Senate Reform? Starve It

[August1991]

In theory, Harper wants to reform the Senate. Harper wanted to have elected senators and now he wants to introduce 8 year terms.

His recent appointees have all apparently signed on to this idea, although I'm not sure if Harper can guarantee the signatures. And I'm not even certain that Harper's plan will work. (I'm willing to give Harper the benefit of the doubt. I suspect that Harper knows alot more about the intricacies of Ottawa politics and Senate reform than I would ever care to know.)

Nevertheless, I wonder about another solution. Why not simply cut Senator salaries and entitlements?

By federal law, the base salary of a Senator is $132,300. They also get office expenses, travel expenses, special salaries for committee work, pensions for life and so on. All of these entitlements are based on acts of parliament.

Why not simply introduce another act of parliament stating that Senators earn nothing, and are entitled to nothing? (Or minimum wage?)

-----

I suspect many Senators would resign if they lost their entitlements. This would be the fastest way to reform the Senate, and it wouldn't require Constitutional amendments.

The State's power to tax is so large that it now can be used to change the State. If I were Harper, I would use this power to reform the Senate.

How many Canadian voters would object to a cut in Senator salaries, entitlements? Would the Liberals defend sitting Senators?

Edited August 30, 2009 by August1991

[g_bambino]

Why not simply introduce another act of parliament stating that Senators earn nothing, and are entitled to nothing?

What's the point? The constitution still requires that the Crown-in-Council appoint Senators, regardless of what they're paid.

[August1991]

What's the point? The constitution still requires that the Crown-in-Council appoint Senators, regardless of what they're paid.

How many Liberal senators would be senators if they got nuttin'.

[jdobbin]

I suspect many Senators would resign if they lost their entitlements. This would be the fastest way to reform the Senate, and it wouldn't require Constitutional amendments.

The State's power to tax is so large that it now can be used to change the State.

So, you want to do this with all senators or just ones you don't like?

[g_bambino]

How many Liberal senators would be senators if they got nuttin'.

It doesn't matter. The constitution still requires that the Crown-in-Council appoint Senators.

[jdobbin]

How many Liberal senators would be senators if they got nuttin'.

Maybe only rich ones would get the job.

[August1991]

So, you want to do this with all senators or just ones you don't like?

All, even Jacques Demers who has a good gig elsewhere.

Maybe only rich ones would get the job.

Senators are going to be rich anyway...

----

Again, I argue that this is the way to reform the Senate. (BTW, the idea is not original. I took it off another French website.)

Edited August 30, 2009 by August1991

[August1991]

It doesn't matter. The constitution still requires that the Crown-in-Council appoint Senators.

True, but who would accept to be Senator if there were no salary or entitlements?

How often would such Senators attend sessions? Make comments? Intervene.

[g_bambino]

True, but who would accept to be Senator if there were no salary or entitlements?

Then you're manufacturing a constitutional crisis. Hardly a noble pursuit.

[jdobbin]

All, even Jacques Demers who has a good gig elsewhere.

So, you are of a mind to abolish the Senate?

Senators are going to be rich anyway...

----

Again, I argue that this is the way to reform the Senate. (BTW, the idea is not original. I took it off another French website.)

And I think it may prove unconstitutional.

[jdobbin]

True, but who would accept to be Senator if there were no salary or entitlements?

How often would such Senators attend sessions? Make comments? Intervene.

They could do it from home watching CPAC. How do you like that?

[Riverwind]

And I think it may prove unconstitutional.

There is nothing in the constitution that specifies what government representatives should be paid. Constructive dismissal does not apply if the terms of employement are laid out in advance.

A senator offered a seat with the provision that pay will go $1/year after 8 years of service would have no grounds for complaint if they accepted the seat and signed the contract.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Again, I argue that this is the way to reform the Senate. (BTW, the idea is not original. I took it off another French website.)

I suggested this yesterday here too.

[g_bambino]

A senator offered a seat with the provision that pay will go $1/year after 8 years of service would have no grounds for complaint if they accepted the seat and signed the contract.

Perhaps. But nobody would see it for anything other than what it is: Senate reform through the back door. The provinces would have such a bill before the Supreme Court in a flash.

[jdobbin]

There is nothing in the constitution that specifies what government representatives should be paid. Constructive dismissal does not apply if the terms of employement are laid out in advance.

A senator offered a seat with the provision that pay will go $1/year after 8 years of service would have no grounds for complaint if they accepted the seat and signed the contract.

I think a challenge to the Supreme Court might see it differently. Are you so sure of your legal grounds on this?

