By Andrew Perez
It seems NDP leader Jack Layton may be holding more political sway in Ottawa these days than the national media often give him credit for. Earlier this month, Layton won the backing of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to hold a nation-wide referendum on the abolition of Canada’s unelected Senate.
The move by Harper, which came as a surprise to many, would mean his minority Conservatives would support an NDP motion that would call for a referendum to be held at the time of the next general election.
Yet Canadians should be wary of the actions of Harper, a man who consistently places political gains for his own party over the interests of the country. Harper’s move to support Layton’s proposal, is yet another political masterstroke by the prime minister – one that will force Stéphane Dion into a corner where he will inevitably find himself defending one of Canada’s most reviled institutions.
Putting the future of the Senate to a vote by all Canadians is a noble idea.
But voters must be given more than two options.
While it is certainly easy to criticize the Senate in its current form – unelected and unaccountable – eliminating the upper house altogether could prove to be extremely damaging.
For years, the Senate has essentially been subjected to the treatment of a punching bag – taking punches from just about everyone who has, at one point or another, found themselves dissatisfied with Canadian democracy.
Complaints about its level of patronage and jokes about its members’ poor attendance and non-existent work habits have unfortunately been accepted as fact by many Canadians.
For this reason, a nation-wide referendum with only two options, would make it far too easy for Senate nay-sayers such as Layton to characterize the Senate, as he has in his own words, as a “19th-century institution that has no place in a modern democracy.”
To level such a characterization shows an utter lack of understanding for the role of the upper chamber in Canada, and a complete lack of appreciation for the measures taken in recent years to improve the effectiveness of the red chamber.
Throughout his years in power, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien made a point of consistently appointing senators of only the highest calibre to the upper chamber.
Although most of the appointees were Liberals, virtually all were appointed because they had the energy and the will to make a meaningful contribution to Canadian public policy. Under Chrétien’s watch, Senate attendance improved considerably while the quality of its committee reports also improved.
In fact, through its committee reports, the Senate has long been successful at identifying growing problems in Canada, while the lower chamber has more often than not been wrapped up with partisan politics.
On the environment, trade, financial institutions, aboriginal affairs, poverty, and other important issues to everyday Canadians, the Senate has taken a lead role. It has been the first chamber to identify many of Canada’s problems, and carry through by proposing practical solutions.
Where the Senate does lack legitimacy is when it blocks laws passed in the lower chamber, out of partisan spite.
Yet proposing a referendum with only two options will not solve this key weakness of the Senate.
Should Canadians vote to abolish the Senate, we will lose a vitally important institution. Should they vote to keep the Senate in tact, we will be left with the status-quo.
Should Harper carry through with Layton’s Senate referendum motion, the prime minister would be wise to propose an amendment that would see the referendum give Canadians a third option.
This third option would favour a reformed Senate in which Canadians would have a say over its membership and the length of time in which senators serve. This should not be difficult for Harper, given his support for an elected Senate.
This is the option most Canadians would vote for.
Whether Harper will have the courage to place the interests of Canadians ahead of political brinkmanship remains to be seen. I for one, wouldn’t count on it.