Referendum on the future of the Senate: a round table

• Published in: Canadian Parliamentary Review 2008-03, Vol.31 (1), p.8
• Main Authors: Segal, Hugh, Brown, Bert, Murray, Lowell, Carstairs, Sharon
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Brown, Bert; Canada; Carstairs, Sharon; Constitutional amendments; Legislative bodies; Murray, Lowell; Planning; Referendum; Referendums; Segal, Hugh; Senators
• ISSN: 0229-2548

A simple question - do you want to maintain or abolish Canada's second chamber of Parliament - could be put. The abolitionists can make their case over a period of some weeks. Those in favour of a second chamber, of which I would be one, reformed or otherwise, could make their case as well. There would be regional, demographic and other subsections to the debate, but we would have faced, as a country, the essence of the legitimacy question. For those colleagues across the way and on my own side who have talked about the wording of the question, let us follow the mechanics. If this motion were to pass, and the request went to the Governor-in-Council, the government would have decide to bring in the referendum legislation in which, if they used the 1992 model, Parliament would decide on the wording of the question. Thus, for colleagues on both sides who might be concerned about the wording of the question - some have asked me why the question should not be abolition or reform - there would be ample time for that debate. Surely, that obligation does not imply disengagement from the democratic imperative of legitimacy - and democratic participation in the architecture of legitimacy. The motion I propose will afford parliamentarians a broad opportunity to reflect on the issue and contribute their own perspectives. Should a similar motion be introduced in the House, the debate would be enjoined more broadly still. While I would vote against abolition for reasons that relate to both the need for a chamber that reflects regional and provincial interest and some careful assessment of quickly and often badly drafted federal laws too often passed by the House too quickly, my vote is but one amongst our fellow citizens. My opposition to abolition does not weaken in any way my deeply held belief that Canadians should decide something they have never been allowed to decide before. Over the past generation, many polls have been conducted on whether Canadians want their senators elected. The first polls gave a simple majority to the "yes" side. Only months ago, the polls were 79 per cent for the "yes" side. Brad Wall brought the province of Saskatchewan to the "yes" side the morning of November 8 with his recommendation to elect senators to future vacancies. That is my first point against the motion.