• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2013

E.R. Campbell said:
"Sunshine is the best disinfectant."

I was just listening to Sen George Baker on the local (Ottawa) CBC radio morning show.

He makes one good point: the steps taken, this year, by the Senate to provide some transparency ("sunshine") to senators' expenses are likely to help prevent repeats of the kind of disrepute into which Sens Brazeau, Duffy, Harb, Lavigne and Wallin have dragged parliament. The transparency ~ including "opening" the Senate to the Auditor General and making "internal economy" reports public ~ will likely make senators think before they spend. It will put the Senate into the position of letting in some "sunshine," which, according to an old political maxim, "is the best disinfectant."*

But, as Sen Baker suggested, the Senate's reforms need to be made permanent and even expanded in the Senate, itself, and applied to the House of Commons, too. The Parliament of Canada should be at least as open and transparent as is the Government of Canada. Members' and senators' expenses should be as visible as are those of senior civil servants. (I am not suggesting that the government's Directive on Travel, Hospitality, Conference and Event Expenditures is an especially good system but it does provide some visibility without violating the privacy of officials.)

As a genera rule: transparency in government is a good thing ... provided that transparency is balanced against government's real, valid need for security. What's good for government is, also generally, good for parliament, too.

There is, I believe, an opportunity here for Prime Minister Harper.

_____
* I think the quote can be attributed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis (1856-1941)


Here in more on Sen Baker's comments, excerpted from a CBC News report:

    In a separate interview, Liberal Senator George Baker praised the initiative, saying, "The auditor general is looking at everything," although Michael Ferguson told a Senate committee in June he could not say if he
    would examine every senator's expenses or just a sample, or whether he would name errant senators.

    Baker did blast MPs for not following suit and inviting the auditor general to put their expenses under the microscope. "If I were mining for gold, I'd go right there with the pan," he said, meaning the House of Commons.

    Baker continued, pointing out he was an MP for 29 years before his Senate appointment, "There are three times as many people over there. They have much greater budgets over there. They have much more
    leeway in their spending over there. They're not micromanaged like some people are in society. So I imagine the same thing would result and you may have down the road criminal charges laid, and you may see
    some people go to jail."

    Baker, as a Liberal Senator, will have to join Liberal MPs in September and begin posting his expenses online in fine detail, enumerating every trip and its cost. Publicizing expenses was a promise made by Liberal
    Leader Justin Trudeau, who has also publicly disclosed his personal finances.
 
Isn't it a little rich for Paul Dewar, the only MP ever fined for the Robocall issue, to spearhead this for the NDP?
 
There are, sometimes, especially in the media, rolled eyes  ::)  when the Conservatives bash the public sector, especially the unions, because they are hotbeds of partisan Liberal or NDP activism.

That the public service unions, per se, are in bed with the NDP is undeniable ~ but not, necessarily many union members nor some private sector unions. This article gives further evidence; it is headlined: "Senior PSAC exec to seek federal NDP nomination in Montreal." The article says:

    "Larry Rousseau, regional vice-president with the Public Service Alliance of Canada for the National Capital Region, announced on Wednesday that he would be seeking the nomination for the New Democratic Party in the Montreal riding of Bourassa.

    The 56-year-old has spent more than 30 years working as a civil servant in Ottawa and in his high-profile job as an elected official in one of Canada’s largest unions, he has never been shy about voicing his
    displeasure with Stephen Harper and his government."

There is, still, deep suspicion amongst many Conservatives that the executive ranks of the public service are little more than Liberal MPs in waiting ... John Diefenbaker, Brian Mulroney and Stephen Haper all harboured and expressed such views, and it is not too difficult to see why:

pearson.jpg
       
8536671_109641424945.jpg
         
6347_jpg_142x230_autocrop_q85.jpg
 
Lester Pearson ~                    Mitchell Sharp ~                                    Marcel Massé ~
former senior civil servant,      former senior civil servant,                    former very senior civil
later Liberal MP and PM            later Liberal MP and minister                servant and later Liberal MP and minister


See, also, this article from a few months ago.

