"I will not appoint anyone to the Senate unless that person has first been elected "

Repeat.

"I will not appoint anyone to the Senate unless that person has first been elected."

A general election is coming this year in Canada. It will be the first general election to be contested by three new leaders of the principal political parties in Parliament.

Each of those parties has Senate reform as part of its platform. In varying degrees. One would like outright abolition, one would like a Triple E Senate, and one would like the provincial Premiers to agree on a constitutional amendment before tackling the problem.

All agree there is a problem. All bury the problem in their party manifestoes. All dread the same bogeyman--changing the Constitution!

But, as has been pointed out in numerous previous articles, changing the Constitution is not the obstacle. The real obstacle is the unwillingness of party leaders to make a simple personal pledge: "I will not appoint anyone to the Senate unless that person has first been elected."

Canadian people are fed up with manifestoes and party platforms containing promises.

Canadian people are fed up with vague commitments to something called democratic reform, tackling the democratic deficit, giving more "power" to individual MPs. Bully for individual MPs, if they get it, but it means nothing to individual Canadians.

They see an unelected Senate, a Senate for which they pay taxes, a Senate over which they have no control, a Senate which hides behind an outdated provision in the Constitution, and Senators who have come to believe they are the anointed of government, be that government Liberal or Conservative.

Let the party leaders respond to the people's wishes. Let them be judged individually on their personal commitment to Senate reform.

The media of the country cry out for Senate reform.

From the Windsor Star:

"The best way to undo the unilateral appointment process is to have senators elected directly by the people they are supposed to represent."

From the Ottawa Citizen:

"In theory, senators currently represent various province, but in fact they represent the government that appointed them. It would be easy to make the two the same, however, as the prime minister could simply promise to appoint senators on, and only on, the recommendations of the various provincial legislatures. (Which could in turn make such representations based on a popular vote.)

Such a reform would not require….a formal and possibly unreachable constitutional amendment."

What say you, Mr Martin (Liberal), Mr. Layton (NDP), and your Mr. still-to-be-announced Conservative counterpart?

Remember, this is 2004, not 1867.

--30--