The conservative impulse is to keep what is old and to only change cautiously. When the reformer says, "we can do better", the conservative replies, "why would you think that?" A conservative (and by temperment I am a conservative) supports change only when it is execruciatingly clear both that the status quo isn't working, and that the proposed change has a good chance of being better than the status quo.
Or, to put it another way, when a reformer rushes up and says, "there's a fence down the middle of the road, that maskes no sense! We need to tear it down!" a real conservative's reply is "tell me why the fence was put up in the first place and I might let you take it down."
I'm reminded of this when considering Harper's plan to start getting elected Senators. The idea is that Senators would serve for eight years. Since actually electing them would require a constitutional change (and Ontario, for example, has said no way unless it gets more Senators) what Harper wants to do is have provinces run elections and then he'll appoint the people who were elected. The argument is, essentially, that democracy is good, elections are good and more elections are better. And that the Senate is a corrupt cesspool of retired pols, most of whom do nothing to earn their keep. With elections they'll have a mandate, with the possibility of not being re-elected they'll show up, and voters will enforce discipline on the upper chamber.
And, of course, who wants to run against "elections"? Harper is down on his knees begging the Liberal dominated Senate to get all uppity and block this, so he can run on "I believe in Democracy and Accountability and the Liberals don't."
But an elected Senate is potentially a really, really, bad idea. The Senate is almost equal in power to the House, except that it can't introduce spending legislation and that after 180 days the House can override a Senate veto. Other than that, the two chambers are co-equal.
People don't realize this since as Senators have no mandate they rarely really dig in their heals. The last major occasion is when Liberal Senators blocked the Free Trade Agreement until after the 1988 election - an exception which I would regard as legitimate, since Mulroney was not elected in 1984 with a mandate to make a deal which gave away significant amounts of Canada's sovereignty. (The majority of Canadians then voted against the FTA, but the Conservatives won a majority anyway, since the vote was split, and they were the sole free trade party.)
Once Senators have legitimacy they will start to actually use their power. Because the Senate's seat structure is not based on population, various underpopulated provinces will have more representation proportionally than those with higher populations. (Read: the Maritimes rock on this, and Ontario takes it on the chin, which is why the Ontario government thinks this is a bad idea.) What will inevitably happen is that there will come a cycle where one party controls the lower house and the other the top house. And then there'll be a showdown.
Now this may not seem like a bad thing to Americans, but frankly, our system, for all its flaws, has delivered. It has worked well - we have a good standard of living, a trade surplus and a budget surplus. We have a Westminister system which has taken for granted for over 100 years, the supremacy of the Commons. Going to damn near a true bicameral system is not a minor thing - it is a huge constitutional change to a system which, in its US incarnation, is currently imploding.
The conservative impulse shouldn't be to make such huge changes. But Harper isn't a small "c" conservative any more than George Bush is, or his Neocon allies were. Harper is an ideologue who looks to the south and sees a superior system which he wants to emulate. He is a decentralizer who wants to weaken the central government, and the office of the Prime Minister. Harper really believes that ineffective federal governments are better than effective federal ones, and he wants to make sure that Canada winds up with one.
And changing from an essentially bicameral system where the Senate was only there for emergency use, to a real bicameral system is one way of weakening the center and the Prime Minister.
Which is to say, for Harper the fact that an "elected" Senate will make the federal government weaker and less effective isn't a bug, it's a feature. And there are those who would agree with that. But if you aren't one of them, don't be fooled into thinking what you're voting for if you back this is a more "democratic" society. Because just voting doesn't make democracy. The more some voters votes count more than those of others, the less Democratic a system is, even if there is more voting.
Harper's new system would likely lead to a Constitutional crisis, it weakens the Federal government and the Prime Minister, and it is less representative and less Democratic, than the current system, in which MPs are elected in a way that is closer to proportional to the population than electing Senators will be.
So support it and Harper if those are things you want - but if they aren't, please don't.
Wow, Mr. Welsh. Thank you for putting into such eloquent words what most of us felt... that there is something besides the stated aim, behind such an idea.
And we've all seen how effective at "checks and balances" can be, down south, eh?
I've argued for some time that without a significant rebalance of powers and responsibilities, an elected senate is of questionable value in this country.
That said, Harper is not a "conservative" - at least not in the classical sense of the word. If this month's article in "The Walrus" is any indication, the man's real goal is to impose a theologically driven ideology.
Oddly - provoking a constitutional crisis (if the timing were right) would be the perfect vehicle for him to do so.
Let's keep it simple: abolish this anacronism. Introduce Multiple Member Proportional (MMP) representation so that all regions are represented fairly and a diversity of voices are heard. Read all about it here and here.
