Advertisement

Supreme Court to rule on steps to Senate reform/abolishment next week

The media often uses the term 'historic' too loosely.

But I think, in this case, it's the appropriate term.

Next Friday — April 25 — the Supreme Court of Canada will offer a 'historic' opinion to the Harper government's reference about what it would take to reform or abolish the Senate.

Canada's highest court is expected to answer the following questions put to it by the Harper government in a legal 'factum' filed last year.

- Can Parliament enact term limits on senators so they serve eight or nine years rather than having job for life?

- Can Parliament set in place a democratic vote to recommend names to the prime minister for the Senate?

- Can the provinces hold a democratic vote of their own to recommend names to the prime minister for the Senate.

- Can the Parliament remove antiquated property ownership requirements for Senators?

- Can the Parliament abolish the Senate without the unanimous consent of the provinces?

The so-called reference was heard in November, where the Harper government argued 'yes' to the questions above.

As explained in an article by Postmedia News, however, the Court also heard opposing views from a total of 16 'intervenors' including all 10 provinces and two of the territories.

"Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and New Brunswick say term limits and Senate elections require the consent of seven provinces with half the population (known as the “7/50” rule); they say outright abolition requires the unanimous agreement of the provinces," the article notes.

"British Columbia argues the 7/50 rule applies for any reforms. Quebec argues it must give consent for the federal government to eliminate or change a special requirement in the Constitution for Quebec senators to either own $4,000 of property or reside in their senatorial district. Nunavut and Northwest Territories argue Senate abolition can’t take place without consultations with northern peoples."

[ Related: RCMP drop investigation into Nigel Wright’s $90,000 gift to Mike Duffy ]

All three major federal political parties have also staked-out distinct positions.

The Liberals recently implemented phase one of their plan by releasing all Liberal Senators from the party's national caucus. Phase two, according to leader Justin Trudeau would take place after he becomes prime minister: Should that happen, he said he will implement a "transparent, non-partisan public process for appointing and confirming Senators."

"No more closed doors. No more secretive deliberations," Trudeau told reporters in January.

"No more announcements the week before Christmas, under the cover of darkness."

[ Related: Justin Trudeau removes Senators from Liberal caucus ]

The Tories prefer reform through their Bill C-7, a controversial piece of legislation which would incline provinces to hold senatorial elections and impose a nine-year term limit for senators.

The New Democrats want the Senate abolished.

[ Related: Duffy's fate should be decided in the coming weeks ]

Regardless of what the parties want, most constitutional experts — at least anecdotally — all seem to agree that parliament, alone, cannot significantly alter or abolish the red chamber.

If the Supreme Court does come back and say the provinces need to be heard, don't expect the Harper Conservatives to play that 'game.'

"What I will not do, I can tell you right now, is hold a bunch of constitutional conventions and meetings because nobody wants to go back to that era," Harper told Postmedia News in an year-end interview last December.

"But we’ll see what it is we can do [after the Supreme Court reference]. And then contemplate our next steps from there."

(Photo courtesy of the Canadian Press)

Are you a politics junkie?
Follow @politicalpoints on Twitter!