Senate 'reform' dangerous

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the most powerful democratic leader in the world is not the U.S. president. He is our very own Canadian prime minister.

The American head of state routinely finds his agenda blocked by either or both houses of Congress as well as a politically activist Supreme Court. But a Canadian prime minister with a majority government has no checks and balances on his power outside of tradition and his own democratic sensibilities. He controls the House of Commons, the appointed Senate poses few if any obstacles and the Canadian Supreme Court, by custom, generally restricts itself to interpreting, not making, the law.

The University of Ottawa's Ralph Heintzman, a 30-year veteran of the federal public service and creator and head of the federal Office of Public Service Values and Ethics, adds the final -- and most potent -- power-lever in the Canadian prime minister's hands: complete control over his caucus.

Canada is virtually unique among the world's Westminster parliamentary democracies in importing an American political form -- the mass party convention -- to select leaders. Political leaders in both the United Kingdom and Australia are chosen by the caucus, not the party members.

"Canada probably has the most centralized political system in the world," Heintzman says. "The Canadian prime minister is probably the most powerful political executive in the world because there is nothing, once he has a majority in Parliament, to restrain him or her. In most other Westminster democracies, there are peculiarities of the system, which act as checks, formally or informally."

Heintzman points to Britain. Its House of Commons has 650 MPs, over twice Canada's 308, and so large even the majority of government MPs can't sit in the chamber, let alone dream of a cabinet post.

"The prime minister has much less control over his caucus than he does here. Indeed, in some systems, the caucus can throw the prime minister out," Heintzman continues. Former British Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher was deposed in 1991 and her caucus chose her replacement. Former Australian Labour prime minister Kevin Rudd suffered the same fate last year.

"What has enhanced the Canadian prime minister's power is the fact our party leaders are chosen by party conventions, not the caucus, and cannot be deposed by the caucus," Heintzman says. That turns the power relationship upside down. "The leader controls the caucus. The caucus does not control the leader."

Even this democratic deficit pales compared to pounding Canada's square-peg parliamentary democracy into the round hole of an American-style "elected and effective" Senate.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper intends to set fixed, but lengthy, term limits and pressure the provinces to hold Senate elections. Both so-called reforms will proceed with no thought given to their destructive impact on responsible government: Parliament's right and duty to hold the government accountable.

Canada's Senate enjoys identical powers to the House of Commons except it cannot introduce money bills. Empowering the Senate by giving it democratic legitimacy is a recipe for parliamentary gridlock -- and a crippled federal government.

Harper's hostility to activist government is well-known. Is gridlock his real intention despite his reputation as the most controlling and authoritarian prime minister in Canadian history? Certainly his sketchy plan for Senate overhaul leaves these vital issues unmentioned and unaddressed.

Federal senators are federal representatives who should be chosen under a pan-Canadian federal Senate election law. Leaving Senate elections to the whims of provincial governments indicates Harper intends the elected senators to be creatures of those governments. How will this weaken the primacy and power of the federal government? What danger does it pose to the supremacy of the Canadian House of Commons, the confidence chamber?

A coequal, democratically legitimate Senate is a dagger pointed at the heart of Canada's system of responsible government. What mechanism does Harper propose to break frequent, disastrous deadlocks between Senate and Commons? The prime minister is silent. Is he willing to expose his government to routine defeats in a chamber beyond his control?

Elected senators with larger constituencies and longer terms than MPs will automatically enjoy more prominence and power than MPs. That shifts the power balance from the Commons to the Senate -- diminishing the authority of the Commons, including the cabinet and the prime minister.

Let's not draw yet another American Trojan Horse into the heart of our parliamentary system. The selection of party leaders by the party, not the caucus, has already damaged Parliament's effective functioning.

A powerful, independent and elected Senate answerable to provinces could demolish any pretence of a Canadian federal state.

Frances Russell is a Winnipeg

author and political commentator.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition June 1, 2011 A15