The Editor,
Re. "Senate scrutiny" (Opinion, The Tri-City News, Jan. 30).
I would like to respond to the above-referenced editorial, starting with this statement: "Certainly, most Canadians outside of Ottawa would rather see the costly house of sober second thought demolished completely."
This is a questionable claim. It is obvious that some, even many, think this, but that's a far cry from "most," and far from certain. I have seen a number of polls that do seem to lend some support but they also tend to involve self-selected participation, which has no statistical validity, or are constrained or slanted to favour such an outcome.
Your editorial finishes by stating, "Paying more people to go over the same decisions that elected parliamentarians already make is a waste of time and money."
This grossly understates the key role of the Senate as a check on the unbridled power of the House of Commons, as well as its role as a representation-by-region mechanism protecting less populous regions from the representation-by-population dominance of other regions.
The further innuendo that as an appointed body it is somehow less legitimate than the "elected parliamentarians" is also misguided, though fashionable these days.
There is a whole legitimate debate about an elected vs an appointed Senate. Electing the Senate would unquestionably change its character, though not necessarily for the better. An elected Senate would, by necessity, be far more politically active and aggressive, and probably of a similar nature as the House of Commons itself.
But electing everyone is not some panacea. It is not necessary for a vibrant and healthy democracy that every high office be elected; it's sufficient that these cleanly derive from, and with the proper oversight of, an elected House of Commons, as Liberal leader Justin Trudeau proposes.
Ron McKinnon,
Port Coquitlam
(Mr. McKinnon is president of the Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam Federal Liberal Association.)
