National Affairs
Senate change more democratic
Claire Hoy
It is not entirely unfair to describe Canada's unelected Senate as "a taskless thanks." Yes, the Senate performs many tasks, some of which are even useful, e.g. they review new legislation, and over the years various senators have conducted lengthy investigations into matters of public interest.

Even so, as unpopular as elected politicians may be, the Senate is even more unpopular, thanks to its' primary roll as a repository for partisan cheerleaders. There are many people - NDP Leader Jack Layton among them - who want to nuke the entire institution. Layton says that in this modern age there is no room for a second tier of politicians in a democratic society, which is why he wants a national referendum to ask Canadians whether or not they favor abolishing the Senate.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he'd consider Layton's idea to abolish the Senate but that is not his first choice. He'd prefer reform.

That is why earlier this month the Conservatives re-introduced two Senate reform bills that had died in the last session of Parliament, one fixing a Senator's term to an eight-year maximum (as opposed to age 75 now) and the other opening the way for electing Senators by holding 'consultations' with the provinces and encouraging provinces to run Senate elections to pick worthy candidates.

For most people, the mere mention of the Senate induces a giant yawn. It shouldn't. Why? Because despite the unsavory nature of giving so much authority to people whose major credential for the job is past political favor, the Senate is directly involved in every piece of legislation which makes its way through Parliament.

For me, the question is not abolition - pretty well every western democracy has a Senate - but changing it to make it more responsive and, most of all, more democratic.

Which is why, of course, Harper has given any time at all to Layton's proposal for a national referendum on the subject. And why Government House Leader Peter Van Loan, in introducing the Senate reform package, said, "The Senate must change. And if that change cannot happen through reform, then we believe that the Senate should be abolished. This is not our preferred route. We prefer to try to reform the Senate before resorting to abolishing it."

A poll conduced earlier this month for CanWest News Services and Global National found 64 per cent of respondents favored a referendum. Asked to choose between abolition and the status quo, abolition won narrowly 45-41 per cent. When asked to reform the Senate, including making it an elected body, only 24 per cent still favored abolition while 52 per cent favored reform.

The most obvious - and most odious - problem with our current Senate is that Senators are not elected.

That's the thing that got up the nose of Ontario voters in the referendum during the recent provincial election when they overwhelmingly rejected a proposal that would have seen a host of MPPs chosen by political operatives being able to take a seat in the Legislature.

As troubling as that proposal was, those appointees could at least claim an indirect electoral blessing, since they would have been chosen on the strength of their party's showing in the general election. But Senators can't even claim that. Many Senators are very accomplished individuals, but when you get right down to it they are still political hacks, chosen at the partisan whim of the prime minister and not the least bit responsible to the voting public.

Harper, a graduate of the old Reform Party, was long an advocate of the so-called 'Triple-E' Senate, the 'E's' standing for "elected, equal and effective." Obviously the 'elected' part is popular, and there is a good argument that could be done without going through the impossible task of getting the approval of Ottawa and all the provinces for changes to be made. The U.S. Senate also began as an appointed body and only gradually grew into an elected body when various states balked at the notion and began running unofficial senate elections. In Canada, apart from Alberta, and to a lesser extent British Columbia, the other provinces have ignored the issue. Shame.

The 'effective' part of the equation also seems reasonable, but it's the 'equal' part, where all the provinces would have the same number of Senators - just as all 50 U.S. states have two each - where the Triple E breaks down.

That would require a protracted constitutional debate that nobody wants. And while it's one thing to have a system like that for 50 states - where no small group could hold the entire Senate to ransom - it's another thing in Canada, where six small provinces could lord it over the four biggest provinces. Nothing fair or 'equal' about that.

In short, the Triple E Senate is a non-starter. But Senate reform, after decades of talk, may finally become reality.

Imagine.