Senate To Stay Says Supreme Court

[Big Guy]

The Supreme Court has spoken - The federal government cannot, on its own, make major reforms to the Senate, or abolish it outright, Canada’s top court says. In a landmark decision to-day, the Supreme Court of Canada handed the Conservative government a legal defeat, saying it needed the agreement of seven provinces with half the country’s population to set term limits or allow for elections for Senate nominees. And to abolish the Senate, the court held that the unanimous agreement of all provinces was needed, and even the agreement of the Senate itself.

Is this the end to Senate reform?

[eyeball]

It probably won't be the end of talking about it.

The real take away from this is just how impregnable the edifice of our governing system is from the outside. But that said it's always been the vulnerabilities of the system to venality and corruption from within that's caused the discontent and disaffection that runs deep in so many Canadians. This ruling won't do anything to change that either.

So, just keep driving it till it breaks then. Nothing lasts forever.

[Boges]

No way 7 Provinces play ball with this. Maybe 3 or 4.

[WWWTT]

Is this the end to Senate reform?

Definitely not the end of the conservatives wasting tax payer money to play up to their base.

The supreme court didn't say anything that anyone with a basic understanding of our system was fully aware of?

But hey these are conservatives we're talking about, don't expect them to have a good grasp of our system and really care about your tax dollars!

WWWTT

[Keepitsimple]

I hope it is the end of Senate Reform. There was really not much wrong with it except for expense rules that were too vague and allowed the odd person to take advantage. If they clean up the expense rules - make them crystal clear, have proper oversight, and post them for public consumption - they can get back to doing their job. I believe it is also in the Senate's power to establish penalties for transgressions that include fines and suspensions. I believe you can already be expelled for criminal acts. The Senate has to do a Mea Culpa and openly develop a thorough, comprehensive Accountabily system. It's back in their hands and Harper can make it happen with his Senate majority.

[Smallc]

I don't see what was wrong with forming a selection committee for senators. That seems to be within the realm of possibility given this ruling.

[Topaz]

I watched some of the hearing on it and the lawyers made a good case against. So if Harper wants it, he'll have to make sure more provinces become PC Premiers but then again some of the PC Premiers don't really go along with what he wants on certain issues anyway. This could be a good thing for the NDP, because now voters who want to keep the senate could vote for the NDP and not worry about senate going away. Now, will Harper make his senators independent, which the way it should be, no connection to party leaders.

[Topaz]

Just saw the leader on the NDP on TV and now I'm not sure what his view is on the senate. Does want to get rid of the senate or does he want to change the way the senate is appointed? Tom talked like he's leaving it up to the provinces and the people to make the decision but at the same time, he talked about the senate being separate from the House of Commons and no ties, an independent body, which I agree with. So does anyone know the views of the NDP on this?

[Bryan]

the Supreme Court of Canada handed the Conservative government a legal defeat

Calling it a defeat is a bit much. The Government were the ones who brought the matter to the SCC to ask for their pre-emptive opinion on specifically what they can and cannot do before they move forward. There was nothing to defeat yet, and the whole purpose of bringing it to the SCC was to avoid having anything GET defeated.

[guyser]

Ok, lets call it a strike out.

THree swings and three misses .

The SCC is a very good pitcher. Harper et al should be looking for a single and skip tryin to hit over the fence.

[Boges]

Shouldn't this be a loss to the NDP more so? They were pretty clear they wanted the Senate abolished. Doesn't appear that's possible now. Especially since they're bread is buttered in Quebec and that province has the most to lose from a reformed Senate.

All the talk about Harper doing nothing about Senate reform is irrelevant now since he'll have to fight the provinces anyway.

From the Liberals, all we have is a policy where they want the Senate to act as an independent body that has zero mandate and answers to absolutely no one. . . Sorta like the SCC.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Boges

[cindi]

Agree it's also a blow for the NDP and any gov't that might want to bring some changes to the Senate, changes I would say the majority of people want. This is more the Supreme Court flexing its muscle and obstructing a democratically elected federal government.

We might not like the concentration of power within the PMO - but at least the PM/party is democratically elected whereas there is an enormous concentration of power within the unelected for life SCOC. So now we seem to have a constitutional black hole from which no light can emerge.

Somehow, the SCOC must be brought into the democratic picture because the will of the people cannot be exercised if an unelected S.C. can override an elected majority gov’t. or the people's wishes.

[Bryan]

Ok, lets call it a strike out.

THree swings and three misses .

The SCC is a very good pitcher. Harper et al should be looking for a single and skip tryin to hit over the fence.

Still wrong. CPC wasn't trying to pitch anything, they asked for an opinion before going forward. That's what we've been waiting for all this time. Now we know what has to be done, that's literally all that happened.

