests of the country’s component regions. Because Canada’s Senate is not elected, however, our country’s second house has slowly descended into irrelevancy, ridicule, and impotence. As a result, effective regional representation in parliament has suffered. In the last federal election my party campaigned heav- ily on the issue of electing senators, a cause I have per- sonally championed for my entire political career. Though my party has since assumed office, there are still consider- able institutional hurdles to overcome before we can ful- fill the ambitious promise of an elected Senate to our constituents. According to the Constitution of Canada, senators can only leave office if they die, reach the age of 75, or voluntarily resign. My own powers, as prime minister, are limited. I cannot fire senators, and I can only appoint new ones when vacancies arise. Currently, the Senate of Canada has 99 members. Many these incumbent senators can still legally serve for quite some time, meaning it could take many, many years for the Senate to have an elected majority if I were to simply appoint elected mem- bers one-at-a-time as new vacancies sporadically appear. I believe Canadians are not willing to wait decades for an elected Senate. The need is too great and the price of national unity is too high to tolerate another 10, 20, or 30 years of the status quo, or agonizingly slow, baby-step reforms. I therefore come before all Canadians tonight with a plan and a plea. The plan: a fully elected Senate by 2009. To achieve this, I propose two elections. One in November of 2006, whereby 52 senators will be elected simultaneously, across all regions of the country, followed by a second election in November of 2008, whereby 53 more will be chosen in the same fashion. And now the plea. In order to make this plan a reality, all senators currently serving in the Senate of Canada must resign. I have spoken with the 23-member Conservative caucus in the Senate, and I am convinced that when the time comes, my party’s members will agree to step down so that the Canadian people may chose their own senators to take their place. However, the fact remains that the majority of incumbent senators are not from my party, which makes this situation much more difficult. I believe an elected Senate is not, and should not be a partisan issue. We do not yet know what sort of senators the Canadian people will ultimately elect, or what the par- tisan makeup of such an elected chamber would be. This is a time when all politicians, regardless of party, must rally around a common vision, and seize this unique opportunity to achieve real reform in the way Canadians govern themselves. My plea to Leader Stronach, her party, and all Liberal senators is thus very clear. I urge you to co-operate with my vision of an elected senate, and help the Canadian people achieve the fully democratic parliament they have desired for so long. To all Canadians, I urge you, contact your local sena- tors and urge them to co-operate with the vision I have espoused tonight. Achieving an elected senate is an ambi- tious goal that is in the best interests of Canadian provinces, federalism, and democracy, but it cannot become a reality without your help. I am confident that in the coming weeks, Canadians of all parties, regions, politics, and opinions will come to support this exciting opportunity for real change. I look forward to doing my part to finally make this goal a reali- ty. Goodnight, and may God continue to bless Canada.” Death, War, Famine, and Pestilence Keeping news outlets in business since 1945 Left Overs lain Reeve, OP Columnist ) News reporters and columnists are jackals. Without death, disease, catastrophe, scandal, rape, disaster, and moral out- rage we would all be out of business. For the media, busi- ness is best when things are at their worst. While the prospect of this has always disgusted me, I have often sat back on a slow news week and thought about how nice it would be if Paul Martin fell down the stairs, or if war broke out in some little corner of Guam. This, of course, goes against all my better sensibilities about wanting peace and cooperation in the world. So how do the self-interest- ed, individual journalists and the media in general reconcile their morals with a desire to thrive in a competitive indus- try? There is a proven rationale behind seeking the most shocking and emotionally scarring subject matter possible. It does not take an expert statistician to tell you that the mote perverse and universally personalized the tragedy, the greater the ratings. This is why outlets like Fox News, who seek the most emotionally charged stories possible, enjoy the highest ratings in the industry. While it does create a higher viewership, it also leads to depraved, sensationalist, ambulance-chasing news reporting. In addition, the editori- al aspects of the news tend to get reduced to the same par- tisan attacks over and over. There is no real constructive debate, there is simply reactionary shots taken back and forth. If you have not seen the John Stewart appearance on the now deceased CNN Crossfire, I suggest you google it. He makes this point better than I ever could. Perhaps even sadder than the effect this type of media has on people, reducing them to terrified, paranoid individ- uals willing to accept any viable solution to their terror, is the fact that it has placed legitimate news on the margins. Let’s face it: more people are willing to tune into headlines concerning celebrity love affairs, local violence and crime, and political scandal than they are a two-hour documentary on the progress of the global environmental movement or some other such thing. In-depth analysis and attention to less talked about issues gets pushed aside. News agencies, which have an interest in reporting such issues, must either limit this in order to stay competitive, or go out of busi- ness. So where does that leave the moralistic reporter who, first of all, wants to walk the fine line between reporting catastrophe and sensationalizing it and, secondly, wants to report the oft unreported. My suggestion? Respect people. Shock news agencies think people are stupid. They think we are bitter, frightened, reactionary creatures who are afraid of the tough questions and the tougher answers. I can’t get behind that. People should be treated with dignity, and what’s more, they should be given the opportunity to receive all the information that is valuable to them. The role of the media is to publicly report on and critique all the institutions of a society and then let the people decide “how to act. We should give the whole story without letting ideology work its way in. I realize, in that I am writing a column called Left Overs, that we all have our biases, but they should be played down for the greater good, especially in reporting. So to the young wannabe reporters and columnists out there: find the truth and say it. But say it in a unique way that will demand attention. Use humour, use a powerful voice, use amazing pictures, whatever will get you noticed. And to the readers of news: diversify. If you only read one paper, even this fine publication, you are only getting one side of a small percentage of the stories out there. Read the good papers and the bad ones. Watch the news shows that slant your way and watch the ones that don’t. Be informed because we’re just here to tell you what’s going on. It’s your job to decide what to do about it.