Senate Reform

[g_bambino]

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

I don't see any alteration, since no definition was set out in the constitution. Even so, the amending formula doesn't cover changes to definitions.

[g_bambino]

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.

You're trying to tell us senators write their own contracts that bind the Senate? You need to present some very sound sources for a claim like that.

[Topaz]

You're trying to tell us senators write their own contracts that bind the Senate? You need to present some very sound sources for a claim like that.

No, they don't write their own,but whatever they put as their residency and the senate accept it its deemed to be the truth. Watch the video. http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2339539267/

[eyeball]

No, they don't write their own,but whatever they put as their residency and the senate accept it its deemed to be the truth. Watch the video.

Don't the special words they invoke while swearing to a sky god guarantee their truthfulness?

[g_bambino]

No, they don't write their own,but whatever they put as their residency and the senate accept it its deemed to be the truth. Watch the video.

That's not the same as "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". Regardless, that still sounds like bullshit. A senator cannot claim to be resident in a province in which he or she doesn't even own or rent a residence, regardless of how ill-defined he word "resident" is in clause 23.5 of the Constitution Act 1867. If the opposite is true, you need a more credible source than someone talking on CBC.

[Paradox]

That's not the same as "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". Regardless, that still sounds like bullshit. A senator cannot claim to be resident in a province in which he or she doesn't even own or rent a residence, regardless of how ill-defined he word "resident" is in clause 23.5 of the Constitution Act 1867. If the opposite is true, you need a more credible source than someone talking on CBC.

One of our honourable senators would have to own at least $4,000.00 of real property in the province that the senator represents, as this is a separate and distinct requirement of the appointment, as set out in section 23(4) of the Constitution Act, 1867. This has proven to be enforced in the past, when The Honourable Sister Peggy Butts was appointed to the Upper House as a representative of Nova Scotia; the Sisters of Notre Dama order needed to transfer a parcel of land to her name so that she could take up her seat (as she had taken a vow never to own property, as a part of her service to the Church).

[g_bambino]

One of our honourable senators would have to own at least $4,000.00 of real property in the province that the senator represents...

Yes. But, that's separate to the residence requirement.

[Paradox]

Yes. But, that's separate to the residence requirement.

Separate, yes, but related.

Not only does the senator have to have at least $4,000.00 in real property (above debts and liabilities), but section 23(3) of the same part also states that the property must be owned in the province in which the senator is appointed to represent. Owning real property in a particular province goes a long way to proving residency.

[g_bambino]

Owning real property in a particular province goes a long way to proving residency.

Except, a property need not support a residence.

[jacee]

I think the Senate needs to clarify its rules.

Clearly Senators are required to reside near Ottawa where they work.

And we're past the days when MP's and Senators had to be landowners.

The Senate rules can't require someone to be resident in two places at once.

This is perhaps where an elected senate makes sense: The best indicator of whether a senator legitimately represents a province is whether the voters agree.