Statement made on 28 April 2009 by Senator David Smith
Hon. David P. Smith:
Honourable senators, when I came in a few minutes ago, I had not planned to speak to this item. I have been not provoked but stimulated into saying a few words. I will follow up on Senator Mitchell's first point.
Reality is such that two elected chambers, each with a mandate from the public, will take us to a U.S-style government with its checks and balances. One chamber will say one thing and the other will say another, and we all know the ensuing problems. They might not be unsolvable, but we will have backed in, unwittingly, to embracing the U.S. system. The irony is that I suspect if a referendum asked Canadians whether they prefer the Westminster parliamentary system or the U.S. checks and balances system, they probably would say that they prefer the British system.
Senator Segal certainly has a way with words, but I find his motion a bit fuzzy. He has had a great deal to do with running elections, as have I. He knows that a federal election runs in excess of $30 million and yet he is talking about a separate and national election. That adds up to a vast amount of money. He then offer three options: status quo, abolish or fill vacancies through other means within the provinces. What would happen if one third of the electorate were to vote for all three options and we ended up with a three-way tie? After spending who knows how much money, would we be any wiser?
There are certain priorities that Canadians want us to focus on at the moment, and I am not sure it is Senate reform. If one of these options does get through, then there will have to be constitutional amendments. We know that Ontario and Quebec said no to the last proposal brought forward by the Prime Minister. Other provinces had a range of positions. However, amending the Constitution requires the agreement of seven out of ten provinces representing over 50 per cent of the population, and Ontario and Quebec alone have well over 50 per cent of the population. I find it hard to believe that Senate reform is considered a priority at this time. To be a little more open-minded, I would prefer less fuzziness and a little more precision.
Please click here to read the full text of the Senator's speech