Representing the People

Former Senator Bert Brown:

The real problem, Brown told HuffPost, is that the overwhelming majority of senators don’t do the job they were appointed to do.

Senators are supposed to represent their province’s interest “but they don’t,” he said; they just follow what their party’s leadership tells them to do.

[...]

“I was there for five years and eight months and we voted everything that was voted to the Conservative government, every one. There was one guy who said who wanted to abstain once,” Brown recounted.

Senators toe the party line out of a sense of loyalty to the person who appointed them, the retired senator said.

So it's exactly like the House of Commons, except you don't have to worry about getting re-elected. As Claire Hoy observed some time back, it's nice work if you can get it. But let's imagine that the occupants of the Red Chamber did in fact think for themselves. It would be a radical departure from current practice. Considering that most Senator achieved that lofty title by playing it very safe, it's unlikely we'll see much in the way of backbone and principle.

But it's a Tuesday, so let's imagine the possibilities. That's what Tuesday is for.

An upstanding Canadian is appointed to the upper house. He has many qualifications and a distinguished record of public service. He promises to serve as an independent and to vote as his conscience and the interests of his constituents dictate. As a mere springling of 55 he has another 20 years of time in the Senate to demonstrate his high mindedness. So long as he does nothing illegal he cannot be removed from office. By virtue of his position he has a say in the making of national law.

Stop me when this starts to become uncomfortable: Do you really want an appointed official wielding that much power? It's bad enough with judges, though electing them would likely be worse, but with law makers it would be horrible. Imagine if a sufficient number of Senators decided to adopt a similarly independent course. They go beyond reviewing and refining laws pushed through by the Commons, but to actually making substantive policy decisions. 

We now have appointed officials possessing an effective veto on a democratic assembly.

An independent and unelected Senate would mean, should it ever come to pass, a fundamental undermining of responsible government. Think also of the possibilities for left-wing nuttery. Consider this: By some horrible tragedy Justin Trudeau is elected Prime Minister. Knowing that he'll get about one-term before even his MSM acolytes figure out he's an empty suit, he decides to stuff the Senate with Greenista extremists, Sharia-law apologists and any Liberal bagmen he can find. If he's lucky perhaps a working majority of the Senate will be dominated by his appointees.

Now run through the scenarios. A bill to allow for the construction of a national pipeline is thrown out by the Senate because a clutch of Greenista Senators obstruct it. They have decided to sit and act as independents. The bill might be overwhelmingly popular and be vital for the national economy, but now independently minded Senators have decided that the interests of the Saskatchewan spotted duck over ride the economic needs of millions of ordinary Canadians. 

The current Senate, appointed with superannuated political hacks, understands that it's seen as illegitimate. The good Senators know their job is to smile and nod. Perhaps tinker a bit here and there on some piece of legislation, perhaps even push for a serious amendment on solid constitutional grounds. Run a few committees of marginal benefit to the legislative process. Otherwise their job is to keep out of the way of the Commons. An unelected Senate energized with a sense of divine purpose could serve as a major obstruction to the political process.

The bagmen and the aging talking heads are not pleasant sights. They are something of a blot on the body politic. The alternative of independently minded Senators, within an unreformed and unaccountable Senate, is far worse.

 

Comments

[Jim Whyte]

A sensible position. I would add that Brown's comment about representing the interests of the provinces is historically illiterate constitutional gangsta rap. The Senate was meant to represent property, not province; provinces had their own legislatures for all provincial concerns.

To admit that one level of government has the right and duty to take decisions on what the other level does would also mean that the national government should do the same...maybe, oh, I dunno, by having a Legislative Council of the pre-Confederation type appointed by the GG-in-Council? Try that one on for size, Bert.

And don't suppose that the powers of reservation and disallowance were the national counterpoise to the Senate "representing" provincial interests. That, to quote an avatar of provincial rights, was to "secure that no injustice be done in provincial legislation".