With the current controversy over the appointments of David Emmerson and Michael Fortier to the Conservative cabinet, I think it’s time to reexamine why we want Senate reform. Many people, including many conservative pundits, are furious over the appointment of Fortier to the Senate, and the Public Works cabinet post. Stephen Harper is being labeled as betraying the Conservative pledge (and long time Reform party policy) to introduce Senate reforms with this move.

The fact of the matter is that appointing a Senator to cabinet is perfectly legitimate. In fact we have had two Prime Ministers who have governed from the Senate. Constitutionally the Senate has virtually equal powers to the House of Commons, but suffers from a democratic legitimacy problem. The irony is that Senators often seem to have more balls than our elected MPs. Recommendations by Senate committees on such issues as defense policy and the legalization of marijuana are great proposals that would be too politically sensitive for MPs to touch. The big question that we should be asking is why do we want Senate reform in the first place?

Harper's idea of using Ralph Klein's incremental plan of reforming the Senate by allowing provinces to elect Senators, and making the Prime Minister obliged to appoint them will probably not address the democratic legitimacy issue. If we have to wait for Senators to retire or die out before we can vote in new ones, then we will be faced with a body that is not fully democratically elected for many years to come. Even once we get to the point when the entire Senate has been elected, will we still have to wait for them to retire before we can replace them? If this is so then will the body actually have the legitimacy to act as a check on the House of Commons? Unfortunately, I think the only way to truly reform the Senate would be through a constitutional amendment, which after Meech Lake and Charlottetown may be next to impossible to accomplish.

However, I think that if you're going to do something, you should do it right. We should not reform the Senate just because democracy gets our rocks off, we should do it so that the upper house of Parliament can act as a check and balance on the House of Commons. What I don't want to see is another Prime Minister like Jean Chrétien who runs the country like a dictatorship from the PMO. The best possible scenario would be to get Quebec to agree to a simple amendment in line with the 17 amendment to the US constitution, without opening up the huge constitutional debates that we saw in the 80's and early 90's. If Quebec could be brought in line, I don't think we'd see significant opposition to Senate reform from the rest of the country.

Besides creating an effective check on the House of Commons, I think that Senate reform can address a number of other issues affecting the Canadian State such as a need for electoral reform, and the democratic deficit. I propose that we institute a system of proportional representation in the Senate. This will open the field to new political parties, and give minority segments of the population a greater say in Parliament (and the policy making process), while retaining the stable governments that we usually see in the House of Commons.

Harper had to make some tough choices when forming his cabinet. The choice to give Montreal a voice in cabinet was not a bad one. He has also said that the appointment is not permanent and that the minister will be expected to contest a seat in the next election. Let's get over this issue, and allow this new government to get some work done.