Harper calls out Senate critics

Edmonton Sun ^ | 2006-09-10 | Paul Stanway

[Clive]

Now and again Canadians get a tantalizing glimpse of the sort of radical innovator Prime Minister Stephen Harper might be if he were operating with a majority, instead of the half-mandate he was handed at the last election.

One such glimpse came last week, when Harper appeared before a Senate committee and pretty much told Senator Jim Munson to "bite me" when Jean Chretien's former media flack complained that the PM wanted to make reform of Parliament's upper chamber an issue in the next election.

"There are critics who believe that you would like nothing better than to fight an election on the back of Senate reform," sniffed Munson.

"Well, don't give me the opportunity," Harper shot back.

Nice little vignette that: Unelected former television reporter feigns outrage that an elected prime minister might actually give ordinary voters the opportunity to pass judgment on Senate reform. Prime minister cuts him off at the knees.

It was a "just watch me" moment - at least for those of us old enough to remember Pierre Trudeau's response to an incredulous reporter who couldn't believe the former Liberal PM was tough enough to actually use the War Measures Act against Quebec's FLQ separatist terrorists.

Harper was appearing before the Senate committee to explain his plan to limit senators' terms to eight years. Right now you have to be 30 years old to qualify for a Senate appointment, with mandatory retirement at 75. So in theory a senator could be on the public payroll for 45 years.

"We are seeking limited, fixed terms of office, not decades based on the antiquated criteria of age," explained Harper. "Years of delay on Senate reform must come to an end."

There can be no moral or logical opposition to such straightforward reform of an institution that has for so long been an ugly wart on Canadian democracy. There is only the self-serving opposition of patronage wallowers like Munson, and the cowardice of politicians who defend the undemocratic status quo.

But Munson was right about one thing. The prime minister would like to give Canadian voters a role in Senate reform as early as the next election. He told the committee term limits for senators are just the first step. He hopes to run Senate elections in conjunction with the next federal vote.

I'd bet that in just about any other democracy that revelation would have headlined the evening television news and the following morning's newspapers. After 139 years we have a leader with the guts to democratize the Senate!

One national newspaper did top its front page with this, and Harper's appearance before the Senate got some television coverage. But generally the news that Canadians may get to vote for all their federal representatives was given ho-hum coverage.

We can hope that says more about the boredom with constitutional stories that permeates Canada's self-absorbed media than it does about public opinion. But even some longtime crusaders for Senate reform don't get what Harper is trying to do.

Bert Brown, one of Alberta's elected Senate nominees and a founder of the modern Senate reform movement, is still holding out for a more perfect model of reform - which, ironically, is the same fig leaf Munson, Paul Martin, Chretien, and the federal Liberal party hides behind.

"He believes in a federal system of electing senators," Brown says of Harper's plan. "We believe they should be elected by the people of each province."

Well, in a perfect world that's how it might work. But that would take a constitutional amendment, and I'm told that currently only Alberta, B.C., and maybe Nova Scotia would co-operate. It's just not a realistic option.

The alternative is for Harper to do what he can, and challenge federal and provincial opponents of Senate democracy to come out of the weeds and explain to Canadians why they cannot be trusted to elect half of their national parliament.

Give Harper credit. No other Canadian prime minister has ever done as much.

[Clive]

Our constitution is a mix of British and Canadian statutes, together with an unwritten component made up of tradition inter-governmental negotion and precedent setting events. Some of the negotiations, events and nascent traditions are not recognized at the time as either precedent-setting or constitution-making.

In other words, our constitution and our development as an independent nation took place in successive fits of absent-mindedness.

Harper's attendance at a Senate committee meeting may well be just such a constitution-making event.

[goldstategop]

The appointed Senate is currently Liberal-dominated. It would resist its own demise. But as a political matter, its hard even for the Liberals to justify lifetime tenure for politicians and the idea of an appointed Senate is an anachronism in the 21st Century. If Stephen Harper's critics try to defend the status quo, they'll be the ones on the defensive before the Canadian people.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )

[fanfan]

Canada ping.

Please send me a FReepmail to get on or off this Canada ping list.