Harper's Senate Reform Gamble

[August1991]

After Labour Day, on the eve of an NDP policy convention and a Liberal leadership debate both in Quebec City, Harper goes to the Senate and talks about term limits:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is warning Liberal senators they'll face "political consequences" if they thwart his efforts to reform the upper house.

Harper issued the warning Thursday during an unprecedented appearance before a special Senate committee examining his Conservative government's proposal to limit senators' terms to eight years.

CanWest

Harper's threat is that he'll run an election on this - and he'd likely win. The Liberals hardly want a campaign in defence of a Senate filled with Liberal hacks.

So, how do the Liberals respond?

Ontario’s Liberal government wants Prime Minister Stephen Harper to abolish the Senate instead of introducing term limits for senators.

Edmonton Sun

I think the NDP has a similar position: abolish the Senate.

----

I'm not sure how this will play out. Do we want to abolish the Senate? (As much as I want less government, I'm not so certain that fewer legislators means less government.)

But I'll credit Harper with changing the agenda, and setting it up in a manner where he can't really lose. Maybe he should call McGuinty's bluff and propose abolishing the Senate.

[gerryhatrick]

Gamble? Objectively it sounded more like a threat.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I'm not sure how this will play out. Do we want to abolish the Senate? (As much as I want less government, I'm not so certain that fewer legislators means less government.)

But I'll credit Harper with changing the agenda, and setting it up in a manner where he can't really lose. Maybe he should call McGuinty's bluff and propose abolishing the Senate.

I think this is a good move strategically for Harper. He is taking a page out of the election playbook. Keep the focus on the Conservatives proposals. Because of this announcement there will be far less coverage of the NDP convention and the Liberal debate.

I also like Harper's signs that he won't broker deals throughout a minority. Strong leadership is strong leadership regardless of how many seats you have in the house.

Personally I think reforming the Senate is a good idea. Some sort of balance to the House of Commons would be great.

Can't see the opposition parties banding together to take the government down over the issue.

[bradco]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...per-senate.html

I am all for senate reform, specifically term limits. However I think a serious debate on elected senators is needed. Harper cries about giving democratic legitmacy to the senate, in my opinion, without really understanding the potential consequences of doing so. Right after saying the senate needs democratic legitmacy he threatens to hold an election if the senate stalls his legislation. Well with an elected senate they would have, theoretically, the democratic legitmacy to stall or deny legislation that comes from the lower chamber. If we have an elected senate what does Harper plan on doing in cases of disagreement? An election everytime? Now is he talking about an elected senate but limiting its powers to stall/block legislation? I have never heard anything from him regarding this part of the issue?

[Ricki Bobbi]

I am all for senate reform, specifically term limits. However I think a serious debate on elected senators is needed. Harper cries about giving democratic legitmacy to the senate, in my opinion, without really understanding the potential consequences of doing so. Right after saying the senate needs democratic legitmacy he threatens to hold an election if the senate stalls his legislation. Well with an elected senate they would have, theoretically, the democratic legitmacy to stall or deny legislation that comes from the lower chamber. If we have an elected senate what does Harper plan on doing in cases of disagreement? An election everytime? Now is he talking about an elected senate but limiting its powers to stall/block legislation? I have never heard anything from him regarding this part of the issue?

That is the point of forcing the issue of an election. Canadians have been complacent for so long about Senate reform he is forcing the Senate to put up or shut up.

Do we know exactly what form an elected Senate would take? Do we know what the relationship between the House of Commons and a new Senate would be? No on both counts.

Harper is opening the door to a debate on the issue. Maybe the debate will be held during an election or maybe not...

[jdobbin]

I'm not sure how this will play out. Do we want to abolish the Senate? (As much as I want less government, I'm not so certain that fewer legislators means less government.)

But I'll credit Harper with changing the agenda, and setting it up in a manner where he can't really lose. Maybe he should call McGuinty's bluff and propose abolishing the Senate.

I think they should listen to the provinces on this. Harper should seek out their opinion and have a constitutional meeting if he wants to enact reforms.

I think the Liberals would be doing the responsible thing to ask for a constitutional meeting with the provinces to get a national agreement rather than imposing one that might be challenged in the Supreme Court.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I think they should listen to the provinces on this. Harper should seek out their opinion and have a constitutional meeting if he wants to enact reforms.

I think the Liberals would be doing the responsible thing to ask for a constitutional meeting with the provinces to get a national agreement rather than imposing one that might be challenged in the Supreme Court.

But opening up the constitution would be pretty difficult. Are Canadians really ready for another round of constitutional talks?

