"Deep in the forest something stirred."

Canada is a land of vast forests, wide prairies, large lakes, great rivers, and a population of over 30 million people, many of whom think they live in a democracy.

They don't, and they won't, at least until they no longer sanction membership of one House of Parliament being entirely selected by one individual.

February's issue highlighted a Gallup Poll finding that Canadians expressed a wish to elect superior court judges, and extrapolated that they also wished to elect their own members of the Canadian Senate.

A plea was made that some future aspirant to leadership would unconditionally pledge that:

"If I become Prime Minister I will not appoint anyone to the Senate until that person has been elected by the qualified voters in the province which that person is to represent."

By a singular coincidence, within days a position paper was issued by a parliamentary coalition caucus detailing steps which should be taken to achieve a Triple E senate, meaning an equal, elected, effective senate. Needless to add, the paper had been in preparation for many moons, and the concept of a Triple E senate had been batted around for many, many moons before that.

Indeed, when outlining the paper's contents, former Prime Minister Joe Clark said reform of the Senate had been included years ago in his party's election manifestos.

Given that an unelected Senate is completely indefensible in a country widely thought to be a democracy, the question must be asked why has it taken so long to effect a change? The Constitution is the reason, and changing the Canadian Constitution is something that politicians in all parties dread tackling.

It takes years and years of haggling between federal and provincial governments to reach consensus, with loopholes left through which a coach and four may be driven by any province invoking what is called a notwithstanding clause.

Absent a reference to the Supreme Court as advocated in January, (see Democratic Rights Denied in Canada) and the almost certain rejection by one or more provinces of equality of numbers in a Triple E senate, let's do what we can with what we have and, for now, proceed to elect a strong leader who will tell the Canadian people in the plainest of terms:

"If I become Prime Minister I will not appoint anyone to the Senate until that person has been elected by the qualified voters in the province which that person is to represent."

One province, Alberta, did hold its own Senate election some years ago. The way is clear. Changing the Constitution is not a pre-requirement.

Canadians are awake to the possibilities. It is the stick-in-the-muds, those with vested interests, political and otherwise, who fight to retain the spoils of patronage, who are the obstacle, not the Constitution.

Is there a Canadian leader who has the courage to say:

"If I become Prime Minister I will not appoint anyone to the Senate until that person has been elected by the qualified voters in the province which that person is to represent."

"The longest journey begins with a single step."

Should a future Canadian Prime Minister take that step, the stirring in the forest will grow stronger and stronger, and Canada will be one step closer to becoming a democracy.