The fact ~ and I beleive it is a fact ~ is that many senior civil servants share the so-called Laurentian consensus (which may or may not be collapsing, as John Ibbitson suggests). It is not surprising ~ it takes 25+ years to rise from "desk officer" to deputy minister. That means that today's senior civil servants joined when Brian Mulroney was still in power, were mentored by senior officials who grew up in the Trudeau era, and advanced into the senior ranks in the Chrétien era. There wasn't really much to differentiate Trudeau from Mulroney or Mulroney from Chrétien in national policy terms: they were different in degree, not basics. Stephen harper is the first "different" PM since Trudeau oveturned Louis St laurent's vision of Canada.

Now, it is important to note that there are fundamental differences between e.g. public sector union executives like Larry Rousseau and public sector executives like Richard Fadden, the DM of DND. Mr Rousseau's biography and Mr Fadden's curriculum vitae could hardly be more different, and we ought not to be surprised that they, probably, hold equally different political views. Mr Fadden joined the foreign service when Allan Gotlieb (who is strongly connected to Brian Mulroney's government) headed it, he served under people like Marcel Massé and, indeed, followed Massé into the PCO. Is Mr Fadden a member of the Laurentian elite? He is, certainly, qualified for it but I do not know his national views. My guess is that Richard Fadden does not vote NDP. It is also important to note that public sector unions, while, broadly and generally, in theNDP's camp, cannot "bring out the vote." Many, many, probably most public servants do not share the NDP's views on most issues.

- mod edit to fix photo -

Edits: spelling  :-[ and formatting
 
I noted upon Harpers winning a majority that quite a number of PS types were hoping for a less corrupt, more competent and focused governance. Barring one or two shining stars, it’s been a massive disappointment and any support in the PS has withered away. The message control mantra that started under the Liberals has turned into a massive time and resource eating monster under the CPC. I won’t say much here. But seeing some of the handling of issues from the inside, I won’t be volunteering or donating next election. In fact I am feeling rather politically homeless right now. As a gun owner I was the NDP/Liberal/Green scapegoat and a Civil Servant I am the CPC scapegoat.
 
CTV News is reporting that the Auditor General has said he will examine the expenses of all senators.

That will put pressure on the House of Commons to invite him to review their accounts, too.

Edit to add: And here is a report from Global News with a bit more detail.
 
[quote author=E.R. Campbell]
CTV News is reporting that the Auditor General has said he will examine the expenses of all senators.

That will put pressure on the House of Commons to invite him to review their accounts, too.

[/quote]

I get the feeling that the senators will regret creating creating this poostorm.  I simply can't believe that a few controversial senators are the whole problem.  Brazeau even said he didn't make anything up.  He asked what to claim.  They told him and he claimed it.  There are politicians at every significant public event.  I can't believe that much of Wallin's disallowed expenses for public events are considered personal.  I really don't think that's what the Senate would want.  Most politicians consider attending public events akin to charity, that is except  Trudeau who sees it as an income opportunity.

Marjory Labreton was dropped from cabinet and not replaced.  I suspect it was because she failed to control the Senate and created a scandal that could only affect the government.  The Senate stupidly set the bar so high that a thorough accounting could mean dozens of them will be writing cheques.  I suspect 100% of overclaimed expenses were a misunderstanding of what would be tolerated and tolerances changed without preparing the members.
 
It will be interesting to see which party has the greater number of miscreants.


"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Matthew 7:3
 
ModlrMike said:
It will be interesting to see which party has the greater number of miscreants.


"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Matthew 7:3

I'm not a man of God, but tonight I am a man of beer, so I can't quite comprehend that quote at the moment, but I think/hope it means something along the lines of what I am thinking...

Making this a game of measuring who committed a *lot* of fraud versus who only committed a *small amount* of fraud would surely be missing the root of the problem... the Senate is full of frauds.
 
"23(5) He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed;

23(6) In the Case of Quebec he shall have his Real Property Qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that Division.

31. The Place of a Senator shall become vacant in any of the following Cases:(5) If he ceases to be qualified in respect of Property or of Residence; provided, that a Senator shall not be deemed to have ceased to be qualified in respect of Residence by reason only of his residing at the Seat of the Government of Canada while holding an Office under that Government requiring his Presence there."

