The Senate

Stephen Harper has announced the first step in reforming the Senate with elections to fill seat. While this seems to make sense in a democratic parliament, it does fundamentally change the way it is made up and it more fundamental constitutive philosophy. The Senate was conceived as a clear-minded house, independent of the excess and fervor of democracy. It is an antidemocratic element in a democratic institution. We may no long think it is necessary to have this check on democracy but since this is such fundamental change, we should have more than a decree or simple majority in the Common. We should also engage the whole country in discussing the future of the Senate. But there is little discussion about it at all. Some think we should just eliminate it. Some think it should not be changed. Harper’s suggested that the next step, after making Senate nominations an election, is to make it proportional. Exactly what he meant by ‘proportional’ is not yet clear; but if it is simply by population, then what is the different between the two houses? Sure the length of membership differs and their power differs, but on the representative sense they are the same, by population. I think a two-house system may still have its value. I like the U.S. division—one representing equal proportion of the population and the other states. Many of the dissatisfaction, particularly in the West, have been about the uneven distribution of parliamentary seats. This cannot be changed as long as most of the population lives in Ontario and Quebec. But if we have something like the U.S. Senate, each province would have a forum where they can voice their desires equally. It would then balance the geographically uneven Common. And if the power of the Senate remains similar to the power it has now, then it would not an infringement on the government’s operation but would provide a different prospective on legislations and government oversight from the Common. I think this would make for a better and more balance government.