“It’s not going to help, not only is it going to pit the federal government against the provinces here in Atlantic Canada, but it’s also going to create division and tension between and among provinces, provinces here in Atlantic Canada and other parts of the federation, particularly those in the West,” Peter McKenna, chair of the political science department at the University of Prince Edward Island, told The Hill Times.
Mr. McKenna waded into the debate over Mr. Harper’s (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) unexpected move last week to refer hot-button questions about his plans for Senate reform to the Supreme Court of Canada for answers to questions over the constitutionality of Senate changes, after University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes told The Hill Timesthe Atlantic provinces would “go nuts” over the abolition aspect of Mr. Harper’s initiative.
Mr. Mendes attracted attention on Twitter, with University of Waterloo political scientist Emmett Macfarlane suggesting the comments from Mr. Mendes should be no surprise, as he has been critical of the Harper government in other areas since the Conservatives first won power in 2006. Mr. Macfarlane’s brief tweet was re-tweeted by prominent Parliament Hill journalists and ignited widespread interest in the comments from Mr. Mendes, who argued Mr. Harper was diverting attention from his failure to make headway in attempts to get provincial agreement for the election of Senate nominees.
But it was the surprise inclusion of a question on abolition of the Senate—whether Ottawa and a majority of the provinces with 50 per cent of Canada’s population could get rid of the Upper Chamber or whether unanimous federal and provincial agreement was required—that stirred the pot.
“It’s not exactly a policy initiative that is going to fortify the unity of the federation; in fact, it’s going to create additional tension that’s really unnecessary because this is not a burning issue anywhere in Canada as far as I know right now, particularly here in Atlantic Canada,” said Mr. McKenna.
“I guess from an electoral standpoint Harper sees this as a sop to his right wing constituency in the western parts of Canada, and that probably does have something to do with feeling a certain amount of vulnerability to the NDP or the Liberals, particularly out in B.C. and maybe some of the Prairie provinces,” he said.
Mr. Macfarlane, an assistant professor who specializes in Supreme Court of Canada affairs, said that while Mr. Harper had until now been trying to reform the Senate “by stealth,” tabling legislation proposing to limit the terms of Senators and introduce consultative elections for Senate nominations without constitutional change, many experts on the subject agreed with Mr. Harper’s decision to go to the Supreme Court for an opinion on the topic.
“I think most constitutional experts would be happy to see some clarity on the issue,” Mr. Macfarlane said. “The reference should have been posed years ago.”
“There was a sense among some critics that the government was trying to enact Senate reform by stealth. I’m not convinced every reform proposal requires unanimous provincial consent, but the push to do this by ordinary legislation without seeking legal clarification was likely to end up in the courts one way or another regardless,” he told The Hill Times.
Although a response from the Supreme Court would not bind the government, it could provide legal guidance and, as the Supreme Court did in 1982 when the Liberal government of then prime minister Pierre Trudeau referred constitutional questions about the patriation of Canada’s founding constitutional document from Britain, establish political boundaries based on constitutional convention rather than strict reading of constitutional documents and law.
Mr. Harper’s Supreme Court reference, filed by federal Justice Department lawyers representing Justice Minister Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, Ont.) in his role as attorney general of Canada acting on behalf of the Cabinet, contains six main questions, two of which include a total of 10 further secondary questions.
Aside from questions about abolition, the reference includes another possibility that Mr. Harper had not aired publicly prior to the Supreme Court reference: whether Parliament could unilaterally enact legislation to consult the populations of each province or northern territory to obtain Senate nominees through what have become colloquially known as “consultative elections.”
Alberta is the only province to have so far conducted elections for Senate nominees, and Mr. Harper has appointed three of the winners to the Senate: Bert Brown, a longtime champion of Senate reform who first won a Senate nominee election as a Reform Party candidate in 1998 and got his Senate seat through appointment by Mr. Harper in 2007; Betty Unger, a failed Canadian Alliance federal election candidate in 2000 who got her Senate seat in 2012; and Doug Black, a Calgary lawyer and Alberta provincial Conservative fundraiser who received his Senate appointment from Mr. Harper last month.
Although some provincial governments have expressed support for Senate nominee elections, none has taken steps to implement the idea and the Quebec Liberal government last May went to the Quebec Superior Court seeking an opinion on the constitutionality of the Harper government’s latest bill proposing Senate term limits, Bill C-7, which became bogged down last year in the face of stiff Parliamentary opposition. The government had not brought the bill forward to continue second reading debate in the Commons for a year prior to the Supreme Court reference.
The new Parti Québécois government has pressed on with the court case, and issued a forceful statement last Friday to denounce the federal reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, in light of the court case Quebec had already launched, and said it would continue with the provincial legal action.
Mr. Macfarlane said the Supreme Court reference and Mr. Harper’s determination to change the Senate, possibly abolish it, add to the resentment his government has fuelled in Atlantic Canada through changes to seasonal unemployment benefits and qualifications, cuts to Veterans Affairs Canada staff in Prince Edward Island and other policies.
“There’s no disputing the fact that that’s a toxic issue, changing the Senate in any way, shape or form, and certainly reducing the numbers or abolishing the Senate, is not something that’s going to fly down here in Atlantic Canada and there’s no way that any premier of any province in Atlantic Canada would want to be tied to that,” Mr. Macfarlane said.
“What he’s doing is, he’s trying to do an end-run around the premiers, he’s saying ‘I’m going to go to the courts first,’ ” he said.
“The courts don’t want these issues on their plate, because they’re political hot potatoes. They understand exactly what Harper’s doing here. He’s saying to them, ‘Look, we can’t deal with this, we can’t solve it and we can’t find a way of getting the premiers on board, so we want you to help us out,’ ” Mr. Macfarlane said.
Mr. Macfarlane said Mr. Harper could be playing to the Conservative Party base in Western Canada, possibly concerned about a threat from the NDP or, should he win the current Liberal party leadership race, from Liberal MP Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.), who has campaigned throughout Western Canada in his bid for the party helm.
“I think for him [Mr. Harper] it doesn’t much matter what Atlantic Canada says or thinks because he’s already basically said, ‘I don’t need you to win the next election to form a majority government, so I’m not particularly concerned about what you think and how you feel,’” Mr. Macfarlane said.
“He’s not going to say that publicly, but privately that’s what he thinks, and that probably plays well to his western base, the backbone of his government, it’s what puts him in power. It plays well to that constituency about Senate reform and I suspect that’s what’s motivating him,” Mr. Macfarlane said.
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: Tim Naumetz
No comments:
Post a Comment