Let Canadians see if Senate has improved

This is not your father’s Senate. Or at least, that’s the pitch coming from members of Canada’s house of sober second thought these days.

Senators are trying to make Canadians forget controversies such as dubious expense claims and personal misconduct, and convince them the upper chamber is a reformed institution. Or, as changed as it can be without cracking open the Constitution.

Sen. Peter Harder has been on a mission to sell the merits of Justin Trudeau’s tweaks, such as expelling senators from the Liberal caucus and screening candidates through an arm’s-length panel before the prime minister decides whether to appoint them to sit as independent members.

The red chamber is more non-partisan and autonomous, Harder says, though he acknowledged inherent flaws remain, such as the fact that Alberta has only six senators, the same number as the much smaller population of the Atlantic provinces.

“This is really an opportunity for the Senate to reinvent itself,” Harder, the government’s representative in the Senate, has said. “My mantra is that we will be a less partisan, more independent, transparent and accountable, complementary chamber to the House of Commons.”

Sen. Leo Housakos, the chair of Senate committees overseeing budget and communications, boasted of the chamber’s new attitude in a Postmedia opinion column earlier this year: “Canadians work hard to provide for their families. They pay taxes with the expectation that their money will be used respectfully and prudently. That’s why we’re ensuring transparency and accessibility go hand in hand with good governance.”

Canadians can now attend committee meetings and hearings or listen in real time online. That step shows Canadians not only how their taxes are put to use but also how and why decisions are made, he wrote.

It’s a laudable move toward openness, but it doesn’t go far enough. Senators must take the same step MPs took in the 1970s and allow TV cameras to record session debate. The chamber’s move to a temporary home next year offers a chance for senators to walk the talk on transparency, since it’s being wired for television cameras.

Some senators oppose televising because of the cost, estimated at $2 million, while others worry about colleagues playing to the camera. Those concerns pale next to the value Canadians will receive in seeing their representatives at work.

As Harder said, “The fact we aren’t televised is hardly a statement of our willingness to be out there in the public consciousness.”