Note that the constitution does not say exclusively resident or primarily resident. It says "resident" and there is nothing odd, unusual, or illegal about having more than one residence. Counting days or asking neighbors is irrelevant. I highly doubt that there could be any requirement to live anywhere for any length of time provided the possession of a residence in the province or division of appointment.
 
There are specific time requirements to be considered "resident".

The person would have to meet the requirements for that particular area...
 
Rocky Mountains said:
Note that the constitution does not say exclusively resident or primarily resident. It says "resident" and there is nothing odd, unusual, or illegal about having more than one residence. Counting days or asking neighbors is irrelevant. I highly doubt that there could be any requirement to live anywhere for any length of time provided the possession of a residence in the province or division of appointment.
GAP said:
There are specific time requirements to be considered "resident".

The person would have to meet the requirements for that particular area...
True enough - if it was that simple, we wouldn't have senators applying at the 11th hour for a health card for the place he's supposed to represent.

Also, how confident would you be with a representative for your area who doesn't live there?
 
milnews.ca said:
True enough - if it was that simple, we wouldn't have senators applying at the 11th hour for a health card for the place he's supposed to represent.

Also, how confident would you be with a representative for your area who doesn't live there?


Every different piece of legislation defines resident in terms it deems relevant.  The Constitution Act does not define resident so ordinary English usage applies.  The tax, motor vehicle, and health care residencies are irrelevant.

Blacks Law Dictionary
4th Ed., Page 1176

As "domicile" and "residence" are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not indentical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and country, but only one domicile. Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Residence simply required bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile. Fuller v. Hofferbert, C./A.Ohio, 204 F.2d 592, 597. [see also In re Riley's Will, 266 N.Y.S. 209, 148 Misc. 588.]

The general definition applies only to the suitability to serve as a resident of a province or a Quebec division.  Reimbursement of expenses is defined by the Senate itself and is a different matter although I think they might be applying some definitions that are assumptions and not fact.
 
milnews.ca said:
True enough - if it was that simple, we wouldn't have senators applying at the 11th hour for a health card for the place he's supposed to represent.

Also, how confident would you be with a representative for your area who doesn't live there?


Lester B Pearson, a native of Newtonbrook, ON (now part of Toronto in the Yonge/Finch area), who made his home in Ottawa (and overseas) after 1927, represented the riding of Algoma East (consisting of the territorial district of Manitoulin, and the parts of the territorial districts of Algoma and Sudbury) from 1948 until he retired in 1968. Prime Minister Pearson visited Algoma East during each election campaign but it wasn't a natural fit. It was, however, a safe Liberal seat and Mike Pearson, despite his personal charm and skills as a diplomat, was a notoriously poor campaigner.
 
Tommy Douglas couldn't get elected in Saskatchewan so represented Burnaby, BC for a long time.  William Lyon Mackenzie King was MP for different terms in PEI, Ontario and Saskatchewan.  Sir John A. Macdonald represented BC for 1 term.
 
Rocky Mountains said:
Every different piece of legislation defines resident in terms it deems relevant.  The Constitution Act does not define resident so ordinary English usage applies ....
I wish it was that straightforward, and not an area where there has been, at one point, as many as three different opinions on what a "resident" is.

E.R. Campbell said:
Lester B Pearson, a native of Newtonbrook, ON (now part of Toronto in the Yonge/Finch area), who made his home in Ottawa (and overseas) after 1927, represented the riding of Algoma East (consisting of the territorial district of Manitoulin, and the parts of the territorial districts of Algoma and Sudbury) from 1948 until he retired in 1968. Prime Minister Pearson visited Algoma East during each election campaign but it wasn't a natural fit. It was, however, a safe Liberal seat and Mike Pearson, despite his personal charm and skills as a diplomat, was a notoriously poor campaigner.
Rocky Mountains said:
Tommy Douglas (1935–44, 1961-79) couldn't get elected in Saskatchewan so represented Burnaby, BC for a long time.  William Lyon Mackenzie King (1921-1948) was MP for different terms in PEI, Ontario and Saskatchewan.  Sir John A. Macdonald (1843–1857) represented BC for 1 term.
Didn't know these tidbits - one really does learn something every day.

