Constitutional Crisis Looming re: Senate Residency?

[FiveParadox]

It has been suggested by The Honourable Lowell Murray P.C., a former Canadian senator who was one of the last members of the rump caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, that Canadians could see a constitutional crisis arise in The Honourable the Senate in the near future if issues and controversies with Senate residency requirements continue.

It has recently come to light that the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration has constituted a three-member subcommittee to explore whether the living allowance expenses of several senators are legitimate. However, if the problem appears to be widespread, then it will be more than a question of whether a few tens of thousands of dollars need to be returned—it will be a question of whether several senators hold legitimate seats.

Section 23(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867 requires that each member of the Senate "be resident in the Province for which he is appointed." The Honourable Senator Mike Duffy (Prince Edward Island) recently agreed to pay back his living allowances for what he had identified as his "second home" in Ottawa, because it was revealed to be in all material respects his primary residence. This is more than a question of whether the honourable senator claimed public funds inappropriately; it is moreso a question of whether, if he is not primarily resident in Prince Edward Island, he is constitutionally entitled to sit as a senator in the Upper House to start with.

In the event that several senators are found by the internal economy committee to not fulfill the provincial residency requirements, then the Senate could be put in a position where it is required to exercise its section 33 authority under the Constitution Act, 1867, to declare several senators to be "not qualified" and to thereby expel them from the Upper House of Parliament.

This investigation will be conducted over the next several years by The Honourable Senator Elizabeth Marshall Q.C. (Newfoundland and Labrador), the Whip for Her Majesty's Government; The Honourable Senator Gerald Comeau (Nova Scotia); and The Honourable Senator Larry Campbell (British Columbia). The chairperson of the three-person subcommittee, Senator Marshall, previously served as the Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Sources

• Canada faces a 'constitutional crisis' if senators' residency scandals prove widespread (source)
• Constitution Acts, 1867-1982 (source)

 

[Goober]

The term Residency is quite vague. It does not state how long they must be in their home province. But Duffy was not a resident of PEI as shown by his medical care and medicare application to the Prov of PEI and the tax rate he paid on his so called home in Cavendish.
So his appointment will be the motivator on clarifying Residency in your home Prov, before and after appointment to the House of hidden entitlements.
And would that require a Constitutional Amendment?

 

[FiveParadox]

The term Residency is quite vague. It does not state how long they must be in their home province. But Duffy was not a resident of PEI as shown by his medical care and medicare application to the Prov of PEI and the tax rate he paid on his so called home in Cavendish.

A reasonable expectation would be, I would think, consistent with the rules for voting in a province. If a person is eligible to vote in a province, then they should be eligible to be appointed to the Senate to represent that province. The Election Act in British Columbia, for example, allows someone to vote in our provicial elections if, pursuant to section 29(d), they have been a resident of the province for at least six (6) months. This seems reasonable to me for Senate residency.

So his appointment will be the motivator on clarifying Residency in your home Prov, before and after appointment to the House of hidden entitlements.

I don't think that the last comment here is fair.

The benefits of being a senator are far less than those for members of the House of Commons, and this is despite the fact that the work of the Lower House tends to be more in-the-moment, rushed, and far less comprehensive than the work of the Red Chamber. Senators become experts of subject matter by the very nature of the Senate, and the compensation and benefits for those parliamentarians needs to be fair and adequate.

And would that require a Constitutional Amendment?

I am of the sense that, no, a constitutional amendment would not be required.

The Senate already has the authority to make decisions on how to determine whether the qualifications of an honourable senator have been fulfilled, and to make determinations as to vacancies that may arise as a result. This could be accomplished through a report of either the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration, or the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, with a set of standing rules to be adopted by the full Senate for the interpretation of Senate residency requirements.

