Potential costs to Abolish the Senate

OTTAWA — Abolishing the scandal-plagued Senate would cost taxpayers $10-$30 million in golden parachute payoffs, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said Monday.

The CTF said the severance payments for $135,200-a-year senators would likely be limited by legislation or regulation, and wouldn’t approach the massive amount discussed by some senators in 1992 — the last time Canada seriously considered getting rid of the current Senate.

Marjory LeBreton, the Conservative government leader in the Senate, raised the possibility Sunday of killing the upper chamber, which will cost Canadians $91.5 million this year to operate.

Read the rest: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Abolishing+plum+Senate+posts+could+cost+estimated+million/8441745/story.html#ixzz2ckqUX8ru

Why Canada needs the Senate

Eugene Lang explains why we need the Senate

A conventional wisdom has emerged that goes something like this: Canada’s Senate is an anti-democratic anachronism stuffed with self-absorbed party hacks who care more about their perks than the public interest. The Red Chamber operates like the worst kind of private club and is rife with corruption and possibly criminal conduct. The Senate serves no useful purpose, costs lots of money, and if it cannot be reformed it should be scrapped.

The outrageous expense habits and grotesque entitlement mentality of a handful of senators lend credibility to such generalizations. Nevertheless, Canadians cannot afford to scrap the Senate because it serves an increasingly important function in our increasingly dysfunctional Parliament.

...

Diseased Senate

Michael Bliss would like us to remove our diseased Senate from the body politic.

Senators for Life

Andrew Coyne: Senators are partisans, appointed for life. How could that not go wrong?

 The longer it goes on, and the more people it engulfs, the more it becomes apparent that the Senate scandal — for in truth it is one scandal, not several — really is about the Senate. The Senate’s defenders (there are some) like to say that a few misbehaving senators do not make the case for reform or abolition, any more than a few corrupt individuals would condemn any other institution, in toto. But what if the conduct in question cannot entirely be chalked up to individual fault? What if it’s endemic to the place, part of its very nature?

Like any other crime-ridden public housing project, the Senate is an example of the importance of environment in human behaviour. The observation does not mean everyone inside should be considered a criminal. Nor does it absolve the individuals involved of their own personal responsibility. It doesn’t mean that there weren’t rules that should have been followed, or that conscience should not have sufficed in any event. There are some things you just don’t do, for which the complaint that the rules “weren’t clear” or they were “applied retroactively,” even if true, would be no defence.

...

The Senate is a three ring circus

Paul Wells writes more 

They seem so far away now, the days when Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy were just nice people on TV bringing you the news.

Now both of these former journalists are senators embroiled in an expense-account scandal that threatens to end their late-blooming political careers in disgrace. More important, the uproar over the Senate scandal threatens to bring down the entire upper house of Parliament, the stately red-lined chamber of what used to be called “sober second thought.”

...

 

Documents from the coming court battles over Senate reform

From Paul Wells

In my column for the issue of Maclean’s that started to appear on newsstands today, I write about the uproar over the Senate that began with Mac Harb and Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy and is headed straight to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Most Canadians are not aware that the federal government has asked the Supremes’ opinion, via a so-called “reference” case, on a set of reform options. Still fewer are aware that there’s another reference, in Quebec Appeals Court, over the Quebec government’s challenge to the latest (of eight!) bill from the Harper government on Senate reform, C-7. The cases substantially overlap — so much so that the feds sent lawyers to invite the Quebec Appeals Court to drop its reference while the Supremes heard the federal reference. No dice. The Quebec reference will be argued in oral hearings in Montreal on Sept. 10 and 11. The federal reference will be argued at Ernest Cormier’s beautiful Supreme Court building on Nov. 11 to 13.

Senate abolition party crasher

Is Harper, once an advocate of reform, switch camps?

John Ivison posits that the Harper government might, depending on how the Supreme Court rules, decide to push for abolition of the Senate.

The Conservatives argue that the Senate can be abolished under the constitution’s amending formula — section 38 — which states that any changes to the Senate would merely required resolutions in the House of Commons, Senate and seven provinces, representing 50% of the population (rather than unanimous approval).
If the Supreme Court agrees, it seems to me that we will see the Conservatives launch a full-on campaign for Senate abolition, in an effort to insulate Mr. Harper from accusations of being the Red Chamber’s patron. There appear few lengths to which this prime minister will not now go to distance himself from Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin — three of his 59 Red Chamber appointments.

