Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The House: 'How do we get the A students involved and interested in public service?'

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, March 4, 2011 5:12pm - 15 Comments

Rather than simply lament for how little attention is paid to the institution, I thought I’d ask some smart people if they had anything to say in response to my piece about the state of the House of Commons. Over the next little while, those responses will appear here. Next up, Max Fawcett.

In theory, the decision taken more than 30 years ago to permit live radio and television broadcasting of the activity that takes place inside the House of Commons and its constituent committees was a step in the right direction, a move that facilitated greater transparency and encouraged Canadians to participate more fully in their democracy. In practice, though, it has had a rather different effect. Like lifelong meat eaters given full and unfettered access to what happens on the killing floor of a slaughterhouse, Canadians have by and large recoiled in horror at what they see taking place in their country’s appropriately named lower chamber. Maybe this is what Otto Von Bismarck was getting at when he compared the legislative process to that of sausage-making.

Read on at Max’s blog.

Tags: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • OriginalEmily1

    Aaaargh….not more money. We've used that gimmick forever….'if we just paid more money, we'd attract better people'. So we've raised the salary several times…and in return we got more bozos.
    The Senate is supposed to provide a 'sober second look' at legislation….in practice it amounts to more committee work…the careful vetting of legislation the House is supposed to have done. If we abolished the Senate, backbenchers in the House could be usefully employed doing just that. Even the UK is getting rid of the House of Lords….surely we could.
    Go out and FIND new people to run….they don't need to make a career of it, just spend a few years serving the country….and pick qualified ones….MPs have openly admitted they don't understand how Parliament works. Plus we need people from different fields….how many science types do we have in there? Yet Parliament is asked to rule on science.

    Finally….if you want people to pay attention and be involved…do things in the country that matter. For young people, for the future, for the average Canadian.

    • OriginalEmily1

      And unhook the TV cameras….at the moment there are strict rules about it's use, and it gives us a very false view of what actually goes on. Cameras free to roam would mean MPs would have to a) show up and b) stop giving each other the finger.
      It would improve behavior….either that or Canadians could make a list of MPs to toss in the next election.

  • M_A_D_world

    First order of business is to retire question period. It nets nothing but sound bites from failed actors/actresses.
    Let the grand standing take place in their own venues on their own time.

  • chet

    I say the first step is to have the media drown them with "gotcha" hyperpartisan nonsense, while staying safely away from issues that will affect ….say their dad's ability to earn income, their mom's waiting list for a cervicle cancer test, their own prospects for a brighter future.

    Yes, let us point fingers while we incessantly bombard these eager young minds with petty partisan nonsense instead of real issues,

    all the while wondering while they're tuning out.

  • chet

    Don't you just love how every now and again Wherry leaves the muck throwing,

    to hover above it all wondering why the system is so…well…mucky.

  • Be_rad

    I'm sorry, but this is the weakest input to what has been, so far, an interesting exercise. It smacks of armchair anthropology; speculative in reality but cloaked in assertions meant to assure the reader that the statements are based on something other than imaginative attempts at empathy.

    Paying more to attract more elite candidates? I agree compensation has to account for the disruption to career and lifestyle; I wouldn't wish th life of an MP on anyone. But if the author thinks "A" candidates will be lured by a few dollars more, he is delusional. The accompanying public derision would more than overcompensate – in a negative way – for the increase and an "A" candidate would know that. Even anecdotally, anyone who watches Ottawa from afar knows that "A" candidates can't be bothered to devote time, energy and career time to a job so far under the thumb of leadership that even as a government backbencher, or minister for that matter, they cannot have any meaningful impact. Membership in Cabinet is so dependent on regional and demographic representation that the merit principle is only applied to a few key politicians the leader needs in his/her camp.

    • Mike T.

      Whose career and lifestyle? I figure give 'em as much as a middle manager in a mid-sized canadian company. If that only gets middle managers from mid-sized Canadian companies, well it's an improvement over Pierre Pollievre.

      • Be_rad

        To be fair, anyone who is working and interrupts that to take the risk of putting themselves forward for public scrutiny, the rigours of an election campaign and the nomadic life of an MP. To the point of the author, though, he is talking about *important people* who need more incentive to leave their career ladders to take on public service.

        To a point, I agree that *important people* rarely take it on on their own volition. They do it because they are recruited with promises of high placement. See Emerson, who left his *important career* because he was promised a cabinet position. Apparently it didn't matter with whom, as he was quite comfortable switching when convenient. My opinion is that getting Fawcett's *important people* would be easier if they felt their participation would mean more than just a warm vote on the ledger of their party leaders' tote boards.

        $130+K and the pension is about right, to my mind, to compensate for the very real sacrifices I believe MPs make in what are, for the most part, genuine attempts to make Canada a better place.

  • hosertohoosier

    How about we don't. In the private sector, intelligent people can generate real output. In the public sector, its not clear that intelligence is all that valuable, plus government is more in the business of distributing the pie rather than making it bigger. Emotional intelligence, wisdom, and good judgment are far more important than intelligence. After all, it isn't like the Prime Minister or his MPs have to manually calculate statistical regressions in their heads – that is what the civil service is for. Moreover, governance rarely involves questions of correct or incorrect – rather leaders make tradeoffs between a large numbers of pros and cons, enumerated in a way that is never satisfactory to everybody.

  • psiclone

    get rid of Question Period and the cameras – adopt something along the line of the British system where the questions are submitted in advance and the ministers must answer and the PM doesn't have to be there every day if a voter can't be patient enough to actually pay attention and just go for the hyperpartisan shots then you get what you deserve!

  • Mike T.

    Make marks the main criteria for selection, rather than service to a party.

  • M_A_D_world

    Marks perhaps but to what criteria? English, french, history, geography, economics, agriculture, aquaculture, theology, trigonometry, geometry and/or biology?
    Striving to attract people with a sense of life before public service and a dedication to serving the public as something more than a pay check.

  • W.B.

    No one wants to say this amid all the negativity, but if you watch the debates outside of question period they are quite civilized, respectful, and intelligent. But they are boring. QP isn't boring. The problem methinks US, not them.

  • Mike T.

    What does it matter – apparently the only criteria is "A' marks.

    I was more replying to the author's use of the phrase A students, repeated in AW's headline. I'm sure he must have meant some other creme de la creme than academic achievement, because I bet there are hundreds of A students graduating each year who would be thrilled beyond belief to be awarded a $100,000 government position.

  • Guest

    I'd much rather the A students go out into the real world and produce things that the world needs. Government is no place for the A students.

Previous

Next

From Macleans