My friend and fellow senator Hugh Segal wants to hold a national referendum to determine what the Canadian people want to do with the Senate of Canada.

I do not.

For a start, I think the current government is using the whole issue of Senate reform to serve as a distraction from issues that are truly important to Canadians.

Furthermore, it makes no sense to approach the complexities of constitutional change with a tool as simplistic as a referendum. The question "What kind of Parliament do Canadians want?" cannot be answered by a multiple choice question as to whether one of its branches -- the Senate -- should be (a) appointed, (b) elected, or (c) demolished.

It is Parliament -- not just the Senate -- that is in need of renewal.

So why is the current federal government so fixated on the Senate?

First, it distracts Canadians from the real problems the government should be wrestling with -- like poverty, war, the widespread loss of manufacturing jobs and global warming.

Second, it helps give the government a crusading image -- it's marching off to fix something, even if that something isn't on any Canadian's list of priorities.

Third, targeting the Senate allows the government to get on with its mission of centralizing power in the House of Commons, which Stephen Harper is turning into a virtual fiefdom under the Prime Minister's Office.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Commons were designed so that it wasn't turned into a virtual five-year dictatorship every time a majority government is elected, even though in most majority situations nearly 60 per cent of voters have voted against the ruling party?

Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were more free votes in the Commons?

Wouldn't it be wonderful if private members' bills were really private members' bills without the prime minister's office insisting on vetting every Conservative member's bill?

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the chairs of Commons committees didn't have the power to shut the committee down every time a witness was saying things the government doesn't want people to hear?

These problems currently plague the House of Commons. Yet, somehow, the Senate is being defined as the problem.

Yes, the Senate is appointed, just like Canadian judges, prosecutors and police chiefs. Their American counterparts are elected and often end up making ridiculous promises and collecting election funds from some of the very vested interests they're supposed to be monitoring. That's the American way, so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that it's the Stephen Harper way.

To me, the best measure of an institution is whether it is useful. Most of the senators I know have proven themselves to be independent-minded, committed to causes on a long-term basis, and willing to challenge governments of the day.

Members of the Commons tend to fall into two camps --the bosses (cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries and committee chairs) and powerless backbench MPs, most of whose time is taken up performing chores for constituents. There doesn't often appear to be much time for contributing to honest debate on important issues, contributing to legislation and championing causes. To win again, sitting members have to accommodate voters, whether constituents' demands are socially beneficial or strictly self-serving.

That's all to the good. But do we really need another version of the Commons -- a second parliamentary chamber filled with members without the time or often the motivation to work on national problems that aren't likely to reward them with votes? Like aboriginal affairs? Like literacy? Like national security? Like the environment? Like minority rights? Like child poverty? Like domestic violence?

Would an elected Senate have time for these issues? Would it offer advice in a non-partisan way? Or would it simply become part of the us-vs.-them electoral bun fight that characterizes most legislatures?

Does the Senate have slackers and non-performers? A few. Probably about the same percentage as the House of Commons, your average corporate board, or your typical office or assembly line.

Why abolish an institution that does good work and costs each Canadian $2.82 annually?

Senate committees have proven themselves capable of taking on issues at a far lower cost than royal commissions. Senator Michael Kirby's report on the Canadian health-care system (which cost Canadians $400,000) proved to be far more valuable than the Romanow Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada (which cost Canadians $15 million).

Before the current boss in the House of Commons decides to neuter or demolish or Americanize the Senate, I suggest that he scrutinize his own institution and the harmful effect he is having on the independence of its members. I would also suggest that he turn to the provinces for guidance, because his hoped-for federal referendum cannot change the fact that neither he nor the House of Commons owns the Senate.

The Canadian people own the Senate. And the Canadian people are represented by provincial and territorial legislatures -- not just the federal government. Making piecemeal changes to the nature of the Senate is not in every province's interests -- and some premiers have made that clear. If Canada's system of governance is to be changed, all components need to be looked at -- to ensure that something irreplaceable isn't being lost.

Federal and provincial legislators -- acting in conjunction and constitutionally -- need to lead a national debate on how governments can best serve Canadians. That's a complex issue. It won't be solved by a simplistic referendum that pretends that the Senate is at the core of Canada's problems.

Colin Kenny has served in the Senate for 23 years, focusing on issues such as the environment, youth smoking, and national security and defence. E-mail: kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca.

Recent Publications