The provinces could and would challenge it.

[Bryan]

Let's make Senate appointments like jury duty.

People from all walks of life are randomly drafted to serve. THAT would be your sober second thought on legislation of the day.

[August1991]

Let's make Senate appointments like jury duty.

Jury duty is temporary. Senators are for life, or until they're 75.

I suggested this yesterday here too.

Sorry that I missed your post. (I stole the idea from a French forum.)

I too think that it may be a good solution to Senate reform, along with Harper's 8 year term idea.

In fact, I'm open to any idea that limits the power of the State. I prefer individual freedom.

Edited August 30, 2009 by August1991

[Riverwind]

Perhaps. But nobody would see it for anything other than what it is: Senate reform through the back door. The provinces would have such a bill before the Supreme Court in a flash.

So you are saying the provinces would rush to court to make the case that senators are underpaid? The press would have a field day. Somehow I doubt they would be so keen on standing up for that particular principal.

It is also not clear to me why the provinces would oppose the move. It is not as if the total number of senators allocated to each province changes.

[Riverwind]

I think a challenge to the Supreme Court might see it differently. Are you so sure of your legal grounds on this?

From a strictly legal perspective compensation is not a constitutional issue and there is no case. However, that does not stop you from speculating that there would be a case so let's see some precedents that illustrate why their might be a case. Edited August 30, 2009 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

From a strictly legal perspective compensation is not a constitutional issue and there is no case. However, that does not stop you from speculating that there would be a case so let's see some precedents that illustrate why their might be a case.

If the objective was to set term limits, the Supreme Court could rule as they have on many Constitution issues.

If no one would sit as a senator, they would still have to find someone regardless because the system requires it by law.

This would be the nuclear option and the biggest example of bullying. I doubt any prime minister would go that far for something that could be overturned with the next prime minister or defied by Senators who might decide to sit no matter the cost.

If the PM wants legal term limits, use the amending formula.

[jdobbin]

It is also not clear to me why the provinces would oppose the move. It is not as if the total number of senators allocated to each province changes.

Some provinces will resist any encroachment into their jurisdiction. Senate changes fall into shared jurisdiction. Harper wants to act unilaterally.

[Riverwind]

If the objective was to set term limits, the Supreme Court could rule as they have on many Constitution issues.

So you say. But can you provide any previous cases that would demonstrate that the court is likely to take such a position. I think it is just idle speculation on your part. I do not think the court would choose to overrule the government on a compensation issue if it was passed by the senate.

If no one would sit as a senator, they would still have to find someone regardless because the system requires it by law.

Who says that no one would accept under the terms offered? An 8 year stint in the senate would likely be acceptable to many. This is ultimately why your argument has no merit.

This would be the nuclear option and the biggest example of bullying.

I see it as a cleaver solution to an intractable problem. Edited August 30, 2009 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

So you say. But can you provide any previous cases that would demonstrate that the court is likely to take such a position. I think it is just idle speculation on your part. I do not think the court would choose to overrule the government on a compensation issue if it was passed by the senate.

If it was to try and force senators to resign, the court may take a dim look at it.

If you want to go the idle speculation route, I will say it is idle speculation that any government would attempt to remove all pay for the Senate?

Who says that no one would accept under the terms offered? An 8 year stint in the senate would likely be acceptable to many. This is ultimately why your argument has no merit.

It does if the court believes that term limits require a Constitutional amendment. This might be regarded as a back door to that and the provinces might not agree.

I know you think that is impossible but many provinces have resisted the government on Senate changes.

I see it as a cleaver solution to an intractable problem.

I see it as a way to start a war with the provinces.

[Riverwind]

If it was to try and force senators to resign, the court may take a dim look at it.

Based on what precedents? Keep in mind that the compensation rules would be passed by a suitably stacked senate so it makes no sense for the court to tell the senate that they cannot set their own compensation terms.

I know you think that is impossible but many provinces have resisted the government on Senate changes.

The provincial position is they either don't want the representation changed because it benefits them or they don't want to make it legimate by having elections. Term limits threaten neither of those positions. It makes no sense for provinces to pick a fight of this issue.

[tango]

True, but who would accept to be Senator if there were no salary or entitlements?

Only the rich ones ... who can then use the Senate to further their business interests without impediment by ordinary people (who need a salary) to oppose such corruption.

That's why we pay reasonable salaries: So us 'common folk' can afford to do those jobs and are represented as well. It's called democracy - rule by all the people, instead of oligarchy - rule by a few rich and powerful people.

Edited August 30, 2009 by tango