Following on last month's item "Hope for a Twenty-first century Canadian Senate" comes two trial balloons being flown by governments in both Canada and Ireland on the subject of Senate reform.

In Canada they take the form of newspaper reports that Liberal government ministers have been holding exploratory talks with certain provinces on the concept of provincial lists from which the federal government could choose persons to be appointed to the Senate.

In Ireland an Oireachtas sub-committee on Senate Reform has issued a report recommending that 50 per cent of an expanded Senate be elected directly by the public, with the other half of the members elected according to the existing vocational panel system, agriculture, the universities, industry, to mention some.

In addition, the present complement of 60 Senators could be increased to allow members from the Six Counties (that part of the Province of Ulster still held by Britain) to become Senators.

That Canada and Ireland should be considering ways to democratize their Senates is to be applauded. In neither instance do the voting public at large have the freedom to chose whom they wish to become Senators. This is an absolute in Canada. In Ireland there is some slight token of public participation, although confined to those qualified to vote by virtue of membership in various panels.

The biggest difference between the two second Houses is that the method of nominating members of the Canadian Senate has remained unchanged since 1867, while the first Irish Senate, established in 1922, was abolished in 1936, reconstituted in 1937, and its composition since then has been influenced greatly by political considerations.

Why is Senate reform in Canada becoming an issue at this particular time? Not hard to answer. Canadians have been demanding an end to patronage appointments to the Senate in ever increasing numbers. And the current Liberal government is heading into a General Election with no certainty of success. Nothing so focuses the attention of a government of any hue than the fear of losing its majority. Hence, the trial balloon of Senate reform.

Balloons are colourful things. Floating high in a summer sky they attract attention from young and old. Some are filled with gas. Others depend on hot air. But they inevitably return to earth.

Will this particular Liberal balloon bring real Senate reform when it returns to earth?

Something more than a balloon is needed to convince a restless electorate that real Senate reform is now in reach. A commitment, cast iron, copper-bottomed, cross-my heart-and-hope-to-die commitment should be given to bring that most undemocratic of all Senates into the Twenty-first century, no matter what the General Election results may bring.

One huge advance to date has been the recent admission by a government minister that a constitutional amendment is not necessary in order to appoint elected Senators.

The message is getting through. Again readers are urged to send e-mails to Martin, Harper, and Layton, this time asking, indeed demanding, that the first steps be taken this year, 2004, to allow Canadian citizens the right to vote for their own nominees to the Senate of Canada.

Your votes in the forthcoming General Election can be crucial in reducing the democratic deficit where it is most blatantly apparent, the non-elected, non-democratic Senate.

There is hope for a Twenty-first century Canadian Senate. And this is the year to begin the process of achieving it.

--30--