You Call That Leadership?

At first Dion declared that the Liberal party would back term limits for Senators, although he suggested that a term of 12 to 15 years would be preferable. Now, after the objections from the provincial Liberal Premiers (mostly those who want the Senate abolished), the Liberal caucus in the Senate would recommend shelving the Senate reform bills until the Supreme Court decides whether such reforms require consent from the provinces.

The bill S-4 has already spent over half-a-year in the Senate committee that was to determine just that - whether Parliament has the competence to legislate such reform without amending the constitution, which in its turn would require consent from the provinces. The committee didn't find that the consent from the provinces is necessary - same as it wasn't necessary back in 1965 when Senate tenure was limited to the age of 75. But the Liberal caucus in the Senate apparently doesn't find that convincing enough.

So we have a group of unelected politicians willing to have the bill that would impose term limits forwarded to the unelected judges. Those politicians belong to the same Liberal party which had the majority on the committee that has already decided that no constitutional amendment is necessary. The reform is obstructed by the Liberal Senators despite being supported in principle by the Liberal leader. Do we still have just one Federal Liberal party? If so, then what kind of a leadership is that?

While the polls suggest that Canadians didn't like the ads attacking Dion, 52% agree that Dion is not a leader (as opposed to 31% who disagree). Dion's failure to show leadership on Senate reform will benefit the Conservatives regardless of what the Supreme Court says.

If the Supreme Court decides that a constitutional amendment is not required, then the Liberal party will be the only one to blame for having the bill stalled for another year or so. But let's say the Court rules that a constitutional amendment is required. That would block any immediate changes but that would also make it unnecessary for the Conservative government to water down the proposals in order to avoid amending the constitution.

Right now the bill S-4 proposes term limits only for the newly appointed Senators, while the existing Senators would have their terms "grandparented" until the age of 75. But if a constitutional amendment is needed - heck with it, let's apply the 8-year term limit to all Senators. Same with the bill C-43. If using election to compile the list of Senate nominees to be appointed by the Prime Minister actually requires a constitutional amendment, then let's just have the Senators directly elected, leaving the PM out of this. Provincial governments oppose elected Senate? Let's go directly to the voters.

Fully 64 per cent of respondents liked the idea of being able to choose senators for future vacancies in the upper chamber, according to a Decima Research survey, made available exclusively to The Canadian Press.

And a whopping 72 per cent supported limiting senators to eight-year terms.

More >>

So instead of a backdoor deal with the provincial Premiers, we'll have a national referendum held in conjunction with the next Federal election. It would be interesting to see the Liberals during the campaign. Are they going to campaign against the reform which is supported by two thirds of the voters coast to coast? Will the Liberals decide to join the "Yes" campaign, hoping the voters would forget their obstruction and filibustering? Of course the Liberals could choose to remain silent on the issue, pretending it simply doesn't worth mentioning. But would that convince the voters? If anything, staying mute will once again show lack of leadership.

Meanwhile it's up to us to make our voices heard. Using the Great Canadian Wish list to advance the Elected Senate Wish, bringing it to the top 10 is the least we could do.