It's a matter of history that prime
minister Stephen Harper has had problems with the Supreme Court of
Canada on various issues — including Senate reform. So you'd think
he would take a measured guess as to the court's reaction before
announcing his moratorium on appointing new Senators.
My guess he has taken that measure and
that a more rounded plan will be forthcoming before the election
campaign becomes formal. Because announcing he'll not be naming any
new Senators until the provinces solve his Senate problems for him is
only a half measure. And a weak one at best.
So, really, what's the plan?
A federal court case has already begun,
with Vancouver lawyer Aniz Alani asking the court to demand that
Harper begins filling the 22 vacancies on the 105-seat upper body, on
constitutional grounds.
Alani says he'll drop his case, and
even swallow his costs, if Harper makes a request of the Supreme
Court of Canada to rule if his moratorium is legal.
I'm guessing they'd rule against him.
The court has already said the feds needs support of seven provinces
representing 50 per cent of the population to reform the Senate, and
unanimous provincial support to abolish it.
They also said the prime minister can't
abolish the Senate by simply allowing membership to dwindle to zero.
(Actually, the magic number is 15, which is the quorum for a legal
meeting, set in the Constitution.)
So I'm asking myself, what's the real
game here?
Part of Alani's suit points out that
our Constitution requires the Governor-General to appoint Senators.
By convention, that's always been done on the advice of the prime
minister. But Section 32 of the Constitution does not say it must be done this way.
Retiring Edmonton MP Peter Goldring has
suggested as much himself, pointing out that if we really do want a
Senate that is not a partisan wart on the nose of the Prime
Minister's Office, well, just let the Governor-General do his or her
duty, and appoint all new Senators.
Since you or I are just as qualified to
judge who is or is not Senatorial material, as much as any
Governor-General, it makes sense that the G-G would appoint Senators
on your advice and mine, through a provincial vote.
No prime minister needed. And no prime
ministerial baggage to be held when it is discovered that too many
Senators have too little a sense of personal honour around access to
taxpayers' money.
This little change would require the
agreement of the provinces, according to the 7/50 formula laid out in
the Constitution. A difficult consensus to achieve, perhaps, but not
impossible.
So why is this not what prime minister
Harper is asking directly?
For Harper to suggest that not filling
the 22 vacant seats saves the taxpayers millions of dollars, is a
joke. What has the Harper government spent on self-congratulatory
advertising in the past nine years?
Getting the provinces to agree to
Senatorial elections, setting reasonable terms of office and ensuring
proper financial oversight should not be an impossible thing to arrange.
I would think the task of leadership is
to challenge the provinces directly to do this, not to announce some arbitrary
moratorium that nobody even accepts is legal.
Stephen Harper has personally appointed
59 Senators to the 105-seat chamber in his years as prime minister.
He's alternately said he wants to change how Senators get their jobs, how long they hold their jobs, and what they do on the job. He's also suggested he'd
prefer Canada had no Senate at all — which is now the official
position of the NDP.
The Liberal Party stripped all Liberal
Senators of their party membership, unilaterally, with leader Justin
Trudeau saying the Senate should have no party affiliations.
At the very least, it seems reasonable
that voters might decide to elect MPs from one party, and Senators
from another, if only to double-check their omnibus bills.
But while the status quo cannot stand
as regards the Senate, neither can Harper's half measure to get the
ball rolling to fix it.
So, prime minister, tell us: what's
your real plan?
No comments:
Post a Comment