Bill's Bulletin Board
By Bill Rea

I firmly believe that Canada needs some type of parliamentary reform.

With equal emphasis, I believe that we will never see a meaningful version of such reform as long as we leave it up to the politicians.

When I refer to meaningful parliamentary reform, I have in mind a system that will let the people we elect to office in Ottawa (and to Queen's Park as well) work in our best interests, rather than in their own interests, or in that of the party under whose banner they were elected.

What I have no use for is governments (and the crews we currently have running things in Ottawa and at Queen's Park are examples) who come up with meaningless ideas, and trumpet them as some sort of reform.

The fixing of dates for general elections springs to mind. This was a measure that both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Premier Dalton McGuinty have embraced. There was no pressing need for it. The system that was in place, with the leader of the government deciding on the dates for elections, provided that no more than five years passed between them, had worked reasonably well.

Although the heads of the respective governments called the shots, it's impossible to assemble the election machinery in this culture in secret. Election dates, when announced, were invariably the worstkept secrets in the country.

But it made Harper and Mcguinty look good in the eyes of enough voters who believed they were seeing meaningful reform, when in fact they were witnessing nothing.

More of that seems to be cropping up at Queen's Park these days.

Progressive Conservative Bob Runciman has put forth a private member's bill in the legislature calling for Ontario to become the second province (after Alberta) to elect its senators.

And I ask myself "why?"

The role of the Senate in Canada is one of the least understood features of the federal government. The people with seats in the Senate are not elected (apart from the provisions in place in Alberta), and they never have been.

The Senate has traditionally and officially been known as a place of "sober second thought."

If we wish to maintain such "sober second thought," I have trouble understanding exactly how that sobriety is going to be facilitated by adding political and electoral pressures to the mix. I would submit that very concept of sobriety stems from senators not feeling obliged to respond to the whim of the voters, but more to the whim of their wisdom, based on experience acquired over the years.

That is how it should work in theory, and I have lived long enough to know that theory and practice are two different things.

But if we conclude that having an unelected Senate is a bad thing, why not simply do away with it? Why would we want to see another level of politicians representing the same constituents at the federal level? How is that going to benefit any of us?

I think part of the problem is we live too close to the United States, where they have two functioning chambers of elected officials at the federal level. There are those in this country who view such a system, and wish for the opportunity to elect their own senators.

My reaction to that is simple. If you really want to elect your senators that bad, then move south, take the oath of citizenship and Pledge of Allegiance and vote to your little heart's content. Oh yeah, check your health card at the border.

We live in cynical times, which seem to have lasted for as long as I can remember. One of the drawbacks of my profession, I guess, is I am constantly exposed to cynicism.

There are many people who view those on the public payroll as being hogs at the trough, packing away healthy pay cheques and attractive perks, which they perceive have not been earned. It is true that there are a lot of elected officials who don't earn a day's pay, yet somehow pocket their money. The same could be said for a lot of doctors, lawyers, teachers, accountants and community newspaper editors. It should come to the surprise of no one that there are a lot of slackers out there.

I wrote a feature more than 20 years ago, based on an interview I conducted with a senator, and she stated the case very clearly. She said she had been talking about the role of senators with an MP, and had stated there are three types of senators; those who worked diligently, those who did enough to get by, and those who did next to nothing, if not nothing. The MP responded by saying the same situation existed in the House of Commons. The senator told me she replied by stating the same situation exists in every walk of life.

Anyone care to argue that point?

Ironically, I was at a talk given by another Senator, Mac Harb, a Liberal, a couple of weeks ago, and he brought up several issues, including the idea of an elected Senate. He made a couple of points I thought were interesting.

He said he accepts the idea of Senate reform, but stressed there must also be reform to the House of Commons.

He pointed out the house of "sober second thought" is in a position to catch legislation that may have passed through the House of Commons in haste.

I realize that may not be the greatest situation, since it tends to overrule the duly elected representatives. But we currently have a mechanism for a pause to possibly find factors that have been overlooked and worthy of reconsideration. Is there harm caused by such a body?

Harb also raised the issue of who would have more clout; members of the House or Senate. Assuming the sizes of the two chambers don't change, the average elected senator would have more constituents than an MP. That would mean senators would have a legitimate claim for more authority and responsibility. And where is that to come from? Someone would have to give up some clout for the senators to take it on.

And if senators are to be more powerful that members of the House, by what means are we expected to appoint a prime minister. In essence, the prime minister currently governs at the pleasure of the House of Commons. How long would an electorallyempowered senate stand for that?

And do we really need two federal chambers vying for popular support? I hear enough complaints about having just one. What, exactly, are two of them going to accomplish?

So if we assume we only need one elected federal legislature, then the answer is to either abolish the Senate, or leave it alone.

I personally favour the status quo. I like the idea of an informed and somewhat empowered body that's able to keep an eye on things without feeling the need to sniff the political winds every morning.

As well, the Senate provides for geographic-based representation, which I believe is crucial in a vast country like Canada.

If we're going to reform the way our governors govern, let's give some power to the people we actually elect.

I would like to be able to see my elected representative being able to stand up and speak his or her mind, without fear of retribution from some unelected party hacks.

For example, I believe there was nothing wrong with Garth Turner voicing his displeasure over some of the appointments Stephen Harper made to his cabinet. There was everything wrong with Turner being bounced from caucus as a result.

Fix that, and we'll have meaningful parliamentary reform.

Until then . . .