The federal government argues: A vote of the people about who they want to see in the Senate does not change the fact that the prime minister must appoint senators. Can Parliament create a framework for provincial elections to select Senate nominees? Any argument that says this will lead to direct elections has “no factual basis” and “relies on an unreasonable hypothesis of how events would unfold.” Nowhere in the Senate Reform Act is it written that the prime minister has to listen to the will of the people.ģ. All that national consultations provide is a way for the prime minister to determine who people want to see in the Senate.
The federal government argues: Simply consulting with provinces doesn’t mean there are direct elections to the Senate. Can Parliament create a framework for a national consulting process so the residents of each province and territory can voice their preferences for Senate nominees? Without retrospective application, the goal of enhancing the Senate’s legitimacy might be a generation away from being fulfilled.”Ģ. All were used in the factum to support the federal government’s position.Īs for applying them retrospectively, the government argues that it can apply the term limits to anyone in the Senate because the law allows for a statute to remedy the problem or “perceived mischief” it was introduced to address: “The ‘mischief’ in question here is a critical one: the proposed reforms seek to address longstanding concerns that undermine the Senate’s legitimacy as a democratic institution. The federal government’s legal factum also provided a history of Senate reform debates and decisions, and references a Pearson-era decision that set the mandatory retirement age for senators at 75 as opposed to life and a 1981 Supreme Court ruling that determined the federal government had power to make some changes to the Senate. “Do the provinces have a role here in regards to amending? The answer is yes.” Smith, a noted constitutional expert now at Ryerson University in Toronto. “The argument that the provinces were somehow a negligible partner in this seems a little dubious,” said David E. It also argued that the drafters of the Constitution and the amending formula for it saw provincial involvement in changing the Senate as limited to just “a few matters.” The federal government, in its submission to the Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday, argued that the Constitution grants more control to Parliament than to the provinces when it comes to changing the Senate. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Manage Print Subscription / Tax Receipt.