Prime Minister Harper has floated the notion of Senate reform and fixed date elections.

His long time objective has always been to change the Senate from an appointed body to an elected body. His interim proposal is to limit the term of a senator to eight years.

In partnership with fixed senate terms he would establish fixed election dates for members of Parliament (every four years on the third Monday of October beginning in 2009). U.S. elections occur every four years on November 4th. This newspaper endorses Mr. Harper’s proposals as do others. However, before joining the stampede, one should consider the potential consequences of Mr. Harper’s “reforms”.

A change in the term of Senate appointments would require a constitutional amendment or a contractual agreement with the Prime Minister. The problem with a contractual agreement is that the contracting prime minister might not be in office when the eight year term expired and the senators contracted might choose to ignore a contract with a prime minister or a political party no longer in office.

The last time the term of office was changed was in 1965 when age 75 was adopted as the mandatory retirement age for senators. Constitutional change now requires the agreement of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces with the aggregate population of at least fifty per cent of Canada. That means that constitutional change would not be possible without the agreement of one or the other of Ontario or Quebec.

Fixed election dates seem harmless enough. Some would argue they would prevent a government from timing an election to its advantage. Others suggest that fixed election dates would permit better planning. Fixed dates could also prevent a government from asking the people for approval (vote) to go to war or to make some immediate and fundamental changes to the tax system.

Fixed date elections could also lengthen the time frame for elections as in the United States where a combination of primaries to elect candidates and election campaigns carry on for nearly a year.

There are some contradictions in the fixed date proposal. A government could lose the confidence of the House of Commons and trigger an off-date election in the middle of February. The date of the next election would then be set four years hence in the month of February, not October.

Minority governments would have no assurance of a four year fixed term and the only real change would be that governments could no longer stretch their mandates to five years as Richard Hatfield and others have done in the past.

One also has to wonder whether a majority government with a fixed four year term would be as accountable as a government that could be forced to go an election on a matter of great importance to the electorate.

Look at circumstances in the United States. The U.S. President has lied to his people for the last four years about Iraq and his justification for invasion. His government is riddled with corruption. 70% of American voters disapprove of his performance but the only way they can remove him from office before 2008 is by impeachment and that would be a messy process.

I have no problem with the idea that governments should be required to meet the electorate at least every four years instead of five but I think the notion of fixed terms in a parliamentary system is a fool’s paradise.

People have been calling for Senate reform in Canada for more than a century. In the past thirty or forty years there have been more than 30 proposals for reform. When Stephen Harper was a member of the Reform Party, predecessor to the Alliance Party and today’s Conservative Party he was part of an Alberta voice demanding a Triple-E Senate (equal representation from every province, elected representatives and effective powers). There was never mention of shorter terms for appointed senators.

Alberta continues to lobby for an elected senate. Ontario wants no part of an elected senate, indeed Premier McGinty and others have called for abolition of the Senate.

Significant reform of the Senate, while desirable is highly unlikely given the Constitutional amending formula and the divergence of opinion in respect to what if any reforms should be implemented. The issue is not term of office but power and influence. If every province had 10 elected senators, New Brunswick’s influence on national affairs would be equal to Ontario’s. The problem is that Ontario would likely reject the idea because in relative terms, they would lose power.

Mr. Harper told a national newspaper recently that he expects that senatorial candidates will be on the ballot in the next federal election. He says he’ll change the method for Constitutional amendment even without consulting the provinces.

The existing formula protects us from such end-runs. In my view the only way he could by-pass the Constitutional process would be to hold a national referendum where a majority of two thirds or more would compel the provinces, the Senate and the House of Commons to reform the Senate consistent with a formula that would be put forward as part of the referendum question.

Predictability and fixed entities sit in contrast with federal-provincial bickering over “equalization” and fiscal imbalances.

David Ganong reminded us recently that equalization is not about sharing the wealth; it’s about ensuring that every Canadian has access to comparable levels of public service. He’s right. Every federal provincial squabble over money diminishes us as a country.

Maybe an elected Senate with equal representation from each province could generate the national consensus that provinces cannot.

Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at heronplace1@rogers.com