 

[Goober]

A reasonable expectation would be, I would think, consistent with the rules for voting in a province. If a person is eligible to vote in a province, then they should be eligible to be appointed to the Senate to represent that province. The Election Act in British Columbia, for example, allows someone to vote in our provicial elections if, pursuant to section 29(d), they have been a resident of the province for at least six (6) months. This seems reasonable to me for Senate residency.


I don't think that the last comment here is fair.

The benefits of being a senator are far less than those for members of the House of Commons, and this is despite the fact that the work of the Lower House tends to be more in-the-moment, rushed, and far less comprehensive than the work of the Red Chamber. Senators become experts of subject matter by the very nature of the Senate, and the compensation and benefits for those parliamentarians needs to be fair and adequate.

It is fair comment as both the Senate and the House of Commons refuse to be audited by the Auditor General of Canada. They have no issue with having a company audit their so called books. These are the self same companies that re-gifted, upgraded and told investors in the US and elsewhere that so called junk mortgages were A OK- They are and can be corrupted. The new term is to big to jail.
I am not paranoid. but If I want an independent and an audit that is fair and one that I would have faith in then I trust the Auditor General for Canada. The others are just blowing smoke and passing mirrors.
No we are talking about approx 1/2 Billion dollars and to trust people who spin and lie for a living. Yep it is fair comment.[/QUOTE]

I am of the sense that, no, a constitutional amendment would not be required.

The Senate already has the authority to make decisions on how to determine whether the qualifications of an honourable senator have been fulfilled, and to make determinations as to vacancies that may arise as a result. This could be accomplished through a report of either the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration, or the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, with a set of standing rules to be adopted by the full Senate for the interpretation of Senate residency requirements.

The Govt can and should ask the SCoC for a ruling on this. Tolerance for malfeasance is lower than it was 10 years ago.
I am interested to see if Pamela Wallen's travel expenses will be made public. Over 13 k per month. Busy, very busy.

 

[FiveParadox]

It is fair comment as both the Senate and the House of Commons refuse to be audited by the Auditor General of Canada. They have no issue with having a company audit their so called books. These are the self same companies that re-gifted, upgraded and told investors in the US and elsewhere that so called junk mortgages were A OK- They are and can be corrupted. The new term is to big to jail.
I am not paranoid. but If I want an independent and an audit that is fair and one that I would have faith in then I trust the Auditor General for Canada. The others are just blowing smoke and passing mirrors.
No we are talking about approx 1/2 Billion dollars and to trust people who spin and lie for a living. Yep it is fair comment.

Circumstances would need to be tremendously exceptional to warrant the Office of the Auditor General of Canada auditing the Parliament of Canada. This is not because the Houses of Parliament should not be audited, but rather because of the interesting relationship between the auditor general and Parliament. The auditor general is appointed by with the approval of Parliament, and may be removed at the request of Parliament, and so there must be consideration of the reporting relationship. Audits of Parliament by its own officers must be done sparingly.

The Office of the Auditor General has the authority to audit every department of the Government of Canada (and the governments of the three territories), and to compel the production of documents and records to facilitate these audits. However, the auditor general has no authority to compel Parliament itself to produce documents or records, as Parliament is not a department of—and is structurally independent of—the Government.

The Govt can and should ask the SCoC for a ruling on this. Tolerance for malfeasance is lower than it was 10 years ago.

In fact, His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General of Canada, has already referred seven questions to the Supreme Court of Canada related to constitutional amendments to the Senate. These questions relate to what authority the Parliament of Canada has when it comes to reforming the Senate.

I am interested to see if Pamela Wallen's travel expenses will be made public. Over 13 k per month. Busy, very busy.

As much as I dislike The Honourable Senator Pamela Wallin O.C., S.O.M. (Saskatchewan), if the external investigation into her expenses concludes that she is indeed primarily resident in the province that she represents, this might not seem so out-of-step. It looks like community testimony is that Senator Wallin is quite active in Saskatchewan, and may in fact be more popular than the prime minister in the 13/14 Conservative seat province.

