The Senate’s day has passed
Re: The Right Moment For Reform, editorial, July 28. In the 1860s, Britain was understandably leery of purely democratic institutions, given the excesses of American populist democracy and the chaos after the “democratic” revolution in France. Hence, it patterned the Canadian Senate on the British House of Lords to provide a brake to populist excesses and to enable regional representation.
The peripheral provinces were scarcely populated, their legislatures were poor and weak, and methods of communication were rudimentary. The Canadian Senate was anything but democratic.
The regional provinces are now much stronger, while their premiers are vocal and articulate, and meet frequently for interprovincial conferences. Systems of communication are excellent. The opposition parties, the media, the premiers and the Supreme Court can oppose and/or reject unpopular or unjust legislation. In the final instance (as it should be), voters can reject an unpopular government.
Canadians are already over-governed. To make the Senate relevant only courts legislative gridlock. Should any provincial premier object to abolition of the Senate on the grounds of its necessity, let that premier reintroduce an upper house in his or her jurisdiction.
D.C. McCaffrey, Ottawa. Democracy should be a clear and direct method of electing governments to create the laws of our country. It is senseless to have another layer of bureaucracy with power over our democratic choice. To claim this organization is somehow a “sober oversight” is an insult to all Canadians and disrespect for the freedom and responsibility to make our own choices.
Iain G. Foulds, Spruce Grove, Alta.