Is it disappointing? Sure, that's a lot more work than it should have to be. But at least we know where to put in the work.

[Wilber]

The SC has defined the rules by which the Senate can be changed. Change is now possible. It will be difficult but it should be. 7 provinces and 50% should be possible if people really want change but it will take a lot of work and good will.

[-TSS-]

In federal countries a second chamber the membership of which is equally distributed among the constituent parts of the country is needed to counterbalance the arithmetic superiority of the most populous regions of the country. All western democracies with a federal system of government have two chambers of legislature. What really baffles me is that even some unitary countries have two chambers of parliament, which is really useless.

[Moonlight Graham]

Who expected any other ruling? Anyone who knows anything about the constitution and the senate knows this wouldn't fly without provincial approval. Very glad the government of the day doesn't have the power to ie: abolish the senate.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[Boges]

In federal countries a second chamber the membership of which is equally distributed among the constituent parts of the country is needed to counterbalance the arithmetic superiority of the most populous regions of the country. All western democracies with a federal system of government have two chambers of legislature. What really baffles me is that even some unitary countries have two chambers of parliament, which is really useless.

regional distribution wher upper and lower Canada get half the House is completely antquited.

[cybercoma]

The court didn't say the Senate stays. This thread title is actually wrong. The court said Harper's proposed changes to the Senate requires 7/10 provinces (w/ 50%+ of the population) to ratify and abolishing the Senate requires 10/10 provinces, House approval, and Senate approval. It seems very unlikely, since the Senate, in essence, would have to abolish itself. However, I can't see them blocking it either if 10/10 provinces agreed to it. So they didn't say no and they didn't make changes impossible, just highly unlikely at this point.

[Remiel]

There is no way the Canadian Senate could be expected to function properly if every province had the same number of Senate seats. Stop looking at the American model and thinking you can play paint by numbers to apply it up here. They have fifty states. And they each get two representatives. That is an extremely diverse set up interests with many large and many small states. In Canada we have ten. Two are big, a few are medium sized and the rest are small. Not to mention: Do you really expect PEI is going to give up its guarantee to as many Commons seats as Senate seats? Should a province with 130,000 people have twenty legislators in Parliament?

[Topaz]

The senate should rep. the provinces/territories and the people and so when the provinces/territories have their elections, then senators are elected, each having the number required by the region. We could have a commissioner of the senate to run the business of and ALL senators have no party connection and answers only to the Commissioner who reps. the people. In my view, the senate is NEEDED, so the PM of any majority government doesn't not have 100% power, because we've seen what power can do to leaders. I think Canadians could accept this type of senate. Thoughts?

[Topaz]

The senate should rep. the provinces/territories and the people and so when the provinces/territories have their elections, then senators are elected, each having the number required by the region. We could have a commissioner of the senate to run the business of and ALL senators have no party connection and answers only to the Commissioner who reps. the people. In my view, the senate is NEEDED, so the PM of any majority government doesn't not have 100% power, because we've seen what power can do to leaders. I think Canadians could accept this type of senate. Thoughts?

[Big Guy]

The problem appears to be not the Senate but who and why are put into the Senate. I believe a second chamber (of sober second thought) is a good idea. It is part of the checks and balances which are built into successful democracies. There is a need for a group of patriotic, intelligent, experienced, and unbiased individuals from varies elements of our society to review legislation before it becomes law.

The problem lately has been the unbiased part. I suggest that the only way that can be accomplished is if the method to appoint them was unbiased. Personally, I like the same panel process that chooses the Order of Canada recipients. The question is how do you choose the members of the impartial panel who will in turn select impartial senators.

[eyeball]

The question is how do you choose the members of the impartial panel who will in turn select impartial senators.

Draft them randomly, just like a jury.

[Peter F]

Who expected any other ruling? Anyone who knows anything about the constitution and the senate knows this wouldn't fly without provincial approval. Very glad the government of the day doesn't have the power to ie: abolish the senate.

Exactly. This was not rocket science. The Government employs many constitutional lawyers and the CPC has a few constitutional experts.

Senate Reform is a big deal to the CPC base who think the government has the power to change whatever it wants at the stroke of a parliamentary pen.

Harper was not blind to this belief of the base, and rather than expose himself to their ignorance by explaining why it cannot be done, he made the reference to the SCC to explain why it can't be done. Now he can roll his eyes and shrug and the ignorant will believe Harper gave tried but those non-democratic liberal judges shut him down.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Peter F

[Keepitsimple]

Too funny. Remember how Harper's "hidden agenda" was supposed to result in a Right Wing Supreme Court? Well, he's appointed 5 of the 8 sitting judges and they have mostly ruled against the government. When will the Left understand that Harper is a moderate, pragmatic PM. What you see is what you get - a bland, very competent, knowledgeable PM.