Source

• Senator Pamela Wallin defends her travel expenses (source)

 

[taxslave]

Since an MP or MLA does not have to reside in the riding they represent it is only fair that Senators be treated the same. I see some moving happening here.
Question for anyone that might know. IF a Senator gets paid for maintaining a residence in the province represented do they also get money for a residence in Ottawa?

 

[FiveParadox]

Since an MP or MLA does not have to reside in the riding they represent it is only fair that Senators be treated the same. I see some moving happening here.

I do not necessarily agree.

Senators tend to represent the province for which they are appointed for a longer period of time than elected members of the Lower House. Moreover, senators (with the exception of those appointed for Québec) do not represent a specific riding; rather, they represent the entire province. I think that it's an entirely reasonable expectation for senators to be resident in the province they represent.

Question for anyone that might know. IF a Senator gets paid for maintaining a residence in the province represented do they also get money for a residence in Ottawa?

A senator is entitled to claim living expenses only for their National Capital Region home IF they are primarily resident at least one hundred kilometres out of the National Capital Region (Ottawa, etc.); if a senator lives close enough to Parliament Hill as their main residence (this would be the case for some honourable senators appointed to represent Ontario), then they are not eligible for a living allowance.

 

[taxslave]

I do not necessarily agree.

Senators tend to represent the province for which they are appointed for a longer period of time than elected members of the Lower House. Moreover, senators (with the exception of those appointed for Québec) do not represent a specific riding; rather, they represent the entire province. I think that it's an entirely reasonable expectation for senators to be resident in the province they represent.


But by making MP's and MLA's reside in the riding they represent would prevent parachute candidates. Which is not a bad thing.

 

[FiveParadox]

But by making MP's and MLA's reside in the riding they represent would prevent parachute candidates. Which is not a bad thing.

Ah, okay, I misread your post. I thought you were saying that since members of Parliament do not have to be resident in their ridings, then neither should senators be required to be resident in the appropriate province. I think that both members of the Senate and the House of Commons should be required to live in the correct province or riding, as appropriate, to ensure more responsive and informed representation.

 

[Machjo]

I think an elective Senate could solve the residency requirement by requiring the candidate to be resident in the province at the time of the election at least. Sure he could move out right after, but at then he'd have to move back again for the next election, not to mention the optics of moving out and in all the time.

 

[FiveParadox]

I think an elective Senate could solve the residency requirement by requiring the candidate to be resident in the province at the time of the election at least. Sure he could move out right after, but at then he'd have to move back again for the next election, not to mention the optics of moving out and in all the time.

The method of selection has nothing to do with the qualifications for office.

Senators are required, now, to be resident in the province for which they're appointed, during their term. And a senator can only take up a secondary residence in Ottawa (i.e., not primary) if they are appointed to represent a province other than Ontario or, if they are representing Ontario, if they live more than 100 kilometres from the National Capital Region. These rules already exist, there's only question of whether they've been applied appropriately.

 

[Nuggler]

I think an elective Senate could solve the residency requirement by requiring the candidate to be resident in the province at the time of the election at least. Sure he could move out right after, but at then he'd have to move back again for the next election, not to mention the optics of moving out and in all the time.

Most politicos seem to enjoy the old "in out in out" as long as it's not them in the barrel....................and they get paid.........reverse w hore........how bout that!!:canada:.........gotta love it.

Here we are, 21st C, internet, instant communications to most of the globe, and the politicos can still fuc k us to a standstill, and there's nothing we can do about it. They can even try to make us believe the sad state of the world is "our" fault. Goddam genius, all of em.

Even try to make us believe that 35% is a majority, or making some poor unemployed shmuck travel 100K to take employment which pays only 75% of his former job is a good thing.

Offshoring plants and giving corporations tax breaks creates jobs jobs jobs.

 

[JamesBondo]

as far as I know, if I go to an out of province university as a student, I am indefinitely considered a resident of my home province until my student status changes. I doubt that I even need to maintain anything more than a mailing address in my home province.