On Senates and Scandals

Senate scandals teach us about senate reform

In 2009, the United Kingdom was rocked by scandal, after the Telegraph revealed that MPs were abusing taxpayer funds. As it turned out, MPs from all parties were claiming illegitimate expenses for personal gain. The public outcry that resulted did lead to a change in policy. But more importantly, it caused many elected officials to lose their jobs. Knowing that voters would boot them out of office as soon as they got the chance, many decided not to run in the next election; others resigned before the writ was dropped; a few ran and lost; and some were charged with crimes.

Canada is currently in the midst of an expense scandal of its own. Over the past few months, we have been learning about how Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy and Mac Harb have misused their Senate expense accounts, with each one looking more crooked than the last as details continue to emerge.

Reform Impossible, Abolition Necessary

Jeremy Harrison, MLA and Government House Leader in the government of Saskatchewan and former Conservative MP, explains how the Saskatchewan government came to its abolition position.

 In Saskatchewan we know what to do with machinery that’s broken down and impossible to repair. In the Aug. 2 edition of the National Post, Senator Bob Runciman wondered why Saskatchewan advocates abolishing the Senate and why my party hasn’t called senatorial elections as we’d originally hoped. The answer is simple: the Senate is too broken to serve Canadians and it’s impossible to fix. Holding elections for a broken Senate is a waste of money, as the Upper Chamber itself has become.

People are frustrated with the Senate. Our government has heard that frustration and recently put the question to a vote of our Saskatchewan Party members. The members voted to change our party’s position from reforming the institution to abolishing it. The majority was 86%. We believe this sentiment to be widely shared among the people of this province.

...

Gridlock

F.H. Buckley, professor of law at George Mason University, believes an elected senate is a recipe for gridlock,

Here’s what section 24 of the Constitution says about the way Senators get picked: “The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen’s Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate.” What that really means is the prime minister does the picking — on just about any basis he pleases. And he may, if he wants, pick people who have won an election in their respective region.

Or not. Nothing stops a Tory prime minister, even one who has sworn up and down that he’ll respect the voice of the people, to ignore an inconvenient senatorial “election” in Quebec. Or a Liberal prime minister who doesn’t really care much for the duly elected senator from Alberta.

...

Partial Precedent for Senate Reform through Abolition

I have my doubts that the Senate of Canada could be reformed by direct means.  The 7/50 rule, the veto power held by BC, Ontario, and Quebec, and the tendency of regionalism in Canada to trump good policy.  I'm not alone.  Some, such as Andrew Coyne, have suggested that to reform it, it should be abolished first, then reformed (or, at the point, recreated).  It turns out that there is at least one precedent for it, the Senate of the Philippines.  One might even count it as two precedents.  It was effectively abolished in 1935 and restored in 1945.  It was shut down in 1972, and restarted again in 1987.

The circumstances in the Philippines are quite different from the ones in Canada, though.  The Philippine Senate was shuttered the first time because the country drew up its own constitution and opted for a single legislative chamber.  The second phase ended when the president declared martial law, which shut down both houses of Congress.  Canada is not drawing up its constitution, nor has martial law been declared.  Thus, the precedent is only partial.

Perhaps the most relevant part of this comparison is the first time their Senate was reestablished.  They went for a time without one, like Canada would if we were to abolish ours, but decided it was desirable to have one after all.

I have my doubts that the Senate of Canada would be reestablished if it were ever abolished.  The same regionalism that keeps it from being reformed directly would likely prevent it from ever being formed again.

Veto Vetoed

One of the difficulties in doing anything about the Senate is the 3 provinces (er... "regions") have veto power on any constitutional change. Ontario and Quebec have always been considered regions for things such as distribution of Senate seats. British Columbia is included as part of the Western region, along with the three prairie provinces. A 1996 law made BC its own region, separate from the others in that region, with regards to constitutional change, giving BC veto power in addition to, Ontario and Quebec (of course, due to the 7/50 rule and the sheer size of Ontario and Quebec, they have effective veto power anyway). Harper, however, believes that he can sidestep BC's veto as it pertains to abolishing the Senate.

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.

...

Defending the Senate. Sort of.

I'll defend the Senate if I have to. I guess.

Brian Lee Crowley argues that we need an elected Senate for the sake of regional representation. This argument seems to require accepting three premises: 1) that regional alienation is a real thing with real consequences, 2) that Canada has somehow made it this far without an elected Senate fulfilling this role and 3) that an elected Senate would mostly solve the problem of regional alienation.

