XPost: can.politics, bc.politics, ab.politics   
   XPost: ont.politics, man.politics, sk.politics   
   From: {~_~}@nyet.ca   
      
   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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)