Earlier this week, Conservative Senator Hugh Segal introduced a motion in the Senate requesting "that a referendum be held under the provisions of the Referendum Act of 1992 to abolish the Senate".

If the motion is adopted, Segal has declared that he would campaign against it. Segal was one of the authors of the 1992 Referendum Act, the enabling legislation for the Charlottetown referendum, when he was chief of staff to then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
It was defeated.

Seconder for the motion was Senator Lowell Murray, a Nova Scotia native, current Leader of the “Progressive Conservatives” in the Senate and former Constitutional advisor to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney during the Meech Lake debate. To pass his motion, Senator Segal would require the approval of both the Liberal dominated Senate and the Parliament of Canada.

Apparently, Harper's office was given a heads-up on the motion and had no problem with it. Neither did Marjorie Le Breton, Government Leader in the Senate (and long time Conservative Party staffer prior to her appointment to the Senate by Brian Mulroney). Segal proposes a simple referendum question: "Do you favour the abolition of the Senate of Canada? Yes or No."

Coincidently, Jack Layton, Leader of the NDP is planning to introduce a motion in Parliament to hold a similar referendum on Senate abolishment. Apparently Stephen Harper is ready to support Layton’s motion which could come to a vote as early as next week. Senate reform has been described as Prime Minister Harper's second most favourite sport after hockey. Ironically, Albertans, including Mr. Harper have long championed an elected and equal senate, not abolition. Harper’s flirtation with Jack Layton’s motion to abolish would seem to contradict his earlier position.

The two motions, even if linked as one will produce little more than hot air. The 1982 Constitution Act is very clear about the requirements for Constitutional amendment that would have to precede abolishment or fundamental reform of the Senate. Section 42-1 says that change in respect to the powers of the Senate, the methods of selecting senators and the number of members each province is entitled to in the Senate require Constitutional amendment. Constitutional amendment requires majority resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and majority resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces that have, in the aggregate at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.

Governments in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Australia all have a second parliamentary chamber to represent their regions or states and to provide a counter-balance to the power of the central government. In the United States and Australia, senators are directly elected by the people and the distribution of seats is equal by state to protect the less-populous.

The UK has an appointed House of Lords. It was originally a hereditary chamber of aristocrats and clergy that served as Britain’s upper chamber. In March this year, the British House of Commons voted to replace the Lords with an elected chamber. The House of Lords rejected this proposal and voted for an entirely appointed Upper Chamber.

If either the Segal motion or the Layton motion should be passed by both the Senate and House of Commons, we could find ourselves in constitutional crisis, particularly if a national referendum subsequently endorsed abolishment of the Senate.

Ontario has 38.8% of the population and any combination of Ontario, Alberta and five other provinces could win amendment. However five out of the ten provinces (Quebec and the four Atlantic provinces) would likely reject any amendment to have the Senate abolished or restructured to mirror the distribution of population in Canada. That said, we might and probably should consider the value of an elected Senate.

Earlier this week, Chiefs from Atlantic Canada’s First Nations released their Atlantic Aboriginal Economy Building Strategy at their Atlantic Policy Conference in Halifax. It’s noteworthy for two reasons: one, it’s a comprehensive plan to lift the Aboriginal community out of its economic and social doldrums and two it envisions a dynamic relationship between First Nations peoples and the Atlantic business community. This could be a win-win situation for everybody in the region.

Much of Atlantic Canada is faced with declining populations and near-future labour shortages. Aboriginal populations are growing at a much faster rate than non-Aboriginal peoples. An increasingly educated and trained labour force in the Aboriginal community could become a major player in the Atlantic economy.

The Chiefs’ economic development strategy is based on a set of principles: self-sufficiency, sustainability, self-determination and sensitivity to environmental outcomes and the health of its people and its communities. The Chiefs’ priorities are: to build the net worth of their land holdings; increase the value of their business enterprises and to increase the ratio of Aboriginal employment.

They recognize the value of an educated and skilled labour force and the value of partnership with the business community, a partnership that could help grow their economies and the collective economy of Atlantic Canada. The Chiefs are to be congratulated for their initiative.

One might, however question their desire to create a parallel system of economic institutions such as an Opportunities Agency, an Economic Development Board and a Banking establishment but it may be understandable in the context of past experience.

The key to a good business partnership is a combination of two-way communication, respectful relationships, shared purpose and success. In a business partnership, cohorts provide advice and assistance, consistent with the objectives of the partnership. New Brunswick and all of Atlantic Canada has a stake in the outcome of First Nations economic development.

If I have one hesitation in respect to their development plan, it’s their use of the term self-sufficient. An economy that grows in response to partnership is interdependent, not self-sufficient.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com