As to the checks and balances down south--what has happened, and quite likely what Mr. Harper would be aiming for, is *not* decentralization per se, but reduced legislative effectiveness. These may seem the same, but they're not.
If the legislative power becomes less effective and prone to deadlocks, that creates a power vaccuum, which, yes, may be filled to a fair extent by regional power centres and lead to decentralization. But it also leaves room for being filled by executive powers and/or corporate powers (directly or through things like NAFTA). Harper isn't looking for powerful provinces, not really--he's looking for a powerful PMO and powerful corporations. It would no doubt be a useful smokescreen if provinces were handling more of what's left over.
I don't agree that Harper is looking for a strong PMO. He's naturally autocratic and runs the PMO very powerfully, but his overall program seems destined to reduce the PM's power, not increase it (free votes on most issues don't increase the PM's power, his suggested changes to the party nomination system gut the PM's power, and so on.)
The Senate is a body which gives more weight to lower populated provinces, as such giving the Senate more power leads to more decentralization - the same reason why rural States which will never get attacked by international terrorists get much more homeland protection money per capita than New York State (because the Empire State building isn't a landmark, for example.)
Until people like David Emerson, Harper and the people who helped these to usurp the wishes of the taxpayers/voters of Vancouver-Kingsway this past election recognize the disservice they did to Canada I will not support any "proportional respresentation" tripe. It is already clear that the participants are not fair-dealing, and bringing in another "method" will further muddy the waters.
Let's have some accountability here, please.
For instance, Emerson is hinting to the business community that he is ready to jump ship again.
What have all these representation people to say to this?
Or, to put it another way, when a reformer rushes up and says, "there's a fence down the middle of the road, that maskes no sense! We need to tear it down!" a real conservative's reply is "tell me why the fence was put up in the first place and I might let you take it down."
Haha, for some reason this made me laugh... It's such an accurate representation of the way that many conservatives think, and is a big part of the reason why I feel conservative in nature.
I'm more and more thinking that we should abolish the Senate, personally, exactly because it doesn't do anything. It's only benefit, that I can see, is to publish commission reports on occassion (which are usually pretty impressive). I don't think they should bother wasting peoples time in debating and reading bills (when they actually attend) that they're gonna rubber stamp anyways (or worse, hold up for political gain, and then rubber stamp).
Couldn't we turn it into some sort of Body of Knowledge, an experience-based, bi-partisan, thinktank where all those politicians, academics, judges, activists, etc. could all be in one place, and yes, work a 8 hour day, studying the pressing issues?
That's how I'd reform it.
Olaf, that's exactly what it should be. And in some small way, it almost is. All that's needed to reform the senate is a way to trim the deadwood, and a way to make sure more dead wood is put in it's place.
Some senators do nothing, and some do a hell of a lot. Some use their influence and power of office to get things done, and call attention to things that need to be done. We have too many of the former, and less than a hand full of the latter. (I regret the late hour that I cannot cite examples, but I am tired. They are there, please accept my word.)
I see the Senate as like having an extra fuse. If something goes really wrong it's one more chance to control and out of control government. Say, for example, that Quebec voted for separation and the government seemed ready to give them everything, to the detriment of the rest of Canada.
At that point the Senate can step in. Will it? Maybe, maybe not. Like all last minute safeguards you csn't be sure it won't just be blow through until you need it. (Look at the way most of the checks and balances in the south haven't worked - but a few have). I'm willing to pay the price for the Senate, which really is not even a rounding factor in the federal budget in exchange for that. And the fact that the Senate won't intervene except when it's clearly a huge crisis (because the next election will be about abolishing them) isn't a bug, it's a feature.
I feel more or less the same way about the Governor General and the Queen, by the way. The fact that they don't do much day to day, doesn't mean that having that last minute cut out isn't worth paying for.
I hope never to have to use it, but I have catastraphe insurance.
The Senate is like that - it's mostly useless day to day, it costs us money, it may never get used, and if it does it may not actually work as well as we hope - but it's better than not having one.
Well said, Mr. Welsh.
A very well written and argued post, and one that matches my own views on this topic, especially when followed with the comments made by Mr. Welsh in this thread. There is though one point I must take issue with though, the Free Trade holdup was not the last significant action by the Senate against a government, it was their refusal to put the GST through and the follow-up ramming in more Senators by Mulroney that was, and that happen I think in 1990, at least a couple of years later. I still remember the uproar in this country of his involving the Queen in this dispute by the manner in which he appointed those extra PCPC Senators to get the GST bill through.
Other than that one point though I can find nothing to disagree with in this post. Thank you very much for it Mr. Welsh I may use it down the road in part or in whole as a basis for a post on Senate reform at Saundrie someday because it is so well written.