Thank you, Madam Chair.
I found your presentation fascinating. I agree that democratic renewal is a fundamental issue that needs to be tackled by the Parliament of Canada. We have certain entrenched interests here who will say, “Why now? We have other more important things to debate. Why are we wasting our time on democratic reform?” Yet since I've been in the House of Commons we've debated sled dogs in the Arctic, contact lenses, and all manner of things—except democratic reform.
The question is how to get there. To paraphrase Chesterton, the only thing worse than being squire-ridden is being crony-ridden. We have an institution that is an anachronism. It is an embarrassment that in the 21st century we can't find a way to deal with something that was broken 141 years ago. Some have asked whether these attempts to transform this change-resistant institution—incrementally or, as some might say, by stealth—will simply result in another failure added to the many we've already had.
The New Democratic Party believes that this institution has outlived its usefulness. We believe we should put the question to the Canadian people. Allow the Canadian people a voice on whether or not they think there is even a role for the Senate.
We are concerned about leaving it to the premiers. Do the premiers speak for each of us individually, or do they also speak for their own vested interests? If we put the question to the Canadian people, and if we came forward with a majority who said this was an anachronistic institution, it would be difficult for the premiers to say they would not engage in a discussion of democratic renewal. Whether or not the Senate will be fundamentally changed or abolished, allowing the Canadian people a voice would provide the momentum to cut this Gordian knot of vested interests.
I'd like your comments on whether you think this would be an appropriate way to go.