PM plans elected senate: Harper says bill a step in 'incremental' reform

OTTAWA - Stephen Harper hopes to move ahead this fall with legislation that will allow Canadians to elect senators, but he warned of "political consequences" for anyone who stands in the way of the major reforms promised in the last election.

The Prime Minister was making an unprecedented appearance before a Senate committee struck to examine legislation that limits senators' terms to eight years instead of forcing them to retire at 75. Mr. Harper described that bill as a precursor to the larger overhaul he wants to make to Parliament's Upper Chamber, including holding national elections for Senate positions and ensuring greater representation in the Upper Chamber for Western Canada.

"The government has chosen an incremental approach and we have begun with the easiest step, if you will," he said, adding the move has support across the country.

"I believe that the question of representation of the provinces is the most difficult issue in the area of Senate reform, and it is for that reason that the government has still not addressed the matter."

A spokesman for the Prime Minister said Mr. Harper was vague about the timing of legislation to hold Senate elections because the government cannot predict when, or if, the bill to limit senatorial terms will pass into law.

However, Mr. Harper's comments were his fullest explanation to date about the Conservatives' plan for making over the appointed chamber whose responsibility is to give "sober second-thought" to legislation before it is signed into law by the Governor-General.

His threat to those legislators thinking of opposing the government's Senate-reform plan comes about a week before Parliament ends its summer break and returns for the fall session.

The Tories realize they must begin setting up popular political positions upon which they can fight an eventual election when their minority government is defeated, which is likely to happen no sooner than next spring.

"There are critics who say you would like nothing better than to fight an election on the back of Senate reform," charged Ontario Liberal Senator Jim Munson.

Mr. Munson was formerly the press secretary to prime minister Jean Chretien.

"Well, don't give me the opportunity," Mr. Harper responded. "What there would be political consequences on, Senator ... is if the population were to become thoroughly convinced that any kind of Senate reform were impossible. Given the government is committed to Senate reform, I think we would obviously have to be looking at how it's received."

Mr. Harper has so far had an antagonistic relationship with the upper chamber, which is dominated by Liberals and has the power to delay or halt his legislative agenda. He was criticized the day he was sworn in as Prime Minister for appointing Tory fundraiser Michael Fortier to the Senate and to his Cabinet as Public Works Minister. That decision complicated the position he took in the election campaign that the Senate needed to be accountable to voters.

NDP leader Jack Layton said Mr. Harper's proposal has no credibility given his decision to appoint Mr. Fortier.

"Talk about hypocrisy," said Mr. Layton, following an NDP caucus meeting in Montreal. "We believe that [Mr. Harper] should simply have said, 'Let's abolish the Senate. It's an anachronism from times past, before women had the vote, before the concept of democracy was fully understood in this country.' "

There are nine vacancies in the Senate, but Mr. Harper said he plans to continue, for now, to resist the lure to appoint members of his own party in order to make up for the disadvantage. However, that could change if parliamentarians stand in the way of Tory reforms, he warned.

"It might happen," the Prime Minister said, "but I would prefer at this point to wait, to consult the population and to appoint elected senators."

Liberal Senator Jack Austin said Mr. Harper's admission, which he called a "major policy statement" that contradicts the position upon which the Prime Minister was elected, came as the biggest surprise to him in the one-hour hearing.

"He made it clear that he's not going to put himself in a box where he can't increase Conservative representation in the Senate," Mr. Austin said.

The Senate committee examining the proposed limits to senatorial terms was formed in June. Among the concerns that have been raised are whether the government will have to make formal amendments to the Constitution before proceeding with its reforms and what impact those reforms could have on the Canadian political system.

Some feel the government should seek a judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada before proceeding.

Mr. Harper explained to the committee members that he believes he can fix the terms of senators and appoint those who have been elected to the position by Canadians, without altering the Constitution. However, he will need to formally amend the country's founding legislation in order to alter regional representation, which is why he is leaving that step until the end.

"I don't believe in a step-by-step approach. I believe it's all or nothing," Mr. Munson said following yesterday's committee meeting. "It should be a larger package that we should be looking at, because it's not clear where we're going."

Mr. Harper said he believes there are three approaches that the government can take to the Senate: sticking with the status quo, which he believes is not acceptable; taking the incremental approach that he has adopted; or choosing a once-and-for-all "comprehensive" path.

Mr. Harper said the latter position would only work if the government wanted to abolish the upper chamber. The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois favour abolishing the Senate.

"I believe in Senate reform because I believe in the ideas behind an upper house," Mr. Harper told the committee.

"Canada needs an upper house that gives voice to our diverse regions, Canada needs an upper house with democratic legitimacy, and I hope we can work together to move towards that."

WHAT HARPER SAID

The fact that Senators can be -- and sometimes are -- appointed for terms of 15, 30, even 45 years is just not acceptable to the broad Canadian community of the 21st century.

- - -

The Government can be flexible on accepting amendment to the details of S-4...to adopt a 6-year term or an 8-year term or a 9-year term. The key point is this: We are seeking limited, fixed terms of office, not decades based on the antiquated criteria of age.