Harper's setting Liberals up for a fall
PM is backing referendum bill knowing the Liberal senators will kill it
L. IAN MACDONALD
The Gazette
Monday, November 12, 2007
When Hugh Segal proposed a referendum to abolish the Senate last
month, he was suggesting a private member's bill with little prospect
of passing in the Liberal dominated Senate.
But as a Conservative senator, he has friends in high places. The
government leader in the Senate, Marjory LeBreton, indicated that she
had no problem with Segal's idea. And Stephen Harper, long an advocate
of an elected Senate, has given a clear heads up.
In subsequent interviews, Segal made it clear he was proposing to
abolish the appointed Senate only to reform it. Once a motion was
adopted by the Senate and approved by cabinet, a Yes committee would
favour abolition and a No side would oppose it.
Segal wanted to transform a No into a Yes, as the forces of renewed
federalism did on the No side of the 1980 Quebec referendum on
sovereignty-association. Segal's No committee would advocate an
elected Senate, and if that side carried the day in a national
referendum, to be held on a stand-alone basis apart from an election,
the provinces would be hard-put to oppose such an outcome, even though
such a change to the Upper House would constitutionally require their
consent.
All of which was very interesting, but somewhat hypothetical, in that
the Liberal majority in the Senate would have killed Segal's motion.
But then, something interesting happened. Speaking after an NDP
strategy meeting in Winnipeg, Jack Layton picked up Segal's idea and
ran with it.
He said the NDP would bring a motion in the House for a referendum to
abolish the Senate to be held at the same time as next federal
election, whenever that might occur. That would be timely and cost
efficient.
And then, something important happened. Stephen Harper picked up the
phone, called Layton, and endorsed the idea. Harper is clearly on the
same page as Segal. As the prime minister said of the Senate last
week: "If it can't be reformed ... it will have to be abolished."
The NDP's motion will come to the floor of the House as early as
tomorrow. With the support of the Conservatives, there are enough
votes to assure its adoption in the minority House.
So an idea that would have died in the Senate, is now assured passage
on the floor of the House. The Bloc Québécois might oppose it, since
all parties in the National Assembly approved a motion last week
insisting on Quebec's constitutional right to be consulted. But the
Bloc is not a great fan of an appointed Senate, and referendums have
been at the heart of the sovereignty movement since René Lévesque
first proposed one in the 1970s.
This leaves the Liberals, opposing the idea of a referendum on the
Senate.
"It shows he's not serious," Stéphane Dion said of Harper last week.
"He's playing with the institutions of our country in order to have a
diversion from his own problems."
Actually, if there's any leader who needs a diversion from his own
problems, it's Dion.
But he went on: "It will be a waste of money, this referendum," and
he called it "bad federalism," noting the constitutional niceties and
the right of the provinces to override a non-binding referendum.
But that was Segal's point in proposing it - the provinces would be
hard put to thwart the will of the voters, as expressed in a
referendum. Since the Charlottetown referendum of 1992, the unwritten
rule is that constitutional change must be approved by voters in all
provinces. No provincial government would dare oppose the will of its
own voters, either to abolish the Senate or reform it.
Dion's problem here is that he's thinking like a professor, not a
politician.
He can't see the whole field, and he's not thinking his way down it.
Consider what would happen after such a motion passes the House.
Harper would then have the authority under the 1992 referendum
legislation to have a question approved by cabinet.
But what if he decided, as a courtesy, to refer the motion to the
Senate?
The Liberals, having voted against it in the House, could then use
their majority to hold it up in the Senate.
The appointed senators would then vote against Senate reform, even
though the referendum was approved by the Commons.
As someone has said of Harper, while his opponents are playing
checkers, he is playing chess. Checkmate.
www.lianmacdonald.ca
© The Gazette (Montreal) 2007
PM is backing referendum bill knowing the Liberal senators will kill it
L. IAN MACDONALD
The Gazette
Monday, November 12, 2007
When Hugh Segal proposed a referendum to abolish the Senate last
month, he was suggesting a private member's bill with little prospect
of passing in the Liberal dominated Senate.
But as a Conservative senator, he has friends in high places. The
government leader in the Senate, Marjory LeBreton, indicated that she
had no problem with Segal's idea. And Stephen Harper, long an advocate
of an elected Senate, has given a clear heads up.
In subsequent interviews, Segal made it clear he was proposing to
abolish the appointed Senate only to reform it. Once a motion was
adopted by the Senate and approved by cabinet, a Yes committee would
favour abolition and a No side would oppose it.
Segal wanted to transform a No into a Yes, as the forces of renewed
federalism did on the No side of the 1980 Quebec referendum on
sovereignty-association. Segal's No committee would advocate an
elected Senate, and if that side carried the day in a national
referendum, to be held on a stand-alone basis apart from an election,
the provinces would be hard-put to oppose such an outcome, even though
such a change to the Upper House would constitutionally require their
consent.
All of which was very interesting, but somewhat hypothetical, in that
the Liberal majority in the Senate would have killed Segal's motion.
But then, something interesting happened. Speaking after an NDP
strategy meeting in Winnipeg, Jack Layton picked up Segal's idea and
ran with it.
He said the NDP would bring a motion in the House for a referendum to
abolish the Senate to be held at the same time as next federal
election, whenever that might occur. That would be timely and cost
efficient.
And then, something important happened. Stephen Harper picked up the
phone, called Layton, and endorsed the idea. Harper is clearly on the
same page as Segal. As the prime minister said of the Senate last
week: "If it can't be reformed ... it will have to be abolished."
The NDP's motion will come to the floor of the House as early as
tomorrow. With the support of the Conservatives, there are enough
votes to assure its adoption in the minority House.
So an idea that would have died in the Senate, is now assured passage
on the floor of the House. The Bloc Québécois might oppose it, since
all parties in the National Assembly approved a motion last week
insisting on Quebec's constitutional right to be consulted. But the
Bloc is not a great fan of an appointed Senate, and referendums have
been at the heart of the sovereignty movement since René Lévesque
first proposed one in the 1970s.
This leaves the Liberals, opposing the idea of a referendum on the
Senate.
"It shows he's not serious," Stéphane Dion said of Harper last week.
"He's playing with the institutions of our country in order to have a
diversion from his own problems."
Actually, if there's any leader who needs a diversion from his own
problems, it's Dion.
But he went on: "It will be a waste of money, this referendum," and
he called it "bad federalism," noting the constitutional niceties and
the right of the provinces to override a non-binding referendum.
But that was Segal's point in proposing it - the provinces would be
hard put to thwart the will of the voters, as expressed in a
referendum. Since the Charlottetown referendum of 1992, the unwritten
rule is that constitutional change must be approved by voters in all
provinces. No provincial government would dare oppose the will of its
own voters, either to abolish the Senate or reform it.
Dion's problem here is that he's thinking like a professor, not a
politician.
He can't see the whole field, and he's not thinking his way down it.
Consider what would happen after such a motion passes the House.
Harper would then have the authority under the 1992 referendum
legislation to have a question approved by cabinet.
But what if he decided, as a courtesy, to refer the motion to the
Senate?
The Liberals, having voted against it in the House, could then use
their majority to hold it up in the Senate.
The appointed senators would then vote against Senate reform, even
though the referendum was approved by the Commons.
As someone has said of Harper, while his opponents are playing
checkers, he is playing chess. Checkmate.
www.lianmacdonald.ca
© The Gazette (Montreal) 2007