Senate Reform? Starve It

[Molly]

8-year terms would do very little except guarantee that every government will face a senate appointed almost exclusively by its predecessor (and opposition)-- basically destabilize it to even greater partisan excesses than the HoC.

That's not 'reform'. That's just stupid.

[g_bambino]

[C]an 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.

You're speculating just as much. However, just because a bill is passed by both houses of parliament doesn't mean it's constitutionally sound.

[Smallc]

That's not 'reform'. That's just stupid.

Thank you. Now that it's been said for about the 5th time, maybe some will understand.

[jdobbin]

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.

There has been a precedent. It was the 1965 amendment on term limits and the 1982 to enshrine how further changes are made. If the Court decides this is term limits through the back door, the might listen to a provincial challenge.

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.

It does threaten the Constitution act that Senate reform is a shared jurisdiction.

You keep arguing that there is nothing that says the Feds can't act unilaterally on something that might fundamentally change the structure of the Senate. If the goal is to set term limits by getting every senator to resign their position. the courts may take a dim view of it based on the precedent of how changes were made earlier.

[Riverwind]

You're speculating just as much. However, just because a bill is passed by both houses of parliament doesn't mean it's constitutionally sound.

But in this case the law in question would only affect issues which are not covered in the constitution. This means the default assumption is the court would have no problem with it. The argument you are making is that it amounts to a defacto constitutional change is a matter of opinion that depends entirely on the notion that serving in parliment entitles one to generous compensation (I consider 130K/year extremely generous for the job being done). If serving in parliament is viewed as a public service then one could argue that the only a nominal stipend is required (e.g. 20K/year).

Think about it a different way: do you really believe that the court could rule that 100K/year is constitutional but 99K/year is not? I find it hard to believe that any court could make a ruling that would mandate specific dollar values for compensation or mandate that all compensation plans be approved by all ten provinces. Yet that is what you are saying it would do.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Riverwind

[g_bambino]

But in this case the law in question would only affect issues which are not covered in the constitution.

But its very intent is to affect the functioning of a body whose role is constitutionally defined. We're all playing with conjecture here, but I foresee that such a proposal would be studied by the court not based on the letter of the law, but the intent of it.

Besides, a following government could simply repeal it.

[Wild Bill]

You keep arguing that there is nothing that says the Feds can't act unilaterally on something that might fundamentally change the structure of the Senate. If the goal is to set term limits by getting every senator to resign their position. the courts may take a dim view of it based on the precedent of how changes were made earlier.

We should also consider the value of popularity and precedent. If Harper can make some changes with term limits and being elected within a province, he may not need to actually force legal change. After a while those provinces who choose to be holdouts may face pressure from their own citizens, who witness the example of other provinces allowing the people to make their own choices. The same with term limits. When some Senators voluntarily retire after 8 years and some hold on to the bitter end, the hangers-on will face criticism of not being willing to pull their snouts out of the trough or of being too beholden to their party.

I don't know if Harper will be successful with popularity and precedent tactics but I don't think it makes sense to totally blow them off...

[Riverwind]

But its very intent is to affect the functioning of a body whose role is constitutionally defined.

By your definition all compensation decisions affect the function of a 'body whose role is constitutionally defined'. That makes no sense.

For example, 10 or so years ago the MP pension plan was changed so new MPs would not collect pensions until age 55. Based on your argument the court should have overturned that decision because it 'affects the function of a 'body whose role is constitutionally defined' because the MP compensation was made less generous. People would have been outraged if the court ruled that the change was unconstitutional.

The example above illustrates why the court cannot rule that a variable compensation plan for the senate is unacceptable without also defining complex rules which would allow the MP pension plan changes. In the end, the court will probably conclude that compensation decisions are purely a matter for parliment to decide.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Riverwind

[Smallc]

If the compensation plan changes to nothing part way through the term....then it's obviously a direct attack on the length of the current term.

[Riverwind]

If the compensation plan changes to nothing part way through the term....then it's obviously a direct attack on the length of the current term.

