Senate Reform

[cybercoma]

What do you call the minority ruling over the majority? Democracy?

You know that's exactly what we have right now, right? 25% of eligible voters cast a ballot for the Conservatives. Less than 40% of ballots cast were for the Conservatives. Yet they have unimpeded power in parliament with a majority government, a stacked Senate, and 5 of 9 Supreme Court Justices. So when you talk of the minority ruling over the majority, is that what you had in mind?

[g_bambino]

25% of eligible voters cast a ballot for the Conservatives.

So, more people should vote. I agree.

[T]hey have... a stacked Senate, and 5 of 9 Supreme Court Justices.

Still this myth that senators and Supreme Court justices are puppets of the prime minister persists.

[cybercoma]

Still this myth that senators and Supreme Court justices are puppets of the prime minister persists.

If I meant the Prime Minister I would have used the pronoun "he". I said "they" because I was referring to the party and as we've seen the current iteration of the party demands strict discipline and is more concerned with winning for the "team" than individuals representing constituents. Edited February 24, 2013 by cybercoma

[g_bambino]

If I meant the Prime Minister I would have used the pronoun "he". I said "they" because I was referring to the party and as we've seen the current iteration of the party demands strict discipline and is more concerned with winning for the "team" than individuals representing constituents.

Well, pardon me. The prime minister is also the head of the Conservative Party, so "they", in terms of those running the Conservative Party, is often conflated with "he", just as "they" in the Cabinet and sometimes even "they" in the Conservative caucus are. But, okay, there is currently a majority of Conservative senators and most sitting Supreme Court justices were appointed at the direction of a Conservative prime minister... What's the actual problem you're trying to highlight? You referred to the aforementioned alongside the fact that less than 50% of eligible voters cast a ballot for a member of the Conservative Party in the last federal election; so, I assume you're trying to first paint senators and Supreme Court judges with a bias towards Conservative Party policies and then infer that, as such, they don't represent the majority of the voting population. Yet, senators aren't meant to provide popular representation, nor are judges, and the former are less politically driven than members of parliament, while the latter have nothing to do with politics at all.

[cybercoma]

Did you say Senators are less politically driven than members of parliament? Just recently Harper tried telling the Conservative Senators that they were obligated to support his bills because they're Conservatives. When someone gives you cash for life in the form of a Senate appointment, do you vote against them? Oh sure... nothing's stopping them from doing so. Let's get real here. In theory, maybe the Senate is completely free of influence from the PMO. In practice, you know damn well that's not true.

[Fletch 27]

Conspirist much??

The Senate is 100 pecent free of any influence from the PMO...

[Topaz]

Speaking of reform, Duffy, who says he's a PEI resident, the latest is PEI says he NOT and therefore Duffy can't be a senator if he's NOT a resident of the province. So how is this going to play??

[g_bambino]

Did you say Senators are less politically driven than members of parliament?

Yes, I did. They aren't elected and thus don't seek re-election, making them less politically driven.

Just recently Harper tried telling the Conservative Senators that they were obligated to support his bills because they're Conservatives. When someone gives you cash for life in the form of a Senate appointment, do you vote against them?

That "cash for life" can't be taken away by the prime minister. So, once a senator is sworn in, why would he or she give a crap if the prime minister stomped his feet and demanded he be obeyed? It seems you missed it when senators appointed on Harper's advice said they weren't happy with the government's bill proposing reforms to the selection and terms of senators; not that that has anything to do with them being more or as politically driven as MPs.

[ed.: +]

Edited February 26, 2013 by g_bambino

[PIK]

Speaking of reform, Duffy, who says he's a PEI resident, the latest is PEI says he NOT and therefore Duffy can't be a senator if he's NOT a resident of the province. So how is this going to play??

Now it seems that the rules need to be reformed, it seems that all senators would be breaking the law. I did not catch the whole thing but it seems with the law saying you need to be in your residence for 6months one day, to be a resident but yet you have to be ottawa most of the time for the vote and other stuff. So really yes there is a problem but it is the rules itself. So if the media would have pointed this out along time ago, we could have spared ourselves all these senate stories.

Edited February 26, 2013 by PIK

[g_bambino]

Now it seems that the rules need to be reformed...

The residency requirement is in the constitution. What defines "residency" probably should be clarified.

[shortlived]

The residency requirement is in the constitution. What defines "residency" probably should be clarified.

it is called a dictionary. law says if the word is not case defined it is the dictionary definition circa 1867 or 1863-66.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

it is called a dictionary. law says if the word is not case defined it is the dictionary definition circa 1867 or 1863-66.

Then it should be case defined, apparently.

[shortlived]

Then it should be case defined, apparently.

Its not. A change to the constitution has to be done via the amending formula last I heard. It is already defined.

Pull out a copy of Johnson's dictionary 1860 edition and read what the word means and save the tax dollars that would instead go to remake the past and let the corrupt manipulate fact .

resident late 14c., as an adjective; see reside + -ant. The noun meaning "one who resides" is from late 15c.

mid-15c., "to settle," from Old French resider, from Latin residere "to remain behind, rest," from re- "back, again" + sedere "to sit" (see sedentary). Meaning "to dwell permanently" first attested 1570s.