One of Canada’s great political and constitutional weaknesses has been the inability of the Canadian Senate to play this vital role of providing a credible community counterweight to the rep by pop-based power of the Commons. Appointed senators simply can never have the democratic horsepower to be a real counterweight to the Commons. The federal government’s legislation therefore lacks the legitimacy of the double-majority system that other federations have found so indispensable, and this is at the root of many of the problems of regional alienation and suspicion of the national government that has plagued this country since 1867.

...

Consent required

Provinces insist.

Provincial governments are taking a dim view of the federal government's latest argument that it can reform the Senate without provincial consent.

After the Harper government filed a legal brief to the Supreme Court of Canada this week, a spokeswoman for Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne said Ontario's position "is that provincial consent is required" to reform the upper chamber, a sentiment echoed by the government of British Columbia Premier Christy Clark. A spokesman for Clark said "British Columbians should have a say" in what happens to the upper chamber.

...

Enough is Enough

A call for reform

Upon attaining power we shall without delay enter upon and complete the necessary investigation to guide us as to details; and this investigation will be promptly followed by the requisite legislation.

....

Restoring the Senate’s legitimacy

From the Globe and Mail

The federal government’s pending bill on Senate reform, permitting the elections of senators, is a good proposal that would go far to restore the Senate’s reputation, damaged by the recent expenses scandal. On Wednesday, Pierre Poilièvre, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, unveiled the government’s factum for a reference question to the Supreme Court, which, however, goes further than it needs to, by raising the question of how the Senate could be abolished.

Reformed Senate Needed

Douglas Black, an Albertan Senator, believes a reformed Senate is needed,

I know that many Canadians are asking themselves whether we might be better off without the Senate. Over the last several months, there has been much coverage of the ethical shortcomings of a small number of senators. This has caused some — in the public, the media and even elected officials — to call for abolition of the Red Chamber. I understand the frustration many Canadians feel. But abolishing the Senate would be a terrible loss for Canada.

During the 2012 Alberta Senate nominee election, I campaigned on the need for Senate reform. It has been six months since I took my seat in the Senate, and I am convinced, now more than ever, that its current inadequacies must be urgently addressed. The government’s proposal for term limits and elections is a step in the right direction. I also have faith that the Senate itself will continue to address the ethical and expense issues of a small number of senators who have stained the reputation of the entire chamber, through its established protocols. The recent controversies are an unwelcome distraction from the Senate’s important work, and Canadians can rest assured that their senators are determined to get to the bottom of this issue and refocus our attention on serving this country.

Bizarre Brad

Current Conservative Senator and former Ontario PC MPP Bob Runciman weighs in on Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall's recent comments on Senate abolition.

Over the past few months, in the wake of damaging scandals, a number of Canadian premiers, most notably Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall, have been musing about the Canadian Senate and the need for reform.

In Premier Wall’s case, he claims he has concluded that reform is impossible and is now calling for abolition of the upper chamber, despite the long-standing support by the Saskatchewan Party he leads for an elected senate.

....

Bypass Provinces and Constitution

 The current government thinks it can go it alone.

OTTAWA — Short of actually abolishing the Senate, the federal government believes Parliament alone has the power to reform or change the upper chamber — without the need to consult the provinces.
Provincial governments would have to be involved in any move to do away with the Senate altogether, however, the Harper government said Wednesday as it made public its legal arguments to Canada’s top court.

 The full story

Galling Argument

From Emmett Macfarlane

Yesterday, the federal government released its factum (set of arguments to the Court) on the Senate reform reference. Paul Wells already has a good initial take on the feds’ approach and I will be writing much more on this in the days leading up to the Supreme Court’s hearing in November. But I wanted to specifically comment on the Justice Department’s arguments about why unanimity is not required to abolish the Senate.
Whether it requires seven provinces or 10 to get rid of an institution many critics appear to regard as arcane or useless might seem like a relatively trivial legal issue. Yet the arguments presented throughout the factum, and on abolition especially, go to the heart of something much more important: if the Constitution is fundamentally about establishing the rules and structure for how our democracy and governing institutions function, the constitutional amending formula is about who gets to write those rules.

Senate Factum

Aaron Werry reports on and Paul Wells opines on the Senate Factum filed by the government.