Editorial
So what’s the big deal about reforming the Senate ?

It’s interesting how so many of our political leaders preach about the need to reform our parliamentary system, at either the provincial or federal level, then manage to do either nothing, or make a few little changes that are more cosmetic than anything else.

Former premier Mike Harris used to talk about the value of holding referendums. When was the last time you were asked to vote in a referendum?

But Harris did find a way to reduce the number of seats in the provincial legislature, with some confident assurances that it would save taxpayers money. Whether, in fact, it has, and whether it’s been an overall benefit to the people of Ontario is hard to determine, meaning no one could prove it’s been a detriment either. That alone made it an attractive move for Harris.

Heading into the last provincial election, then opposition leader Dalton

McGuinty pledged there would be more free votes in the legislature. The exceptions were to be on items contained in the budget, speech from the throne or campaign platform. Even local Liberal MPP Greg Sorbara agreed at the time that didn’t leave a whole lot else on which to hold free votes, but it sure sounded good.

In the interim, McGuinty has pushed through legislation to fix the dates of elections, another one of those measures that sounds good on the surface, but in fact amounts to very little.

Now we have Prime Minister Stephen Harper talking about Senate reform, with people being able to vote on who they would like to see appointed the the Upper House of the Canadian Parliament, in the hopes that the PM heeds their good advice.

Harper has said that will make the Senate “more democratic and more accountable.”

But what is being done to make the House of Commons “more democratic and more accountable?”

Let’s remember that the House is the chamber where all the members are elected, yet a rigid party discipline is practiced, with Harper and his unelected aids calling the shots. The stories we’re hearing these days is members of Harper’s Conservative caucus are expected to obey the direction

they are given, without question. Grumblers are given the boot, as former cabinet minister Garth Turner learned the hard way a couple of months ago. And there has still been no clear word of exactly what it was that Turner did wrong.

If the voters sent Conservatives to Ottawa to represent them, then their duly-elected voices in the federal government are mere foot soldiers for them that hold power.

Addressing that question would be a great way to initiate some useful parliamentary reform.

But why bother? Harper has been able to put forth an idea for Senate reform that makes him look like he’s doing something, when in fact he’s doing next to nothing.

If nothing else, Harper is implementing practices that have worked before for other governments. Why should he be any different?