A great time for sober second thoughts

Stephen Harper made an excellent point back in 2006, when he warned us all about the dangers of an appointed Senate that could “interfere with the democratic will of the elected House.” And earlier this week, he finally got the chance to prove his point – by directing his own appointed senators to do the very thing he condemned.

If you’ve been following the national news in the wake of yesterday’s coverage of the killing of Bill C-311 by unelected Conservatives in the Senate, then you’ve probably read the phrase “sober second thought” here and there. If that’s the case, then you’ve stumbled on an interesting part of our democratic history.

The Canadian Parliament, as this item on the CBC explains, has two houses: “the elected lower house, known as the House of Commons, and the appointed upper house, known as the Senate.

“Both houses are involved in the passing of legislation,” the CBC continues. “Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada’s first prime minister, said the Senate was to be a place of ‘sober second thought’ so that legislation would receive proper, careful consideration before finally becoming law.”

Now, maybe that’s an odd choice of words, coming from one of the most renowned binge drinkers in Canadian history, but it’s still an apt description of the Senate. As the CBC explains, “according to its original design, it provides checks and balances for Canada’s parliamentary system.”

That’s the way it’s supposed to work, at least. Either house can generate legislation, but it’s got to pass through both houses before it becomes law. Most bills are introduced by the House of Commons – including Bill C-311, which is the reason why it’s tagged with a “C” instead of the “S” that designates Senate bills. Regardless of who introduces a bill, each house must approve it separately, through a series of readings and votes.

“Both houses of Parliament can pass, amend, delay or defeat bills,” the CBC explains. “Senators do not usually delay or defeat legislation already passed by MPs, but they can reject bills and they will.”

With all of that in mind, what’s the problem? Why was the Senate’s decision to kill Bill C-311 such a big deal?

First of all, there’s little doubt that the order to kill the bill was handed down by Harper himself. As I mentioned yesterday, Bruce Hyer, the NDP MP who introduced the bill, has said that he had been told by Conservative senators that Harper’s office had warned them not to talk about the bill publicly, or allow it to be debated. And if you’ve been following the Harper government, then you’ll know that this approach is basically par for the course.

Second of all, Harper’s direction of his appointed senators flies in the face of his longstanding pledge to reform the Senate. “Although members are currently appointed,” the CBC explains, Harper “has often said his intention is either to transform the Senate into an elected body or abolish it altogether.” What he’s done instead is use the appointed Senate to override the will of a majority of elected representatives in the House of Commons. It’s exactly what he used to rail against, back in the days when the Senate was jam-packed with Liberals.

“He’s lost his moral centre,” Jack Layton is quoted as saying. “He’s fundamentally undemocratic… He broke his promise never to appoint unelected senators, and now, he’s using them to subvert the will of this House.”

In other words, Harper’s own hypocrisy on the Senate has a funny way of proving his original point. He warned us about this sort of thing when he was trying to get elected, and then he made it happen once he was in power, for his own political gain.

Here’s hoping that Conservatives and swing voters who have had enough of Harper at the helm will put some “sober second thought” into their votes in the next election. Their party, and our country, deserve a democratic leader.

Posted in Democracy