Harper sidestepping B. C.’ s veto

Legislation introduced in 1996

The federal government is contending it can abolish the Senate without the province’s consent — despite a 1996 law that gave the regions more clout.

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in his bid to reform or abolish the Senate, appears to be sidestepping a 1996 law that gave B. C. and other Canadian regions vetoes over constitutional change.

The B. C. veto was portrayed by some as a recognition of the province’s emerging clout and self- confidence.

But the Harper government, in its submission to the Supreme Court of Canada last week, didn’t cite the 1996 law and argued the Senate can be abolished by using the 1982 constitutional formula — which doesn’t explicitly give any province a veto.

Since the 1996 law sets a far higher bar in terms of the required consent of provinces for major constitutional changes, the court submission raises the question of whether Ottawa plans to go around or repeal that law.

Harper argued strenuously against the legality of the 1996 law when he was the Reform party’s constitutional critic. Prime Minister Jean Chretien, the veto bill’s instigator, was “flying by the seat of his pants,” Harper complained then.

Pierre Poilievre, Harper’s junior minister for democratic reform, won’t say how Ottawa views the 1996 regional veto.

“Any application of the regional veto legislation is hypothetical at this time,” Poilievre said in a statement Tuesday.

He said the Harper government’s main goal is to convince the court it has the power to bring in limited reforms — such as setting term limits for senators and establishing a system whereby Senate nominees are first chosen in provincial elections.

Only if Harper can’t make those changes will he seek to abolish the upper chamber through a constitutional amendment, and the submission to the Supreme Court makes clear Ottawa views the so- called “7- 50” formula of the 1982 Constitution Act as adequate.

The 1982 formula requires most constitutional changes be approved by the federal Parliament and any seven provinces representing half of Canada’s population.

Chretien’s 1996 law declared that no federal minister shall propose a constitutional amendment without first getting approval from Quebec, Ontario and B. C., as well at least two provinces representing half the population of both the Prairies and Atlantic Canada.

Political commentator Gordon Gibson argues the Harper government would be showing disregard for B. C. if it doesn’t respect the 1996 veto law.

“The position is implicitly contemptuous of B. C.,” the former provincial Liberal leader told The Vancouver Sun.

But others note British Columbians, while collectively outraged in late 1995 when

“ The 1996 change has not, I would argue, sunk into the public consciousness at all.

ROGER GIBBINS FORMER HEAD OF THE CANADA WEST FOUNDATION

Chretien originally lumped B. C. in with the Prairies as a single Western region, never embraced the 1996 law.

The B. C. New Democratic Party government of the day, as well as Gordon Campbell’s opposition Liberals, opposed the bill, as did the old Reform party, which held a majority of B. C.’ s federal seats.

“Is B. C. getting slighted? Will anyone understand? No,” said political scientist Roger Gibbins, former head of the Canada West Foundation thinktank.

“The 1996 change has not, I would argue, sunk into the public consciousness at all. Most people, I suspect, if they think about the amending formula at all, go back to the 1982 document. It would take some real effort to explain to British Columbians just what the game is, and stakes are.”

The veto legislation was introduced along with a bill recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. It was Chretien’s way of meeting his panicky pledge on the eve of the Quebec independence referendum to Quebecers to bring in major changes.

While B. C. howled when it was initially lumped in with the Prairies, Chretien’s later move to make the province Canada’s fifth region got little thanks.

The B. C. and Alberta governments complained the vetoes put the constitution in a straitjacket, making changes “which are in the interests of British Columbia and the West ... all but impossible,” Andrew Petter, then B. C.’ s national unity minister and now president of Simon Fraser University, told a Senate committee in 1996.

There were arguments at the time that Chretien’s veto plan was neither legal nor constitutional, since he effectively changed the amending formula without obtaining adequate provincial consent.

Quebec nationalists ridiculed the bill because legislation could be overridden by a future government, though Queen’s University constitutional expert John Whyte told the 1996 Senate committee that wasn’t likely.

“I do not think this bill is repealable,” Whyte said, arguing the removal of vetoes handed to any region would be a “disastrous political decision.”