{~_~} Раиса
2014-04-24 18:24:43 UTC
Gonna be interesting. Notice that the Harper Cons are trying to remove
the 'residency requirement' for senators. Harper was the culprit who
appointed 'representative' senators from various provinces, knowing full
well that those people did NOT live in those provinces. Now he wants
that rule gone.
Same old, same old . . . . if the laws don't fit his agenda, kill or
change the laws.
______________________________________
April 24, 2014 - Globe and Mail
Supreme Court is set to rule Friday on historic case
A guide to Ottawa's proposed changes to the Senate
The Conservative government is proposing major changes to the Canadian
Senate, and on Friday the Supreme Court of Canada will rule on whether
the changes can go ahead. At the heart of the historic case is the
question of whether a simple majority vote in Parliament is enough to
alter Canada's basic structures of government.
Here is a reader's guide to the key changes proposed by the Harper
government:
Hold non-binding elections
Senators have always been appointed by the prime minister. Under a
proposed law, the federal government would ask the provinces to hold
elections, as a means of making the Senate more relevant. The election
of senators is important to the Conservatives' political base because it
would strengthen the voice of the regions. "Canada needs an upper house
with democratic legitimacy," Prime Minister Stephen Harper says. The
issue has become more pressing because of an expenses scandal involving,
paradoxically, three Harper appointees to the Senate.
Adopt term limits of nine years
Term limits are important for the renewal and vitality of the Senate,
the government says. Senators may sit until 75 under current rules, but
on average they sit only for 11.3 years, according to research done by
McGill political scientist Christopher Manfredi and cited by Ottawa as
evidence it is not changing an essential feature of the Senate.
End the $4,000 property requirement for senators
The requirement is inconsistent with modern democratic ideals, the
government says. "Property qualifications are not a reliable indicator
of the quality or character of a person, nor do they insure independence
of thought." Referring to the wishes of Canada's founding fathers in
terms more common in the United States, it said "slavish adherence to
original intent" should be rejected by the Supreme Court.
Abolish the Senate
Mr. Harper has said that if he can't change the Senate, he would like to
abolish it – with the agreement of seven provinces that have at least 50
per cent of the country's population.
What the Canadian Constitution says
Any change to the powers of the Senate or the means of selecting
senators needs the approval of at least seven provinces with at least 50
per cent of the country's population. (Mr. Harper's reply: Elections
would not change the means of selection because he would still have
discretion not to appoint the elected.) Abolition is not expressly
mentioned.
What the provinces say
Most say the so-called 7/50 formula for amending the Constitution would
be required for any fundamental change to the Senate. "The design of the
Senate is an integral part of the Confederation bargain," Ontario says.
Quebec calls the Senate part of the "covenant of Confederation." Most
say abolition would require unanimous approval of the provinces.
How judges responded at the hearing in November
"If the purpose is democratizing, how is it the Prime Minister wouldn't
feel obliged to appoint the winner?" Justice Marshall Rothstein of
Manitoba asked. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said the key question
is whether an election list would have an enduring effect on what the
Senate is and how it functions. Some judges wondered if Canada could
become a dictatorship with the approval of barely half of the
population. "Your position is that we could abolish both the Senate and
the House of Commons" under the 7/50 formula, Justice Thomas Cromwell of
Nova Scotia said to a lawyer representing British Columbia. "Exactly,"
she replied.
What the Senate is
Canada's chamber of "sober second thought" was designed to give the
country's regions roughly equal representation, to counterbalance the
big provinces' strength of numbers in the House of Commons.
the 'residency requirement' for senators. Harper was the culprit who
appointed 'representative' senators from various provinces, knowing full
well that those people did NOT live in those provinces. Now he wants
that rule gone.
Same old, same old . . . . if the laws don't fit his agenda, kill or
change the laws.
______________________________________
April 24, 2014 - Globe and Mail
Supreme Court is set to rule Friday on historic case
A guide to Ottawa's proposed changes to the Senate
The Conservative government is proposing major changes to the Canadian
Senate, and on Friday the Supreme Court of Canada will rule on whether
the changes can go ahead. At the heart of the historic case is the
question of whether a simple majority vote in Parliament is enough to
alter Canada's basic structures of government.
Here is a reader's guide to the key changes proposed by the Harper
government:
Hold non-binding elections
Senators have always been appointed by the prime minister. Under a
proposed law, the federal government would ask the provinces to hold
elections, as a means of making the Senate more relevant. The election
of senators is important to the Conservatives' political base because it
would strengthen the voice of the regions. "Canada needs an upper house
with democratic legitimacy," Prime Minister Stephen Harper says. The
issue has become more pressing because of an expenses scandal involving,
paradoxically, three Harper appointees to the Senate.
Adopt term limits of nine years
Term limits are important for the renewal and vitality of the Senate,
the government says. Senators may sit until 75 under current rules, but
on average they sit only for 11.3 years, according to research done by
McGill political scientist Christopher Manfredi and cited by Ottawa as
evidence it is not changing an essential feature of the Senate.
End the $4,000 property requirement for senators
The requirement is inconsistent with modern democratic ideals, the
government says. "Property qualifications are not a reliable indicator
of the quality or character of a person, nor do they insure independence
of thought." Referring to the wishes of Canada's founding fathers in
terms more common in the United States, it said "slavish adherence to
original intent" should be rejected by the Supreme Court.
Abolish the Senate
Mr. Harper has said that if he can't change the Senate, he would like to
abolish it – with the agreement of seven provinces that have at least 50
per cent of the country's population.
What the Canadian Constitution says
Any change to the powers of the Senate or the means of selecting
senators needs the approval of at least seven provinces with at least 50
per cent of the country's population. (Mr. Harper's reply: Elections
would not change the means of selection because he would still have
discretion not to appoint the elected.) Abolition is not expressly
mentioned.
What the provinces say
Most say the so-called 7/50 formula for amending the Constitution would
be required for any fundamental change to the Senate. "The design of the
Senate is an integral part of the Confederation bargain," Ontario says.
Quebec calls the Senate part of the "covenant of Confederation." Most
say abolition would require unanimous approval of the provinces.
How judges responded at the hearing in November
"If the purpose is democratizing, how is it the Prime Minister wouldn't
feel obliged to appoint the winner?" Justice Marshall Rothstein of
Manitoba asked. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said the key question
is whether an election list would have an enduring effect on what the
Senate is and how it functions. Some judges wondered if Canada could
become a dictatorship with the approval of barely half of the
population. "Your position is that we could abolish both the Senate and
the House of Commons" under the 7/50 formula, Justice Thomas Cromwell of
Nova Scotia said to a lawyer representing British Columbia. "Exactly,"
she replied.
What the Senate is
Canada's chamber of "sober second thought" was designed to give the
country's regions roughly equal representation, to counterbalance the
big provinces' strength of numbers in the House of Commons.