Thursday, May 17, 2007

University of Ottawa professor Errol Mendes and a bevy of other hand-wringing academics might be right: the government's tentative steps in the direction of an elected Senate may be ill-conceived and bad for Canada ("How Senate reform hurts the West," May 14). On the other hand, it may also be that Mr. Mendes and most of the others who oppose incremental Senate reform have a weak grip on the essential tenets of democracy and are prepared to gloss over the price this country has paid for its failure to reform national democratic institutions.

I can think of no other country on the planet where the prime minister has the power to personally appoint one entire legislative chamber. It is inconceivable to me that such an institution, appointed at the whim of one man (or woman), should then be seen as somehow representing the needs and aspirations of the regions and components of the federation.

The starting point of any analysis of the Senate should be its fundamental undemocratic nature. Analysts who decry efforts to reform this antiquated chamber should admit that they would never recommend the Canadian Senate as a model for the establishment of new democracies anywhere in the world. And they should recognize that much of the cynicism that prevails in Canada -- a "mature" democracy -- arises from the kind of cronyism that is enshrined in the senatorial appointment process.

Some analysts, Mr. Mendes included, are making much of the regional inequity that will result if the Senate is elected without addressing the number of seats that are allocated to each province. Nova Scotia has 10 seats, British Columbia has six, and the perpetuation of this kind of imbalance is seen as sufficient reason to jettison the attempt to elect senators.

The problem here is that the Senate has never fulfilled an authentic representative role because it lacks democratic legitimacy. Unless and until the legitimacy question is dealt with -- by, for example, starting to elect senators -- there is no point in quibbling over the level of representation between provinces.

Critics of the current initiative also argue that electing senators somehow violates the Canadian Constitution. Mr. Mendes, for example, is in full dudgeon when he declares that "undermining the Constitution is hardly a democratic value of Canadians." But he knows full well that Senate reform by formal constitutional means -- involving the provinces, territories, and federal government -- has been effectively foreclosed. When it comes to issues such as Senate reform the Constitution is a straightjacket, and people who argue we should only proceed by formal means are in effect closing the door on long-overdue changes in the processes and institutions of government.

The proposal of the Harper government, to simply appoint senators who are elected at the provincial level, is a sensible first step on the road to democratic reform. I believe it will serve as a tipping point that will lead to other changes -- not the least of which will be reforms in the role of MPs and the archaic practices of the House of Commons. And politics in our country will be much the better for it.

Electing senators is the right thing to do because it will enhance and enrich our democracy. A more legitimate Senate will give this country a chance to accommodate regional hopes and aspirations rather than having them channelled through protest parties and provincial capitals.

And in the end we may see the growth of a Canadian identity that is something more than a collection of squabbling provinces and federal politicians who have trouble distinguishing their personal interests from the public interest.

Blair Williams is a retired professor of political science who lives in Glengarry County. He is former national director of the Liberal Party of Canada.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007