Dateline: 04/30/2014

Background on Senate Reform in Canada

For years there have been proposals and demands for Senate Reform in Canada, particularly from the West and from Quebec. Proposals range from putting term limits on Senate appointments to advocacy for a Triple-E Senate (equal number of Senators per province, effective powers and the election of Senators) to abolishing the Senate altogether (a position the New Democratic Party, the Official Opposition, currently takes.)


Senate reform was part of the Conservative election platform that first brought Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives to power in 2006. Since then the Conservatives have introduced numerous bills to limit the terms of Senators, but they never got very far along in the legislative process It wasn't until the Conservatives had a majority government in 2011 that they started to push the latest Senate reform bill, which included a voluntary framework for the provinces to use to elect nominees for the Senate. In 2012 the Quebec government successfully challenged the 2011 bill in the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Reference to the Supreme Court

In February 2013, the federal government made a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on Senate reform, asking the Court's opinion on what would be required constitutionally for a variety of changes to the Senate, and what would be required to abolish the Senate.

The questions asked by the government dealt with:

Term Limits for Senators: Could the federal government unilaterally limit the terms served by Senators.

Senators can currently sit until the age of 75, although many leave earlier. The government asked about fixed terms of nine years, ten years, eight years or less, or the life of two or three Parliaments. They also asked about renewable terms.

Election of Provincial Nominees: Constitutional ways to have Senate nominees elected by the provinces, although still be appointed by the Prime Minister.

Property Qualifications: If Parliament has the authority to repeal the section of the Constitution that deals with property qualifications for Senators. (A Senator must own land worth at least $4000 in the province for which he/she was appointed and own real and personal property worth at least $4,000 above his/her debts and liabilities. The rules are different in Quebec.)

Abolition of the Senate: Would abolition of the Senate require the support of seven provinces with 50 percent of Canada’s population, or unanimous support from all 10 provinces?

What the Supreme Court Ruled

The Senate's decision came out on April 25, 2014. It was unanimous, and made it very clear that most of the proposals presented by the federal government could not be implemented unilaterally under the Constitution, but required at least the seven-fifty amending formula (consent of at least seven provinces representing at least half of the population). Abolition of the Senate requires the consent of all 10 provinces.

Full Supreme Court Decision on the Senate 04/25/2014 (Note: 55 pages)

Term Limits for Senators: The Supreme Court said that limiting Senators' terms would make them less independent, and in effect alter the Senate, so it would require consent of at least seven provinces representing at least half of the population.

Election of Provincial Nominees: Even though those elected as Senate nominees could be turned down by the Prime Minister, the Supreme Court said those elected Senators who were appointed would behave differently from the others who were simply appointed and would amend the Constitution by changing the Senate's role "from a complementary legislative body of sober second thought to a legislative body endowed with a popular mandate and democratic legitimacy.” This too would require the consent of at least seven provinces representing at least half of the population.

Property Qualifications: The Supreme Court said "yes" to this question, however Parliament would need the agreement of Quebec to remove the property requirements for Quebec Senators.

Abolition of the Senate: The Court was clear that abolition of the Senate would require the consent of all 10 provinces.

Immediate Government Reaction to the Supreme Court Decision

Mr. Harper can't have been completely surprised by the decision. His immediate response however was that "this is a decision for the status quo" and "we are essentially stuck with the status quo for the time being." However several days later in the House of Commons, he seemed to be pushing the whole issue over to the provinces. “If the provinces believe, as I do, there should be reform, they should bring forward those reforms forthwith. If they don’t believe that, they should bring forward amendments to abolish the Senate.”