~ freelance journalist

The latest round of Senate appointments contains a few worthy choices, but like the proposal for electing senators, it’s just tinkering with the Red Chamber when it really needs a major overhaul.

Former Ottawa police chief Vern White, Canola Council President JoAnne Buth and former Conservative MP Norman Doyle will all bring valuable experience to the Senate.

Some of the prime minister’s other choices tend to confirm the place is the very dumping ground Harper complained about in January, 2004.

Buth and the others will still be working in a dysfunctional institution. Last summer, Harper introduced his Senate Reform Act. It doesn’t reform the Senate. It tinkers with the upper chamber by proposing to elect Senators and restrict them to nine year terms. It doesn’t offer any ideas why an elected Senate would be better than the current appointed one.

One elected chamber of Parliament is quite enough to accommodate the differing political views within our country.

If the government truly wants to reform the Senate, it should start by proposing ways to make it relevant. For starters, make it relevant rather than just a rubberstamp for government bills.

Once reformed, take it seriously. It’s been a long time since a government ever acted on the work of the Senate or one of its committees.

If we go the elected route, we’ll end up with dog fights between the Commons and the Senate such as we see on a regular basis between the House of Representatives and the Senate of the American Congress. That’s not a situation we should strive to emulate.

Michael Harrington, a law professor at the University of Montreal, wrote in the Montreal Gazette last year that “efforts to reform the Senate along democratic lines have a definite populist appeal. Upon closer examination, however, the cure might be worse the disease.” Political and constitutional chaos are likely outcomes.

He’s critical both of Senate elections because of their potential to hamstring Parliament and limiting terms because it could encourage senators near the end of their time to act in ways that would benefit their post-Senate careers.

He also says the proposed term limits “so clearly contradict the terms of the Constitution Act that it is hard to see how this change could be effected by ordinary legislation.” Seven provinces representing 50% of the population would have to support the measure and Quebec is already opposed.

Senator Colin Kenny calls Harper’s proposal “a strange quest to fiddle with a system that would work if he would let it. Harper has encouraged the Senate to take a partisan role rather than an independent, fair-minded approach to the issues confronting our society.”

Fellow Senator Hugh Segal says Senate reform is needed to adapt the upper chamber to our times but then supports the Harper initiative uncritically as if this modicum of tinkering is sufficient.

The best reform would be to make the Senate non partisan and encourage senators focus on the problems and challenges facing the country instead of dwelling on the government’s legislative mandate. Senators could all sit as independents instead of members of the Liberal or Conservative party. If they have no issues with legislation coming from the Commons, they should be able to approve it right away. They could still review bills they consider deficient.

Appoint older Canadians who have already demonstrated leadership in business or community interests. The age 75 retirement rule will be an effective term limit. If the government needs suggestions on possible nominees, check the Order of Canada roll.

Let the Senate delve into the tough issues facing our country and the world and propose possible solutions for the government, the Commons and the public to consider. The Harper government should welcome their contributions instead of reacting huffily at every criticism. For example, the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry produced a through report on the troubled forestry sector in July after months of study. In a more logical world, the report would be a good starting point for a debate on future forestry policies, which are important to Canada’s economy.

In recent years, Segal, Kenny and recently-retired Bill Rompkey spearheaded serious committee examinations of poverty, national security and Arctic sovereignty. The government ignores them for no other reason than petty partisanship.

Sometimes, senators are critical of the government, sometimes complimentary. But there’s no denying they’re motivated mainly by trying to improve life in Canada.

Senator Wilfred Moore from Halifax thinks the Senate should be seen as a permanent Canadian think tank. Spending a decade in the upper house would be an attractive option for people who have done a lot for Canada and have little interest in the political to and fro of the day. It would enable them to give back to the country and use their experience and insights to the betterment of us all.

Liberal Senator Jim Cowan says, “It makes no sense to begin the process of Senate reform before we know what we want the institution to look like in the end. … What is the purpose of the Senate? What will be its role, its powers?”

In a column for iPolitics.ca., he suggests term limits could leave senators with “little reason to be accountable to Canadians or to act as a check on the government.”

Any reform discussion has to consider what happens if an elected Senate reached a deadlock with the Commons? “Senators elected for nine years by an entire province will arguably wield more power than MPs, and even more than provincial premiers. And unless changes are made to the provincial representation in the Senate, western voices will be overwhelmed by those from Central and even Atlantic Canada. Surely this is not what the proponents of a Triple-E Senate had in mind. Nothing in Stephen Harper’s proposals would change this.”

Senate reform has to be part of bigger package of democratic reforms to get Canadians re-engaged in national politics, Cowman says. “It makes no sense to call for Senate elections when Canadians already are refusing to come to the polls. The Harper government wants to expand the number of MPs in the Commons, all the while refusing to listen to the current MPs.”