We've talked about it before but it appears that our rural overlords are now considering abolishing the Senate or at least making that the only option to reforming it. How would you vote if Mr. Segal, my Senator if such matters were more particularly regional, has his way?
If a majority of voters went for abolition in a majority of provinces, that would give the first ministers the push they would need to support a unanimous constitutional amendment to kill the Senate. But, Mr. Segal said, if the pro-Senate side campaigned on a pledge of reform, "that would constitute a basis to go forward." Mr. Harper has tried small reforms — including term limits — without success. He has said he wants an elected and effective Senate. Mr. Segal said a referendum could provide clarity on what changes are needed. "Let the voters speak," he said. "Let them tell us what they want."Interesting to see that the status quo, the most likely vote if Canadians and referendums are to be trusted, is not an option that might be put on the ballot. Framing a question in this way is a very useful rhetorical approach. It reminds me of the vote in Newfoundland whether to join Confederation. Many say that if the question had been framed to allow another choice - join the USA - that we would live in a Canada where the country ends at Cape Breton.
One thing to consider: if you have no Senate, why have a Governor General. If we are going to throw off our betters - whether they are "important people with appointments" or smaller provinces demanding a non-democratic override over the will of the majority - why not go all the way and go to a single house republic? Why retain one trapping when ditching the rest?