Lets dumb this down a bit...

THEY LIVE THERE.

doesn't incline how many days a year they spend there but that Is where they live. The exclusion for living in Ottawa is if they are carrying out officers duties --for the crown.

Obviously they would be expected to meet a few times a year.

Some might serve in specific government offices so they would reside in ottawa

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/canada-gazette/index-e.html

It is what you called administrative/beaurocratic drift.

I also suspect the resident aspect only applies to at the time of appointment... somewhat.

• 29. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a Senator shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, hold his place in the Senate for life.

• Marginal note:Retirement upon attaining age of seventy-five years

  (2) A Senator who is summoned to the Senate after the coming into force of this subsection shall, subject to this Act, hold his place in the Senate until he attains the age of seventy-five years

also query

"

A Resident, or in full Resident Minister, is a government official required to take up permanent residence in another country. A representative of his government, he officially has diplomatic functions which are often seen as a form of indirect rule."

this all implies he should be traveling, performing government duties (official crown duties such as a minister or other officer), on a leave of absence, or at home.

----

effectively they own a pretty nice property have money and will show up every once and a while, and not do anything that they would be killed for.. that's basically it

Edited February 27, 2013 by shortlived

[jacee]

Supreme Court denies government request to limit Senate-reform evidence

OTTAWA Canadas highest court has rejected a request from the federal government to limit the amount of evidence submitted as it considers the constitutionality of Senate reform, but it has agreed to hear arguments before the end of 2013.

...

In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada said it will allow provinces or territories to submit evidence from experts and other material that may include new evidence about how the country can go about reforming or even abolishing the Senate.

A government lawyer had argued in a letter to the court that all the evidence the court needed was already on the public record, and said allowing more input could delay a final ruling on Senate reform that is badly needed.

After over 140 years of discussion of Senate reform, it is very doubtful that original affidavit evidence from political scientists, historians or other experts will be helpful or relevant in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution in this regard, lawyer Robert Frater wrote in a Feb. 19 letter.

...

So far, the province of Quebec is the most adamant about allowing new evidence into the Supreme Court proceedings. A lawyer for the Quebec government argued that there was no need to limit evidence to hurry along the proceedings: the Conservatives have had six years to reform the Senate and every bill has so far died before it could be passed.

Given the number of possible interveners, the nature of this case and the fact, as pointed out by the Attorney General of Canada, that the reform of the Senate has been discussed for many years, the timelines he proposes do not allow for adequate preparation (time), wrote Quebec government lawyer Jean-Yves Bernard on Feb. 21.

The top court, however, set strict timelines for reporting, with arguments to the court due by the summer. A three-day hearing is to start Nov. 12, a concession by the court to the federal governments request for a hearing as soon as practicable.

Already, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have told the court they plan to intervene in the case. Other provinces and territories have said that no decision has been made, but it is expected that each will want a chance to put their views to the justices.

So ... once again Harper wants to push through his agenda without consultation or opportunity for input.

Fortunately, the court and the provinces see it differently.

If Senate reform is so important, it's worth doing it right.

[g_bambino]

A change to the constitution has to be done via the amending formula last I heard. It is already defined.

I spoke specifically about case defined, which you brought up. I don't see why a constitutional amendment is necessary to define "residency" in law; the residency requirement remains, but the word is defined by an act of parliament. It could even simply be an amendment to the Interpretation Act, which offers definitions of all sorts of terms found in the constitution but not defined therein.

[ed.: c/e, +]

Edited February 27, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

So ... once again Harper wants to push through his agenda without consultation or opportunity for input.

Fortunately, the court and the provinces see it differently.

If Senate reform is so important, it's worth doing it right.

Well, that's right in line with his approach to amending the line of succession to the throne. Unfortunately, in that case, not one provincial government has voiced concern, let alone opposition. However, ironically, given the subject of this thread, it's only from senators that we've heard even a desire for debate on Bill C-53 (the Succession to the Throne 2013 bill).

[jacee]

I don't think anyone cares about the throne much.

[shortlived]

I spoke specifically about case defined, which you brought up. I don't see why a constitutional amendment is necessary to define "residency" in law; the residency requirement remains, but the word is defined by an act of parliament. It could even simply be an amendment to the Interpretation Act, which offers definitions of all sorts of terms found in the constitution but not defined therein.

[ed.: c/e, +]

I spoke specifically about case defined, which you brought up. I don't see why a constitutional amendment is necessary to define "residency" in law; the residency requirement remains, but the word is defined by an act of parliament. It could even simply be an amendment to the Interpretation Act, which offers definitions of all sorts of terms found in the constitution but not defined therein.