Anybody want to bet on the chances of similar results in similar circumstances with MP's that aren't party leaders today?  Call me old fashioned, but if my MP (and, maybe down the road, Senator) isn't from even generally where I live, we might as well just elect MP's at large, or vote the party, and trust the party to go with a slate - everyone representing everyone.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
John Ibbitson notes, in a column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, that the magnitude of a scandal doesn't seem to be what annoys the public most:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/what-makes-something-a-scandal/article13708395/#dashboard/follows/

I think campaigning on abolition of the Senate is a dead end: the Supremes will make it, abolition, too hard ~ and rightly so. Senate reform on the other hand can be a winner with both the "old" CPC base and in the suburbs of Toronto and Vancouver. New Canadians are baffled at our appointed Senate, it is, simply, undemocratic and it cries out for change.


And, in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin explains how the Supremes will get to grips with the questions:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/17/supreme-court-chief-justice-says-theres-a-lot-of-work-to-be-done-before-answer-on-senate-reform-can-be-given/
national_post_logo.gif

Supreme Court chief justice says ‘there’s a lot of work to be done’ before answer on Senate reform can be given

Jennifer Graham, Canadian Press

13/08/17

SASKATOON — The Supreme Court of Canada is about to wade into the debate over the future of the Senate, but Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin cautions it will take time.

The federal government asked the Supreme Court in February to clarify the government’s powers to reform or abolish the Upper Chamber and the court will hear arguments this fall.

McLachlin says it can take anywhere from three months to a year for a judgement on difficult cases.

“We will do our best to get an answer for the Canadian people as quickly as we can, but obviously there’s a lot of work to be done, a lot of thought to be put into the questions, which are not easy, and it’s a huge responsibility,” McLachlin said Saturday at the Canadian Bar Association conference.

“We have to make sure that we have digested all the submissions before us and that we’ve given each question our deep and most conscientious consideration, so that may take a little time.”

She says the court will answer questions as to how change can be made and what is required in terms of consent by the provinces.

Ottawa has said it should be able to reform the Senate without reopening the Constitution.

There are questions about whether a majority of provinces have to be on side with reforms, or whether all of them must agree. But the Conservatives argue the high court can decide, in some circumstances, to allow the federal government to side-step the provinces in making changes to the Senate.

Calls to reform or abolish the upper chamber have grown because of a controversy over the expense claims of a handful of senators.

McLachlin says she doesn’t know how tough the case will be.

“I really can’t answer that until we get into it, then I’ll know how difficult it is, but at this moment I just know that it’s a case that’s coming our way,” she said.

“We have many difficult cases and we’ll do our best with it.”

McLachlin also used the conference to talk about access to justice, something she said is a growing problem for many Canadians. The chief justice says if people can’t get access the system, they either don’t resolve their problems or have to resolve them in other ways.

“The result can be increased violence, increased intimidation of individuals, it can be neglect, it can be having to live with your particular problem for the rest of your life instead of resolving it and turning the page,” she said.

“People can be and are totally incapacitated by the fact that they can’t resolve their legal grievance until it overcomes them and their lives are ruined. Their lives are ruined and their contribution economically and socially to society is diminished.”

McLachlin says a lot of people don’t get access to justice because they don’t know where to go. She also would like to see action taken to ensure costs are affordable and that there are enough courts and staff to hear cases.

A full report on access to justice will be released this fall, but a summary report is to be released Sunday at the Canadian Bar Association conference.

McLachlin says it’s important for the association and governments to act so the report doesn’t gather dust on a shelf.

“Well I think the basic responsibility is to have enough courtrooms and judges and court staff to hear all the cases, to ensure that the costs of using the system are not so prohibitive that people don’t want to or can not access it,” she said.

The Canadian Press


The "final answer" from the Supremes is unlikely to be the last word. It will, I think, take some (several?) options off the table but my guess is that the court is unlikely to say "this is the only way to go.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
It is beyond, "starry eyed," it is a silly comment. Politics is the most human of activities and humans (unless something remarkable happened while I was sleeping) are imperfect.

