A tiny step toward Senate reform

The Harper government has tabled a constitutional amendment that would limit newly-appointed Senators to eight years in office:

...the Conservatives introduced a constitutional amendment to limit new senators to eight-year terms.

As it stands, senators can serve until they are 75 years old, regardless of what age they were when appointed.

Under Harper's proposal, current senators will still get to serve until they are 75.

Parliament can approve the amendment, which doesn't require provincial approval, said the government.

There are seven vacant Senate seats: two from Ontario and one each from Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec.

But Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said forcing new senators to sit for just an eight-year term won't make any difference.

"I think it's not a democratic institution. It's not because they will be there eight years, it will be more democratic — it's not democratic period," he said.

The perfect is the enemy of the good, and while this reform doesn't even come close to what is needed - namely, having all Senators elected, with an equal number from each province (or, at least, a more balanced distribution between the provinces) - it will at least end the farce of political hacks recieving lifetime employment at public expense. There's a lot more to be done, but it's a start.

Changing the composition of the Senate, or bringing in a process through which Senators are elected, will be much more difficult: the necessary constitutional amendment would likely require the approval of at least seven provinces with 50% of the Canadian population between them. In other words, it's a non-starter unless Ontario or Quebec can be brought on side. Meanwhile, the Liberals, true to form, are invoking Godwin's Canadian Law:

While the new legislation is likely to be adopted, further moves may get a considerably more frosty reception. Bill Graham, the interim Liberal leader, said reform could create new divisions in the country.

"[The Liberal government] found that the Senate was doing a good job as it was originally conceived in the Constitution -- not as an active upper House, active in opposition to the House of Commons -- but rather, as a place where reflection could take place. Much good work has been done in the Senate ... but that is not the same as saying we'll have another House, which would create a series of strains between the House of Commons and the Senate.

"Anybody who watches relations in the Congress of the United States between the House of Representatives and the Senate will know it's a totally different system when you have two Houses battling it out over turf and who is going to speak for the people on any given issue."

Damian P.

Posted by damian at May 31, 2006 07:43 AM