Too bad about Thomas Mulcair. As leader of the Opposition, he should be taking on Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
But for some reason he sees himself as a sort of knight errant and is bashing about the country to whip up support for abolishing the Senate.
And like Don Quixote, who tilted at windmills — as outdated contraptions as Mulcair sees the Senate — he risks becoming a figure of fun.
The Senate isn’t Harper’s creation, though he has had a hand in making it what it is today. It has been around as long as Canada has and abolishing it, as many Canadians have told pollsters, would leave a hole in the nation’s constitutional heart.
As a child of Reform, Harper must know that reform is preferable to abolition.
Mulcair seems fixated on the undemocratic nature of the Senate. Well, that’s been its nature since its birth.
Sir John A. Macdonald recommended it as a “regulating” body to prevent “any hasty or ill-considered legislation” drawn up by the elected Commons, which he called “the popular branch.”
New Democrats believe, as their name — also outdated — implies, that democracy is the only legitimate way of ordering societies, though its outcomes in the Middle East have caused and are causing widespread suffering.
They also believe in levelling playing fields, and the Senate, naturally, sticks out on Canada’s political turf like a hive of unjustified arrogance and unearned entitlements, now swarming with tawdry scandals that have nothing to do with the Senate’s purpose.
Its constitutional function is not an easy one to fill. If the Senate flexes its limited political muscle, it’s accused of interference; if it doesn’t assert itself, it’s dismissed as superfluous.
But it’s far from out of date. Senate committees have produced far-reaching reports such as those alerting Canadians to deficiencies in national defence and security, the problems facing rural folk, the aged, the mentally ill and the cross-border price gap with the U.S.
And in 2002, those old fogeys recommended the legalization of cannabis, while our up-to-date prime minister decrees mandatory minimum sentences in the vain assumption that they’ll keep Canada free of pot smoke, maybe because he has asthma.
I’ve been trolling through the Senate Hansards to gauge the usefulness of those who can call one another “honourable Senator” with a clear conscience.
To be sure, there’s a lot of time spent in the Red Chamber on testimonials to one another and other Canadians who have contributed something to their country. But their debates often make better reading than those in the Commons; they have more time to spend on issues than MPs do.
Most Commons committees, in my day at least, were exercises in frustration. MPs were more interested in scoring petty partisan points than examining expert witnesses who might have travelled across the country to enlighten them.
In the Senate, witnesses were listened to, questioned closely and therefore contributed more. Senators spoke of their constitutional responsibility to all Canadians, while MPs seemed to value them most as constituent voters.
The Senate has always been a partisan place, at least since political allegiance replaced property and wealth as the prime qualification for appointments. But even those whose partisan activities outside the Senate have got them into difficulties clothed their partisanship with dignity, even decency, inside it.
So what happens if the place is abolished? The democratically elected commoners make the broad rules that govern our lives, unchecked, unregulated, by a chamber of sober second thought.
Ontario and Quebec, with 60 per cent of Canada’s population, would have an absolute majority in what’s left of Parliament. Eight provinces would be left without the constitutional counterbalance that the Senate provides — even if, as Macdonald intended, the balance is tipped toward “the popular branch.”
Reforming the Senate needn’t be as difficult as some seem to think. It’s the way senators are chosen and the reason behind the choice that galls.
It has been suggested that Order of Canada recipients or premiers choose our senators. Why not university presidents, church leaders, First Nations hereditary chiefs or Olympic medal-winners?
Any of these might persuade Mulcair to stop tilting at windmills.
