Supreme Court getting an earful over the future of the upper chamber - Macleans.ca
 

Supreme Court getting an earful over the future of the upper chamber


 

OTTAWA – The Supreme Court of Canada is getting an earful on the future of the Senate.

The federal government has asked the court for guidance on what it would take to reform the upper chamber and whether it can abolish the body without provincial consultation.

The provinces and territories had until Friday afternoon to submit their views on the Senate questions.

So far, everyone seems to agree that Ottawa cannot act alone to overhaul or outright abolish the upper chamber. Where they differ is in the details.

Only Alberta agreed with the federal government position that all that is needed for abolition is the so-called 7/50 rule — the consent of seven provinces, representing at least half of the population.

“Alberta continues to lead Senate reform efforts and our province’s position is that fundamental changes to the federal system requires input from the partners of Confederation,” Premier Alison Redford said in a statement.

“But no one province should hold a veto to block important and necessary Senate reform.”

Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba, Nunavut, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick counter that the unanimous consent of the provinces is needed to get rid of the Senate.

The Northwest Territories says unanimous consent isn’t enough and its residents must be consulted before any changes are made.

Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan’s written submissions have yet to be released. British Columbia got an extension and now has another week to file its opinion. Yukon is not weighing in.

On the questions of whether Parliament alone can set term limits or hold elections for senators, opinions vary.

Alberta argues that while the federal government would have to consult the provinces before setting Senate term limits, it could conceivably change the rules so senators would have to be elected instead of appointed, as they are now.

Alberta is the only province to elect nominees for Senate appointments.

Ontario says Parliament does not need the provinces’ consent to set term limits of nine years or longer. However, the province says the 7/50 rule would apply if Parliament wants to set Senate term limits of less than nine years.

Ontario also says the 7/50 rule comes into play if Parliament wants to change the rules so that senators must be elected.

The rest of the provinces and territories generally agree that Ottawa cannot act alone on Senate elections or term limits.

The Supreme Court also heard from a Quebec senator.

Liberal Sen. Serge Joyal says Parliament alone lacks the power to set term limits for senators, hold elections for Senate seats and outright abolish the upper chamber.

Joyal says the Senate could be abolished — but only with unanimous provincial consent. He also says the interests of aboriginals must be taken into account in the process.

In its submission, the federal government argues “it is constitutionally permissible for Parliament to impose term limits, provide for public consultative processes on Senate appointments, and remove the archaic requirement” that a senator own at least $4,000 worth of land.

Most provinces generally abstained on the property question.

The federal Conservatives say they plan to go ahead with Senate reform — or even outright abolition — once the Supreme Court provides guidance over how they may do so.

The Tories should have the support of the New Democrats if they go the abolition route. The NDP has long wanted to get rid of the Senate.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hold hearings on the matter in November. It could be months before it delivers its opinion.


 

Supreme Court getting an earful over the future of the upper chamber

  1. The NDP will lose support for siding with government on this I think ..

    • It’s been their policy for many many years – it’s the CPC who are late to the party on this issue. Anything is possible, but if Senate reform were your number one concern, you might not have ever been on their side.

      Ultimately, I suspect nothing will happen because premiers will start making constitutional demands the other premiers and PM won’t go for.

  2. This is nit-picky, but since they aren’t making “oral arguments” and are just, as yet, making digital copies of their positions available, nobody is listening to anythng. Nobody can get an “earful” at present.

  3. So, what if a senators term was limited to 2 yrs. (pick a #) and senate positions were filled by provincial appointment? Senate positions should be open to any qualified Canadian who submit their applications to provincial bodies responsible for Senate appointments.

    Ottawa would set the bar for qualifications to Senate appointments. The widest possible cross section for representation of the Canadian population should be allowed.
    I’m talking everyone, natural born, immigrants, plumbers, lawyers, teachers,( pick a title), real representation.