Who said it has to go to nothing. Is a change from 130K to 20K an 'attack'? How about 60K? Why would a compensation decrease after putting in a fixed number of years be wrong but a compensation increase (e.g. pension eligibility) be perfectly fine?

The court would need to resolve the contradictions before it could rule against the plan which why I think it is wrong to assume that court could rule that it was unconsititutional. In think it will have to rule that compensation plans are up to parliment.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Riverwind

[Smallc]

I think that even if it were allowed, it would have the same terrible effect as any term limit with a Senate under the same rules as current.

[jdobbin]

Besides, a following government could simply repeal it.

Exactly.

If a government wants real Senate reform, it has to get the provinces on board.

Edited August 30, 2009 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

Exactly. If it isn't in the Constitution, it can be changed more easily.

Which makes it even less likely that a court would rule against the change.

[jdobbin]

We should also consider the value of popularity and precedent. If Harper can make some changes with term limits and being elected within a province, he may not need to actually force legal change. After a while those provinces who choose to be holdouts may face pressure from their own citizens, who witness the example of other provinces allowing the people to make their own choices. The same with term limits. When some Senators voluntarily retire after 8 years and some hold on to the bitter end, the hangers-on will face criticism of not being willing to pull their snouts out of the trough or of being too beholden to their party.

I see no pressure in Quebec for change. And you can't force them to elect Senator or do it unilaterally.

I don't know if Harper will be successful with popularity and precedent tactics but I don't think it makes sense to totally blow them off...

I think I've made it clear that I think the courts would have something to say.

[jdobbin]

Which makes it even less likely that a court would rule against the change.

My view of that is that if the provinces feel that the Fed are acting unilaterally to get Senators to resign, I think some might simply pay the Senator salaries themselves.

At least that is what I would advocate for in Manitoba just to make the Fed understand that cooperation is necessary.

I mean if we are going to speculate, let's go hog wild.

[jdobbin]

The court would need to resolve the contradictions before it could rule against the plan which why I think it is wrong to assume that court could rule that it was unconsititutional. In think it will have to rule that compensation plans are up to parliment.

Well, let's assume for your argument that the Supreme Court lets Parliament cut the salaries. What would stop the provinces from paying them just to stick a finger in the eyes of the Fed plans?

[Riverwind]

Well, let's assume for your argument that the Supreme Court lets Parliament cut the salaries. What would stop the provinces from paying them just to stick a finger in the eyes of the Fed plans?

I am sure that will be a vote getting platform: "we need to cut health and education but we can afford to lavish money on unelected senators".

The success/failure of the a plan to limit compensation for senators really rests with the public who generally dislikes the senate but has become resigned to the fact that competing interests make reform impossible. HOwever, I think the public will be predisposed to like any plan that results in less taxpayer money being spent on senators and that it will be politically impossible for any politician to turn it into a "cause celebre".

[g_bambino]

By your definition all compensation decisions affect the function of a 'body whose role is constitutionally defined'. That makes no sense.

It would make no sense. Hence, I would never say such a thing.

Not all compensation affects the role of parliament, but some does. If the salary of an MP was set at minimum wage, do you think anyone would ever run for a seat in the Commons? Obviously, then, sometimes compensation can affect the successful functioning of a parliamentary body; I think you know this, as your plan is devised specifically to do just such a thing. Given the blatant intent of the bill, it would probably be studied by the Supreme Court and, I think, thrown out.

[jdobbin]

I am sure that will be a vote getting platform: "we need to cut health and education but we can afford to lavish money on unelected senators".

I'm sure it will be framed as Ottawa is bullying its way into shared responsibility.

Do you really think Ottawa wants that sort of fight? You only need one province to take that action to mess with the plan.

The success/failure of the a plan to limit compensation for senators really rests with the public who generally dislikes the senate but has become resigned to the fact that competing interests make reform impossible. HOwever, I think the public will be predisposed to like any plan that results in less taxpayer money being spent on senators and that it will be politically impossible for any politician to turn it into a "cause celebre".

If costs are your big deal, support abolition.