William Thorsell is a senior fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs
There is something like a gun pointed at the heart of Canada's parliamentary system: the sudden predominance of independent senators.
Senators are not elected. They are not representative by proportion of the population. But the Constitution says they are pretty well equal in power to the people we elect. They must not be allowed to use that power against the will of the House of Commons.
Ratna Omidvar is among seven new senators proposed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last week – a list of good people. But listen to her comments on the CBC:
"Not being bound by partisan policy, being independent, being able to exercise your voice based on your values, I think is a step in the right direction. I function best when I'm able to look at things from my point of view and come to my conclusion. I've seen things go by the side when you're in a box, and we're not in a box."
Well, yes, you are, Ms. Omidvar: You are confined to the strongbox of an appointed person, with no electoral bona fides. You can orate and advocate, but have no right to unduly frustrate or override the will of the Commons. (The Senate must approve almost all Commons' legislation.)
Independent senators now account for 46 of the Senate's 105 seats (including 26 originally appointed as Liberals). There are 17 more independent senators to come, forming a clear majority in the Senate. Nothing but convention – formerly buttressed by party discipline – restrains them from calling the tune over the Commons.
How often will good people such as Ms. Omidvar insist on acting on their conscience to vote down legislation from the Commons? How often will good people faithfully represent their communities and do the same? Once appointed, who holds them accountable for the exercise of their enormous power?
And how often will independent senators succumb to this great new opportunity for lobbyists to disfigure our political decisions? As in the United States, it is much easier to target, say, 15 independent senators who hold the balance among 105 people, than it is to target hundreds of members of Parliament operating under party discipline. This new Senate model risks corruption in the American tradition – worse, corruption of people unelected and secure in place to the age of 75.
Mr. Trudeau says he seeks "a less partisan and more independent institution that can perform its fundamental roles in the legislative process more effectively, including the representation of regional and minority interests … and ensuring that the interests of Canadians are placed before political allegiances."
Are regional and minority interests not now represented in the House of Commons, and protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Is he proposing effectively a second Supreme Court – appointed and unrepresentative – with the right to trump the Commons by reference only to its own convictions?
Peter Harder, Mr. Trudeau's new government representative in the Senate, says the Senate "needs to respect the House of Commons for its elected, representative nature."
Huzzah. But through what mechanisms? Personal restraint cannot be enough. To protect us from the American curse and worse, the Senate itself must limit the time it takes to review legislation from the Commons and commit to approval of all Commons bills in the end. Influence yes; power not. Canada's democracy is at stake.