Following January's appeal to political party leaders to commit to nominating only elected persons to the Canadian Senate, it appears this is in keeping with the course put forward by academic, Donald J. Savoie, in his recently published.and widely acclaimed study of the public service Breaking the Bargain, from the University of Toronto Press.

At page 282 he writes:

The Senate cries out for reform not only to ensure that the regional perspective is heard and debated in Ottawa, but also to strengthen the capacity of Parliament to hold the executive to account. History tells us, however, that the push for Senate reform must come from citizens to have any chance of success.

"The push for Senate reform must come from citizens."

In other words, if citizens don't tell their party leaders that they want Senate reform, that they demand reform, and that they will hold those leaders responsible if they ignore their cry, the Senate will continue on its merry way, paid for by citizens who have no control over it.

Throughout his book, Savoie mentions time and time again that it is only with the full backing of the Prime Minister of the day that policies and programs come to fruition.

Three new party leaders will contest the coming General Election. No matter what their party platforms and manifestoes proclaim, the successful candidate will later pick and choose what he or she will support as Prime Minister.

If citizens desiring Senate reform want to achieve that end, they will impress on each party leader, in advance of the General Election, that they should give a personal commitment to achieve a new Senate for the Twenty-first century. As a first step, each party leader should make a public declaration, without equivocation or reservation, that "I will not appoint anyone to the Senate unless that person has first been elected "

The shibboleth that an amendment to the Constitution is necessary in order to elect Senators is just that, a shibboleth, fostered by patronage givers and receivers alike.

The much talked about "democratic deficit" is a deficit felt by citizens as a whole as well as by Members of Parliament. Citizens have no democratic right whatsoever when it comes to nominating Senators.

The Senate as it presently exists makes a mockery of democracy in Canada.

As pointed out by Canadian columnist Rick Anderson in a recent article:

A hundred years ago, Australians used citizens' assemblies to force improvements to the British-Canadian parliamentary model. Members of Australia's Senate are now directly elected by the people in each state.

When the United States was founded, members of the U.S. Senate were initially elected by state legislatures. For 100 years, pressure mounted to replace that increasingly corrupt system. During the 1890s and 1900s, the U.S House of Representative tried four times to amend the constitution to require direct election of senators. Each time, the Senate refused.

Fed up, states finally took matters into their own hands, starting with Oregon where voters elected the first two senators in 1906.

Anderson dealt at some length with the fact that the province of Alberta has already elected by ballot its own representatives to the Senate, one of whom has been waiting for years to be nominated by a Prime Minister in Ottawa.

If citizens of Australia, the United States, and Alberta can elect those whom they wish to represent them in a Senate, why can't Canadians in all provinces do the same?

That would cure the democratic deficit where it is most blatantly evident, the non-elected Canadian Senate.

--30--