The Calgary-based Canada West Foundation, a persistent drumbeater for a Triple-E (equal, elected, effective) Senate for the past three decades, has cooled its ardour for the idea as well. Few Canadians think about Senate reform.
For this government, however, it is still something to which to give lip service.
Because he does not like to back down, the Prime Minister has now thrown the question of Senate reform to the courts, behind whose judicial robes he is able to hide. After a Liberal-dominated Senate and then an opposition-dominated House of Commons frustrated his two earlier attempts at Senate reform, he won a majority government. With the Senate now packed with his Conservative appointees, he is free to ram through whatever legislation he wants, but he has hesitated on Senate reform legislation. His government has not called for debate on its latest iteration, Bill C-7, in over a year. Let the courts tell him what he perhaps may not want to admit publicly: Senate reform is dead on arrival.
One reason for the reference to the courts may be that Quebec’s Liberal government initiated a reference case on the issue last May. Inevitably, because of Quebec’s reference, the issue is going to have a judicial upshot. By putting its own questions to the court, the federal government gets to frame the issues the way it wishes. Jean Chrétien’s government did much the same thing in the Quebec secession reference case of 1998 when it pre-empted a case on the constitutionality of the province’s secession launched, ironically, by former separatist and one-time Parti Québécois cabinet minister Guy Bertrand.
Some provincial governments such as Alberta’s and some parties such as the Conservatives want elected Senators. Some provincial governments such as Ontario’s and some parties such as the NDP want to abolish the institution. The Conservatives have long given up on an equal number of Senators for each province. The Atlantic provinces, with more than a quarter of the Senate’s seats and less than seven percent of the population, obviously have no interest in the idea. Acting collectively, they could veto it.
The federal government has not thought through the implications of an elected and therefore more powerful Senate. It would compound the problem of potential parliamentary gridlock. The government is floating the idea of a constitutional amendment to address this issue but the chance of such a proposed constitutional amendment being approved is next to nil. If he cannot reform the Senate, the prime minister has mused about abolishing it. One question put to the court by Ottawa deals with the rules for its abolition for, as things stand, they are not clear-cut.
Five different sections of the amending formulae in Part V of the Constitution Act of 1982 refer to the Senate. The general amending formula requires resolutions from the Senate and the House of Commons as well as at least seven provincial legislatures representing at least 50 per cent of the population. One section assigns the Senate a secondary role in constitutional amendment. Unlike its co-equal status with the House in making law, it enjoys only a suspensive veto of 180 days on constitutional resolutions passed by the House, making the upper chamber the lower chamber on matters constitutional. Yet another section tells us the general formula applies to any changes having to do with altering the Senate’s powers, the method of selecting Senators, their residence qualifications, and the number of Senators to which each province is entitled.
Some subjects, including changing the amending formulae, require the unanimous consent of all 10 provincial legislatures. Senate abolition is not listed in this section, but if we move to abolish the Senate are we not changing the amending formula itself, which requires a resolution by the Senate? So, does abolishing the Senate require seven or all 10 provinces on board? Go figure. No one knows the answer. Let the Supreme Court figure it out.
If it is unconstitutional to abolish the House, is it not unconstitutional to abolish the Senate? The Supreme Court said “no” to the federal government in 1980 when Ottawa asked if Parliament could abolish the Senate unilaterally. It opined that changing the Senate’s “essential characteristics” requires provincial consent.
Keeping the quaint Senate as it is would be consistent with Stephen Harper’s surprising embrace of monarchial symbols, especially for the military. This betrays the inclinations of a classical conservative not a neo-conservative.
The Senate’s antiquity has demonstrated its utility. Change for the sake of change, when the consequences are unpredictable and likely deleterious make no sense. If Canada has a democratic deficit, as many contend, the problem is in the House, not the Senate. Instead of trying to change or eliminate the Senate, perhaps we are better off if we leave it be.
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: Nelson Wiseman
No comments:
Post a Comment