[ed.: c/e, +]

The constition doesn't use the term "residency"

it says "be resident in the province they represent" except quebec where the have to own property in the voting district they represent.

en francais

|Il devra être domicilié dans la province pour laquelle il est nommé|

HE "will (needs to be) be" RESIDENT IN THE PROVINCE FOR WHICH HE IS NAMED.

domicilié

"In law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction. A person can remain domiciled in a jurisdiction even after they have left it, if they have maintained sufficient links with that jurisdiction or have not displayed an intention to leave permanently (i.e., if that person has moved to a different state, but has not yet formed an intention to remain there indefinitely)."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domicile_(law)

"

Dicey states the common law rule thus:

Every independent person can acquire a domicile of choice by the jurisdiction of residence and intention of permanent or indefinite residence, but not otherwise.^[2]

A person abandons a domicile of choice in a jurisdiction by ceasing to reside there and by ceasing to intend to reside there permanently or indefinitely (not based on the immigration status, but based on the social & moral status ), and not otherwise.

When a domicile of choice is abandoned, either

(i) a new domicile of choice is acquired; or

(ii) the domicile of origin revives"

Every person receives at birth a domicile of origin unless adopted.

"three things must exist at the same time, (a) the party must be personally present in the place which he chooses as a domicile, ( he must choose such place as his domicile, and © he must be sui juris.

Read more: http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/Popular-Law-12/Section-16-Domicile-Of-Choice.html#.UTCLe9GEgmg#ixzz2MHjzmy00"

Edited March 1, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

The constition doesn't use the term "residency"

Yea, that changes my point entirely...

[shortlived]

I spoke specifically about case defined, which you brought up. I don't see why a constitutional amendment is necessary to define "residency" in law; the residency requirement remains, but the word is defined by an act of parliament. It could even simply be an amendment to the Interpretation Act, which offers definitions of all sorts of terms found in the constitution but not defined therein.

[ed.: c/e, +]

I took your use of "case defined" as meaning defined in the case of the article, as opposed to "dictionary defined" being defined due to its periodic use and thus standard meaning. Misunderstanding in your meaning.

We are on the same page, somewhat, but I think you may have overlooked the importance of viewing the word use in period that is the 1860's, not 2012 meaning of resident. Likewise the French verb domicilier .. it more or just means they live there, in legalize though it actually means that they cannot live somewhere else. (except for the provision of senators from quebec and those who are crown officers.

This is because at law you cannot have more than one domicile at any given time, while they could have multiple places, senators who do live elsewhere actually live there, would give up their prior domicile unless there other residence was only temporary in nature. Sure there is wiggle room but the idea basically is that they are either travelling (attending to senate business etc..) or at home which needs to be in their province of representation. (This because you can only have one actual domicile and if you have your domicile in a place other than the province you represent you don't meet the qualification)

now as a matter of convention I'm not sure this aspect was enforced... previously with other senators it might be worth looking at how the 1st 2nd and 3rd parliaments senators lived to get an idea on what the idea was.

Edited March 2, 2013 by shortlived

[Topaz]

I'm wondering if any of you knew this about the senate. They sign a contract and whatever is written on that contract is deemed to be the truth because the senator says it is and nothing, if its proven wrong can changed it. Like if Duffy says he's a resident of PEI and says so on that document, then the senate deems it to be true and it can't be questioned, even if can be proven its wrong. I couldn't believe what was reported on the news show. So, in that thinking, could people who fill out for EI benefits have the same protection as the senate and therefore, couldn't be charged with fraud??

[g_bambino]

I'm wondering if any of you knew this about the senate. They sign a contract and whatever is written on that contract is deemed to be the truth because the senator says it is and nothing, if its proven wrong can changed it. Like if Duffy says he's a resident of PEI and says so on that document, then the senate deems it to be true and it can't be questioned, even if can be proven its wrong. I couldn't believe what was reported on the news show. So, in that thinking, could people who fill out for EI benefits have the same protection as the senate and therefore, couldn't be charged with fraud??

What are you talking about?

[g_bambino]

...I think you may have overlooked the importance of viewing the word use in period that is the 1860's, not 2012 meaning of resident. Likewise the French verb domicilier .. it more or just means they live there, in legalize though it actually means that they cannot live somewhere else. (except for the provision of senators from quebec and those who are crown officers.

I don't know why this has to be so complicated. "Resident" and whatever definition parliament desires for it can be inserted into the Interpretation Act by simple amendment.

[shortlived]

I don't know why this has to be so complicated. "Resident" and whatever definition parliament desires for it can be inserted into the Interpretation Act by simple amendment.

No I would say that no, altering the interpretation of constitutional documents cannot be done by parliament.

The amending formula is listed in the constitution 1982.

No law inconsistent with the constitution has force.

The interpretation act violates the ammending formula restrictions and so has no force.

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=information⊂=publications&doc=legislation/chap1.2-eng.htm

Edited March 4, 2013 by shortlived

[Topaz]

What are you talking about?

When someone becomes a senator they sign a contract/ document and whatever they say on that contract is deemed to be the truth and it doesn't really matter what the actual truth is. That is why Duffy is not in trouble about his residency. I never heard of this before but they had it on CBC and the reporter was saying that this contract protects the senators. I was shocked when I heard this because the truth is the truth but not under document.