Harper, his two faces, and the Senate

Early this week, Harper attempted to reassure Canadians that a Liberal-dominated Senate would be a check on Tory power. In other words, a Conservative government would be unable to implement extreme right-wing policies due to the fact that the Senate and the Supreme Court judges are largely Liberals-appointed. Suddenly, I got this warm fuzzy feeling inside that maybe a Tory government would not be the end of the world after all.

Then kaboom. As we say in French, “Chassez le naturel, il revient au galop” meaning “once a thief, always a thief” or even better “once a liar, always a liar”. Two days later, he claimed that a Senate rejection of a bill restoring the definition of marriage to “a man and a woman” only would be an “obvious abuse of power by the Senate”. He carried on saying that the Senate should be elected, not appointed.

Canada's first Prime Minister, John A. Macdonald described it best. According to him, the Senate is a body of "sober second thought" that would curb the "democratic excesses" of the elected House of Commons (Wikipedia). Further, he believed that the primary purpose of the Senate was to “calmly consider the legislation initiated by the popular branch, and preventing any hasty or ill-considered legislation which may come from that body” (Parliament Library).

Historically, the Senate rarely opposes the House of Commons. In this sense, its role is one similar to an insurance policy. You hope you’ll never have to use it, but you’re glad it’s there if something goes really wrong. You’ll have to excuse my lack of faith in the masses. In an ideal world, all voters would be smart, non-prejudiced, and informed. In reality, it’s not case. A democracy is not only about the ruling majority, it’s also about minority rights. So what if 47% of the population is narrow-minded, against human rights, and gay marriage (43% is not and 9% is unsure (Leger Marketing,2005)? The Senate may be the only chance that Canada has to compensate for its bigoted majority. If it decides to block the bill, it wouldn't be an 'abuse power'. It would only be performing its role!

The Senate is populated with well-rounded individuals who would make a well-rounded decision in this hypothetical situation. They are not solely appointed on the basis of their political affiliation, but on the basis of their achievements. They are wise, intelligent, respected individuals with an array of expertise. It’s worth taking a look at the biographies of each Senators (Librairy of Parliament)

Electing the Senate would go against it’s raison d’être. I would prefer to abolish it rather than wasting money on another mass-driven institution.And seriously, who needs another election when we know it costs 200 million dollars?(Election Canada)