We have all seen how unsuccessful the big rounds of constitutional talks can be.

[bradco]

I am all for senate reform, specifically term limits. However I think a serious debate on elected senators is needed. Harper cries about giving democratic legitmacy to the senate, in my opinion, without really understanding the potential consequences of doing so. Right after saying the senate needs democratic legitmacy he threatens to hold an election if the senate stalls his legislation. Well with an elected senate they would have, theoretically, the democratic legitmacy to stall or deny legislation that comes from the lower chamber. If we have an elected senate what does Harper plan on doing in cases of disagreement? An election everytime? Now is he talking about an elected senate but limiting its powers to stall/block legislation? I have never heard anything from him regarding this part of the issue?

That is the point of forcing the issue of an election. Canadians have been complacent for so long about Senate reform he is forcing the Senate to put up or shut up.

Do we know exactly what form an elected Senate would take? Do we know what the relationship between the House of Commons and a new Senate would be? No on both counts.

Harper is opening the door to a debate on the issue. Maybe the debate will be held during an election or maybe not...

What bugs me I guess is that he brought up the issue long ago but hasn't put forth what he thinks the form of the elected senate and the relationship between the two chambers once they are both elected should be. What the relationship would be between the two chambers is the MOST important aspect of his policy to elect the senate and he has been completely silent on it. I find that confusing and to be honest, irresponsable. Maybe he has opened a door to debate but he should be stepping through it himself. He obviously has plans for what he thinks it should look like and he should be open about them now.

[Ricki Bobbi]

What bugs me I guess is that he brought up the issue long ago but hasn't put forth what he thinks the form of the elected senate and the relationship between the two chambers once they are both elected should be. What the relationship would be between the two chambers is the MOST important aspect of his policy to elect the senate and he has been completely silent on it. I find that confusing and to be honest, irresponsable. Maybe he has opened a door to debate but he should be stepping through it himself. He obviously has plans for what he thinks it should look like and he should be open about them now.

He has been rolling out his plans on the Senate.

The first part was the bill proposing term limits on Senators in the spring.

The second part was the bill that will be introduced in the fall calling for Senate elections.

[August1991]

I think they should listen to the provinces on this. Harper should seek out their opinion and have a constitutional meeting if he wants to enact reforms.

I think the Liberals would be doing the responsible thing to ask for a constitutional meeting with the provinces to get a national agreement rather than imposing one that might be challenged in the Supreme Court.

To reform the Senate as Harper is now suggesting (term limit of 8 years) would require 7 provinces and 50% of the population.

You can be certain that Harper has already discussed this with Charest:

Québec serait ouvert aux discussions à propos d'une réforme du Sénat canadien avec le gouvernement Harper.

Canoe

The Maritime provinces don't want to abolish the Senate. The West wants an elected Senate (right?) So, where does that leave McGuinty?

In theory, the Senate could represent the provinces in a way that the House of Commons doesn't.

I am all for senate reform, specifically term limits. However I think a serious debate on elected senators is needed.

I think that would be Harper's next card, should he choose to play it.

How do Senators get to the Senate?

[jdobbin]

But opening up the constitution would be pretty difficult. Are Canadians really ready for another round of constitutional talks?

We have all seen how unsuccessful the big rounds of constitutional talks can be.

Some constitutional experts are saying that terms limits might be struck down in the Supreme Court. The last change came in 1965 prior repatriation. The argument might be that the change in 1965 didn't "may serve till 75" but "shall serve until 75." It is a signficant difference. A province such as Ontario could challenge and win.

[jdobbin]

To reform the Senate as Harper is now suggesting (term limit of 8 years) would require 7 provinces and 50% of the population.

You can be certain that Harper has already discussed this with Charest:

I think Harper is thinking he can make the change unilaterally with no amendment.

[Ricki Bobbi]

That's a very good point.

*IF* Charest is on side here is my take on the probable yes votes to elected Senators.

-BC

-AB

-QC

-PEI

-Nova Scotia

-New Brunswick (if the PCs win the election on the 18th.)

Definite NO.

-Ontario

Maybes

-Saskatchewan (probably leaning no)

-Manitoba (probably leaning no)

-Newfoundland (probably leaning yes)

You can be certain that Harper has already discussed this with Charest:

[Ricki Bobbi]

I think Harper is thinking he can make the change unilaterally with no amendment.

Maybe he is thinking that if he makes the change no premier will take the political risk to challenge it in court?

[jdobbin]

-Manitoba (probably leaning no)

The NDP government has already said they support abolition, not reform.