Our imperfection is demonstrated by the continued failures of socialism, in all its forms from the mildest Obama statism to hard core Marxist-Maoist communism. All socialism rests, and has rested for 2,000 years, on a single, simple Marxist principle: From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs. That's wonderful in theory but it requires one thing: perfect humans - and see my first sentence. That is why, no matter what people want to believe socialism, in any of its forms, cannot work - it requires an impossible precondition. Time travel is more likely than a working socialist system.

Some politicians are corrupt ~ not "most politicians," not even "many," just "some." They are, I suspect, corrupt in about the same proportion are we find corruption amongst bankers, plumbers, lawyers, carpenters, colonels and Emergency Medical Technicians, and they are just as hard to detect, in advance. Do you think we try to elect corrupt politicians or that TD Canada Trust tries to hire corrupt bankers? Of course not! But we get some and, fortunately, we seem to discover many of them.

When I first started to vote, circa 1960, I supported the Liberal Party of Canada even though I knew there were some (too many) corrupt Liberal politicians; but I understood that it was the same for the Progressive Conservatives and the CCF. It was policy, not morality, that drove me away from the Liberals and to the (equally imperfect) PCs and it is policy that keeps me in the Conservative camp. I want the CPC to clean its own house and to try to make it more difficult for ALL politicians to break the fundamental rules - but I do not expect them to be perfectly "clean," and I will not blame the Liberals or the New Democrats for, also, being imperfect.

Most politicians, including Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau are honest, honourable men and women; a few are tempted to take advantage of thier office and and even tiny fewer are dishonest from the get go. But they are all humans and they are all imperfect.


I'm generally reluctant to take a stringent moral position on politics, and ever time the notion strikes me I usually reconsider the career of Robert Walpole, often called, simply, "the great man," arguably one of history's greatest politicians but a decidedly amoral one. But one bit in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the New York Times struck me and so I add it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/opinion/sunday/dowd-money-money-money-money-money.html?_r=0
new-york-times-logo.gif

Money, Money, Money, Money, MONEY!

By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: August 17, 2013

WASHINGTON — CLINTON nostalgia is being replaced by Clinton neuralgia.

Why is it that America’s roil family always seems better in abstract than in concrete? The closer it gets to running the world once more, the more you are reminded of all the things that bugged you the last time around.

The Clintons’ neediness, their sense of what they are owed in material terms for their public service, their assumption that they’re entitled to everyone’s money.

Are we about to put the “For Rent” sign back on the Lincoln Bedroom?

If Americans are worried about money in politics, there is no larger concern than the Clintons, who are cosseted in a world where rich people endlessly scratch the backs of rich people.

They have a Wile E. Coyote problem; something is always blowing up. Just when the Clintons are supposed to be floating above it all, on a dignified cloud of do-gooding leading into 2016, pop-pop-pop, little explosions go off everywhere, reminding us of the troubling connections and values they drag around.

There’s the continuing grotesque spectacle of Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin. And there’s the sketchy involvement of the Clintons’ most prolific fund-raiser, Terry McAuliffe, and Hillary’s brother Tony Rodham in a venture, GreenTech Automotive; it’s under federal investigation and causing fireworks in Virginia, where McAuliffe is running for governor.

Many Israelis were disgusted to learn that Bill Clinton was originally scheduled to scarf up $500,000 to speak at the Israeli president Shimon Peres’s 90th birthday festivities in June. I guess being good friends with Peres and brokering the accord that won Peres the Nobel Peace Prize were not reasons enough for Bill to celebrate. The Israeli branch of the Jewish National Fund had agreed to donate half a mil to the Clinton foundation. Isn’t the J.N.F. “supposed to plant trees with donor cash?” Haaretz chided before the fund pulled back. “I guess money does grow on trees.”

I never thought I’d have to read the words Ira Magaziner again. But the man who helped Hillary torpedo her own health care plan is back.

In a Times article last week headlined “Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions,” Nicholas Confessore and Amy Chozick offered a compelling chronicle about an internal review of the rechristened Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation that illuminated the fungible finances and tensions between Clinton loyalists and the foundation architects Magaziner and Doug Band, former bag carrier for President Clinton.

