Senate Reform - One year and counting

If you had the opportunity to choose between two systems of representation, would you prefer a candidate who's contested the election and received his mandate from the voters or would you prefer someone appointed by the governing party, without receiving a single vote from the people he would be representing? Would you prefer a lawmaker with a limited term mandate, who could be voted out of the office if his constituents decide so or would you rather have the lawmakers stay in the legislature for decades without going to the voters?

If you choose a representative who is elected for a fixed term - then we have a common ground on Senate reform. We may disagree on everything else but at least we both agree that a lawmaker elected by the people for an 8-year term is better than a non-elected appointee that's going to hold his seat until he turns 75. Too bad most of the Liberal MPs and Senators don't agree with that.

Both Australia and the US had moved towards elected Senate long ago. In fact, the system which is proposed by the Harper government would resemble the Australian model. With the Senators elected to a twice longer term than MPs, we would end up having half of our Senators going to the voters in every general election. Just as in Australia, the Senators would be elected province-wide, using a Single Transferable Vote.

Of course, unlike Australia, we would still have the "grandparented" Senators, some of whom are scheduled to retire only in 2030s. I'd like to believe that once we start electing our Senate nominees, some current Senators will choose to resign and contest an election to win their seat back. However it looks like most of the Liberal Senators not only wouldn't want to let go of their seats (which would be "grandparented" anyway) but they also wouldn't want to let go of their majority status in the Senate.

Senate bill S-4, which would limit Senate tenure to 8 years was introduced one year ago today. It took nearly 8 months for the bill to get out of the Special Committee on Senate Reform and pass the second reading. Then it went back to the committee, this time on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. That's where the bill is now. The Liberals have a 3:1 majority in the Senate, so they don't need to work overtime to have the bill stalled.

Neither do they welcome another Senate Reform bill (C-43), that would make Senate nominees elected. (Technically they'd still be appointed by the PM, but the list of nominees would be compiled in a province-wide election.) The bill was introduced in December but hasn't moved beyond the second reading debates so far. The Liberals do their best to obstruct the bill. Most likely they look forward for the next election, after which they hope to fill the vacant Senate seats with the nominees of their own, thus perpetuating Liberal majority in the Senate. The NDP calls for abolishing the Senate so they oppose the bill that would give the Upper Chamber the legitimacy from the voters. The Block? Elected Senate doesn't add to the Separatist cause, they know that. So don't expect them to support the bill.

The Conservative party, frustrated with the Liberal filibustering over the Senate reform has launched a series of ads, calling Stephane Dion not a leader. Some consider that to be a personal attack. I don't think so. A true leader is concerned about the next generation, not about the next election. So if all Dion can dream of is winning a minority (or a coalition with NDP) next election and turning a 3:1 Liberal majority in the Senate into a 4:1 majority - he is truly not a leader.