The Editor:
Re. "Should Canada's Senate be reformed or eliminated?" (Face to Face, The Tri-City News, April 13).
Both Face to Face columnists Andy Radia and Jim Nelson think of the Senate in its current form as "proof-readers." This may well be the case today since Prime Minister Stephen Harper has appointed almost no one who merits attention, save for a skier, a number of journalists and an illiterate sports figure.
Multiplying the number of elections at the federal level will not increase our democracy, especially since Prime Minster Harper's moves are not exactly constitutional in the first place, a point Mr. Radia misses. Harper's changes mean we will be bogged down in endless court challenges.
A strong and stable government, indeed.
And if Mr. Harper's vision of the House of Com-mons as having "stand-alone" supremacy over an elected Senate ever succeeds, then the significance of the Senate will again diminish in the eyes of Canadians. I foresee elections for the Senate will be about as popular as the civic vote, which are notable for incredibly low turnouts.
An elected body at the federal level can only be equal to another elected body at the federal level, and this has fundamental implications because it overturns the whole of the Canadian constitution. In other words, a triple-E Senate is for those who think of our constitution as some sort of comic book, as if any government with a majority can change it at a whim.
More elections, in-creased partisanship and marketplace competition are not the answers to all our public problems. Look to the United States today with all its checks and balances - and intractable politics. Who wants that?
I would say an element of considered thought is desirable. And Canada's Senate achieved just that in 2006 with its ground-breaking document "Out of the Shadows at Last," which made the persuasive case for a national approach to mental health and addiction. Such an initiative could not have been made with everyone vying for elections. Here the Senate was doing far more than mere proof-reading.
Scrapping the Senate is comic-book stuff but I do foresee meaningful changes to the institution in the future. Once Prime Minister Harper retires from politics (about 20 years from now), a wise legislator will introduce the rule (because there will be no effective opposition) that the PM is required to appoint a proportion of Senators who do not belong to the ruling party.
Paul Martin appointed at least three Senators who were not Liberals, and these were people generally recognized for their competence. Let's just hope that in 20 years, there will still be persons of public virtue - unsullied by government market mantra and meriting an appointment.
Joerge Dyrkton, Anmore