You never hear about problems with Jimmy Carter’s foundation; he just quietly goes around the world eradicating Guinea worm disease. But Magaziner continues to be a Gyro Gearloose, the inept inventor of Donald Duck’s Duckburg.

“On one occasion, Mr. Magaziner dispatched a team of employees to fly around the world for months gathering ideas for a climate change proposal that never got off the ground,” Confessore and Chozick said.

We are supposed to believe that every dollar given to a Clinton is a dollar that improves the world. But is it? Clintonworld is a galaxy where personal enrichment and political advancement blend seamlessly, and where a cast of jarringly familiar characters pad their pockets every which way to Sunday.

“Efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons’ charity work from Mr. Clinton’s moneymaking ventures and Mrs. Clinton’s political future,” Confessore and Chozick wrote.

The most egregious nest of conflicts was a firm founded by Doug Band called Teneo, a scammy blend of corporate consulting, public relations and merchant banking. Band, a surrogate son to Bill, put Huma, a surrogate daughter to Hillary, on the payroll. Even Big Daddy Bill was a paid adviser.

As The Times reported, Teneo worked on retainer, charging monthly fees up to $250,000 and recruiting clients from among Clinton Foundation donors, while encouraging others to become foundation donors. The Clintons distanced themselves from Teneo when they got scorched with bad publicity after the collapse of its client MF Global, the international brokerage firm led by the former New Jersey governor Jon Corzine.

And Chelsea is now shaping the foundation’s future, and her political future. So there may not be as much oxygen for her troublesome surrogate siblings.

As George Packer wrote in The New Yorker, Bill Clinton earned $17 million last year giving speeches, including one to a Lagos company for $700,000. Hillary gets $200,000 a speech.

Until Harry Truman wrote his memoirs, the ex-president struggled on an Army pension of $112.56 a month. “I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable,” he said, “that would commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency.”

So quaint, Packer wrote, observing, “The top of American life has become a very cozy and lucrative place, where the social capital of who you are and who you know brings unimaginable returns.”

The Clintons want to do big worthy things, but they also want to squeeze money from rich people wherever they live on planet Earth, insatiably gobbling up cash for politics and charity and themselves from the same incestuous swirl.


Here's what caught my eye: "Bill Clinton earned $17 million last year giving speeches, including one to a Lagos company for $700,000. Hillary gets $200,000 a speech ...[but] ... Until Harry Truman wrote his memoirs, the ex-president struggled on an Army pension of $112.56 a month. “I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable,” he said, “that would commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency.”

In my weekend papers several pundits are trying to explain l'affaire Brazeau/Duffy/Harb/Wallin in political terms. maybe that's just a step too complicted, maybe it is a simpler moral question. Maybe it's Harry Truman ~ the politician we all want, versus Bill Clinton ~ the politician we all elect. So, maybe, the problem is, as is so often the case, in our mirrors.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
....Maybe it's Harry Truman ~ the politician we all want, versus Bill Clinton ~ the politician we all elect. ....


Interesting to compare Harry against Bill and their peers (Gallup Polls).

Apparently honourable, honest, tight-fisted presidents (and prime ministers?) are less popular than philandering, spend-thrift rakes.  But that should be little surprise.  Even as people proclaim morality the clergy dies and Hollywood prospers.

And on the Supremes and the Constitution:

It is all a bit of a mug's game.  As was alluded to up-thread residence can mean many things.  In 1864, the Lords, the entity on which the Senate is modelled, held income generating lands all over Britain with manors in the country.  In the City, they held town houses which they occupied in The Season.  Mike Duffy is different only in that he only has a cottage in the country.  But that cottage is worth more than the minimum realty value required to qualify for the Senate.

And in Pamela Wallin's case I am willing to bet that, unlike most Ontario and Quebec Senators, she could still easily win election as a Senator in Saskatchewan.

Final word:

In our house we regularly heard "Yes.  You can leave the table.  You may not."

The Supremes will only decide if GOD (Government of Day) is legally able to modify the Constitution.  The Provinces will still decide if GOD is permitted to make the changes.

Still, the reference to the Court is right and necessary if only to clarify murky waters and prevent opponents saying "You can't do that".
 
Back
Top