Last week I had the opportunity to watch the PM being questioned during the senate hearings on bill S4 (which would limit newly appointed senators to 8-year terms). Personal mistrust and misgivings toward the current PM aside, I have serious issues with the way this is being done and the potential impact on our parliament, basically because I don't believe Joe Canadian, to whom Harper wants to make the senate accessible to, will ever be interested enough to get involved. It is very easy for high-profile individuals to spout rhetoric about (and for Joe Canadian to believe) how ineffective and expensive the senate is, how senator absenteeism rates are unacceptable, and how senate appointments are undemocratic. I believe the root cause of these issues is the fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the senate, but nobody is taking the time to discuss it. (If you are interested in a quick overview,
wikipedia offers pretty good info.)
Without going into a point-by-point rebuttal of the PM's statements, I have grave concerns with the direction the Conservative party is taking with senate reforms. This first-of-many bills intends to limit the term of new senators to 8 years. How does that solve the root-cause? And what happens after the 8 (or 9 or 10 as he said he would be willing to accept) year term? Eligibility for re-appointment creates an incentive for the senators to kiss-up and vote in favour of the government to increase their chances of being re-appointed, violating the "sober second thought" process and making it irrelevant. But if you prevent them from being re-appointed, how would you prevent them from being influenced by external lobbyists, with whom they may wish to seek employment after their term? To make that case even worse, taxpayers wouldn't get any value at all from the growing ranks of retired senators each drawing a fat pension. Either scenario paves the way for the Conservatives to justify eliminating the upper house completely. So how can Bill S4 remain silent on such a critical issue, unless that is their desired end-game?
Another problem is the abuse of the propaganda that "the democratic will is supreme" and all the blabla that only elected representatives have the true mandate to govern, and therefore should be able to do so uninhibited by such troublesome things as laws, ethics, minorities, and even the constitution.
I don't trust the current government, not just because it has oft misappropriated the results of the last election as a carte-blanche by the people to do whatever it is they promised, when many canadians really only wanted to vote the other guys out. The PM even smugly stated with a Trudeau-esque "just-watch-me" smile when he told the senate committee not to force him to use any veto power, appoint new conservative senators (there are currently 8 vacancies), or bypass the upper house to get these bills passed.
Forgive me, I promised I would put personal dislike aside. Right, so limiting the senators' terms will rejuvenate the upper house on a regular basis. Fine. Hey, wouldn't it make sense then for Canadians to elect them? Result on parliament: Joe Canadians will elect the prettiest, dirtiest, most successfully slanderous snake-oil salesmen to the upper house. Don't we already have that in the house of commons? Then why bother with a second house at all?
The senate's role is defender of the constitution, regional rights and minorities. The days of the upper house being the house of lords protecting the interests of the landowners and other uber-rich are over, and any argument that is rooted in such lore is therefore invalid and should be called as such. Senators are being appointed from various social, economic and cultural communities (most having already held prominent government positions) to ensure that rights and freedoms of every piece of the social mosaic aren't abused, while, as one of the senators pointededly stated during the hearing, "the majority can look after itself." As Sir John A. Macdonald observed, it is a body of "sober second thought" that would curb the "democratic excesses" of the elected House of Commons.
Speaking of democratic excesses, Harper seems hellbent to capitalize on society's desire to curb abuses in politics, and is firing a silver(plated) bullet into the senate to "prove" that a democratically elected body as the ultimate authority as a panacea to all ills in politics and restore popular faith. In the short term, this will probably satisfy peoples delusional appetites for change, but I suspect people will very quickly realize what happens when you give somebody absolute power... Compounding the problem is that, like dealing with a schizophrenic who stops taking his meds, it can take a long time before you find a successful cocktail of new meds that will restore the delicate balance.
Bottom line is that this self-assigned democratization mission sounds more and more like the US Republican Party mantra, and the centralization of ("democratic") power is slightly reminiscent of propaganda from that German Socialist Party of the 1930's...
