Top court to consider fate of Senate reform
Move follows years of delays by Tory government
The fate of Canada’s Senate will be considered by the country’s top court, which has been asked whether and how the “chamber of sober second thought” can be reformed or abolished.
The government said Friday it will send six “reference questions” to the Supreme Court of Canada on its plans for Senate reform, marking the first time in more than 30 years that the top court will weigh in on the issue. It also marks a change in tactics for a government that has argued since June 2011 that its reforms didn’t require the consent of provinces or the top court’s opinion.
It could take up to two years before the court rules, a timeline that could push Senate reform dangerously close to an election expected in 2105. But politicians hope the court reference will clear up whether reforming the Senate requires opening up the Constitution — a cumbersome and potentially contentious process that involves the provinces as well as the federal government.
Sen. Bert Brown, the government’s point man on Senate reform, said asking the Supreme Court to weigh in was “inevitable” if the Senate is to ultimately be reformed.
“It’s time that we had it decided what you can do and what you can’t, and I think the Supreme Court is probably the only way you can do that,” Brown said.
The questions include asking the justices to rule on the constitutionality of limiting Senate terms; how to go about consulting the provinces on Senate reform and how to go about electing senators who are currently appointed by the prime minister; whether the federal government can repeal requirements that senators own at least $4,000 in property; and how the country could go about abolishing the Senate.
“The questions that we have are on a broad range of issues that will address the number of issues that have come up during the overall debate on Senate reform and also lay that foundation for possible broader reform,” said Tim Uppal, minister for democratic reform.
“I don’t want to speculate on the ruling of the Supreme Court. If it is favourable, we will move forward with (Bill) C-7,” Uppal said.
Bill C-7 would create a voluntary framework for provinces to elect nominees for the Senate to be presented to the prime minister, who would hold final say on who was appointed. The bill would set a oneterm limit of nine years for senators appointed since 2008. Currently, senators serve until the age of 75.
The government has argued it is merely exercising its executive functions with the reforms. But critics say the government needs to consult provinces, arguing that such fundamental changes to the Senate require an amendment to the Constitution. The bill has also been criticized for lacking a dispute-resolution mechanism, and it doesn’t address the unequal representation for provinces in the Red Chamber.
“It’s a recipe for a constitutional crisis in Canada at a time when all our governments should focus on (our) economic difficulties,” Liberal critic Stéphane Dion said.
Amending the Constitution requires the consent of seven provinces that, combined, have at least half Canada’s population. Abolishing the Senate is thought to require unanimous consent of every provincial legislature, but the government is asking the court to rule on that.
The Liberals had asked as far back as 2007 that the government check the constitutionality of any Senate reform legislation with the Supreme Court. At the time, the Conservatives rejected the idea.
“They could have done this ages ago,” said NDP critic Craig Scott. “How serious are they, despite having rode in on the white horse in 2006 partly on the basis of reforming the Senate?”