December 13, 2006
[SPECIAL NOTE: You can now submit your letters from our site. Click here, compose your letter in the box provided, choose a newspaper to send it to, and send the letter!
PLEASE use the site if you can - it allows us to track how many letters-to-the-editor have been sent.]
****
It’s not a huge issue and may even be designed to fail but it is still important not to let Stephen Harper peddle this junk (see Globe and Mail story Dec. 13, 2006) as democratic reform. It is nothing of the sort and it could even be argued that it is a cynical ploy to bring government into gridlock. As it stands now the appointed Senate clearly has less legitimacy than the House of Commons and traditionally is not supposed to actually prevent the government from passing legislation. It is the institute of “second sober thought” intended to alert the elected House to weaknesses or flaws in the legislation it examines.
But if it were elected - even in the phony manner suggested by Harper where he still gets to make the appointments - senators would suddenly see themselves as just as legitimate as their H of C counterparts. That could being about a situation where it might be almost impossible to pass legislation. If Harper’s move is an interim step to a fully elected senate with powers equal to the H of C then gridlock would be certain – unless there was a clear mechanism for breaking legislative impasses.
Then you have a republic. If the two Houses didn’t have equal powers (the Senate now can’t introduce money bills) then democracy, in terms of outcomes and checks and balances, would be not be served any more effectively.
WRITE A SHORT LETTER... using the above and the points below (assuming you agree!)...
-
Stephen Harper’s planned legislation for electing senators is a
fraud/political ploy/publicity stunt/deliberate attempt to distract
people from his failures as a Prime minister (Afghanistan, global
warming, vicious cuts to women’s programs).
-
this legislation is typical of Harper - father knows best, he just
introduces it with arrogance and no consultation with anyone - not other
parties, not the provinces, not the public. It is laughable to see this
imperial style being used to make Canada more democratic.
-
whatever is done with the Senate it has to be done legitimately
through constitutional change - not at the political whim of a prime
minister down on the polls.
-
having elected senators in the manner suggested will actually
undermine the functioning of democracy by giving the Senate more
legitimacy and increase the likelihood that the two House of Parliament
will becoming deadlocked over important legislation - with the Senate
refusing to pass legislation passed by the House of Commons. Maybe this
is what Stephen Harper actually wants.
-
the Senate has many problems, among them that it is totally
unrepresentative: BC and Alberta have populations of 4 million people
yet just 6 senators while PEI has less than 150,000 and has four. New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia have 10 senators but very small populations.
Giving the Senate more legitimacy just reinforces this blatant inequality.
-
the senate has on occasion played a useful role but to make it an
elected body does not solve its weaknesses. Leave it as is or abolish it
altogether and address democratic reform in other ways.
-
Canada needs democratic reform that puts checks and balances on the
dictatorship of the party that wins elections. The best way to do this
is through proportional representation which forces parties to make
alliances or create coalitions. Minority governments in Canada have
created the best policies, social programs and services we have.
Click here to SEND YOUR LETTER NOW!
« back to index