[geoffrey]

Maybe he can fix the Supreme Court imbalance while he's at it too? Get 'er done. Good news for democracy in Canada.

[jdobbin]

Maybe he is thinking that if he makes the change no premier will take the political risk to challenge it in court?

Could be. He seems to have a few people who his leagl interpretation of change but just as many, several non-partisan, who say that a challenge could come from individuals asking for standing in a legal case against a change.

[jdobbin]

Maybe he can fix the Supreme Court imbalance while he's at it too? Get 'er done. Good news for democracy in Canada.

An equal, elected and effective Supreme Court?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Could be. He seems to have a few people who his leagl interpretation of change but just as many, several non-partisan, who say that a challenge could come from individuals asking for standing in a legal case against a change.

I hear you, but I can't see how or why anybody but an unelected Senator about to lose his seat on the gravy train, would have standing in a case like that.

Even so, once Senators have been elected under Federal law it would be very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle.

[geoffrey]

Maybe he can fix the Supreme Court imbalance while he's at it too? Get 'er done. Good news for democracy in Canada.

An equal, elected and effective Supreme Court?

Ew no, elected judges have to be about the most ridiculous thing anyone has dreamed up. That's the last thing we need.

But equal would be nice. The judges are supposed to come from a balance of Canada's population, but it works out something like this.

3 from Ontario... 3 from Quebec... 1 From BC... 1 From the praries... 1 from the Maritimes.

There is a majority of sitting Francophones.

In reality, it would be more like 3 from Ontario, 2 from Quebec, 1 from BC, 1 from Alberta, 1 from Sask/Man, 1 Maritimes.

Even still those rock dwellers would be dramatically over-represented. And Ontario and BC under-represented yet.

[August1991]

I think Harper is thinking he can make the change unilaterally with no amendment.

I stand corrected, Dobbin. You may be right.

Harper may think he can change the Senate terms to 8 years without a constitutional amendment. A simple federal law can do it.

The change to an elected Senate would require 7 provinces and 50%.

Anybody here know?

Edited September 8, 2006 by August1991

[geoffrey]

I think Harper is thinking he can make the change unilaterally with no amendment.

I stand corrected, Dobbin. You may be right.

Harper may think he can change the Senate terms to 8 years without a constitutional amendment. A simple federal law can do it.

The change to an elected Senate would require 7 provinces or 50%.

Anybody here know?

You could do it without an amendment. It would also be completely pointless as one could repeal it at whim, kind of voiding the point of good government when you can change the structure with the political tides.

A PM can appoint elected Senators at will... that is a way to do it, but the PM would always have to support the elected idea... in otherwords, it would end once the CPC is out of power.

The only real effective way to do it is by constitutional admendment. And that just opens up that whole process again... though it does need to be done sometime... probably not by a minority government though.

[bradco]

Maybe he can fix the Supreme Court imbalance while he's at it too? Get 'er done. Good news for democracy in Canada.

An equal, elected and effective Supreme Court?

Ew no, elected judges have to be about the most ridiculous thing anyone has dreamed up. That's the last thing we need.

But equal would be nice. The judges are supposed to come from a balance of Canada's population, but it works out something like this.

3 from Ontario... 3 from Quebec... 1 From BC... 1 From the praries... 1 from the Maritimes.

There is a majority of sitting Francophones.

In reality, it would be more like 3 from Ontario, 2 from Quebec, 1 from BC, 1 from Alberta, 1 from Sask/Man, 1 Maritimes.

Even still those rock dwellers would be dramatically over-represented. And Ontario and BC under-represented yet.

if im not mistaken you need to have at least three quebec judges who are trained in civil law rather than common law....two would be a headache if they have differing legal opinions on a case

[geoffrey]

if im not mistaken you need to have at least three quebec judges who are trained in civil law rather than common law....two would be a headache if they have differing legal opinions on a case

Valid point. Let's just have a seperate court for Quebec's system, it is a completely different system. Their Criminal Code cases can be tried under the SCC and their civil system under the Quebec Court or whatnot. Gives them a little taste of soverignty to make the soft nationalists happy, balances the representation.

[jdobbin]

I stand corrected, Dobbin. You may be right.

Harper may think he can change the Senate terms to 8 years without a constitutional amendment. A simple federal law can do it.

The change to an elected Senate would require 7 provinces or 50%.

Anybody here know?

The last change to term limits happened in 1965 and had to be approved by the British Parliament.

Some constitutional experts in the Globe and Mail this week said that this set the standard for changes made to term limits. Any change probably has to go to become an amendment.