 

[Dixie Cup]

I am really getting ticked about all the BS that is happening in Ottawa - both w/regards to MP's and Senators! Talk about no ethics! I don't think that those on the Hill even know what the h*ll that word even means! And it involves ALL parties!! Take Cash - an NDP'er who makes money from the CBC for some music he wrote and then is on a committee pushing for CBC funding - and the Ethic's commissioner finds nothing wrong with that?? 'xcuse me?? It's definitely a conflict if nothing else, but I would suggest it's much more than that!

Then the Cons and Libs declaring expenses for living away from home when most of their time is spent right in ol' Ottawa - and the Duff states he's repaying the money so that it doesn't "detract" from the business the senate does - doesn't detract?? Are you kidding me!! He's a thief as is the Lib guy (don't remember his name). They ALL need to be audited - every friggin one of them.

Then there was a Liberal MP who posted all her expenses on-line and she was considered a "rengade" by her party (and I'm sure all parties) because she thought that her constituents deserved to see what her expenses were. There was some sort of "Office of something" that declared that she couldn't do that. That's appalling. We should be outraged by all this and demanding the accountablitily that the Conservatives campaigned for and have not delivered at all. I've just about had it with this crap but, unfortunately, all the parties are guilty - it seems that there are those who feel the Cons are more guilty then the others. I disagree - they all have their fingers in the pot and I, for one, am going down screaming - to my MP, to the head of the Opposition, to the PMO to the Libs etc.

pant, pant.....take a deeeeeppppp breath, Dix!! OK, I'm in control now! Seriously, there are no ethics in Politics and its all our fault. We either don't bit*#h enough, or, more likely, don't give a damn.

Soap Box Out!!

PS-sorry - bad day!

 

[El Barto]

We really need to find a way to keep money away from politicians.

 

[taxslave]

Ah, okay, I misread your post. I thought you were saying that since members of Parliament do not have to be resident in their ridings, then neither should senators be required to be resident in the appropriate province. I think that both members of the Senate and the House of Commons should be required to live in the correct province or riding, as appropriate, to ensure more responsive and informed representation.

I kind of worded it poorly but I think it should work either way. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that. Ideally they should live in the area they represent. Perhaps in the cities where a riding only covers a few blocks it is not a big deal but in the rural areas where your rep can live in the same riding and still be more than a two hr. drive away it sure is.

 

[damngrumpy]

Duffy has been caught with his hand in the soup as it were so he agrees to pay back
the money. I don't think so, there are reports that the following page of the documents
shows its not confusing I was listening to a report in my truck so I didn't get the details
but I think we have to see investigating further.
In addition, One guy steals a ring and tries to return it and says sorry now we have a
person pretending to be from one place and representing another. Everyone should be
shamed equally wouldn't ya think

 

[jwmcq625]

The term Residency is quite vague. It does not state how long they must be in their home province. But Duffy was not a resident of PEI as shown by his medical care and medicare application to the Prov of PEI and the tax rate he paid on his so called home in Cavendish.
So his appointment will be the motivator on clarifying Residency in your home Prov, before and after appointment to the House of hidden entitlements.
And would that require a Constitutional Amendment?

Why would it require a Constitutional Amendment when the Act clearly states that Section 33 can be used to expel any \Senator if they have been found to be not a resident of the province they were appointed to serve, and it matters not where they were born or whether they might own a summer home in that province. If they don't have a valid driver's license from that province as well as a Medicare Card, they are not residents at all. Murphy had neither and agreed to pay back this money he received fraudulently. If; he was not who he is, and just an individual who signed and filed a claim to receive EI payments and it was found they were received fraudulently two things could have happened; !) They are required to repay not only the amount of money they received that they were not entitled to, but a penalty equal to the original amount is assessed as a penalty. 2) They could and have been charged with criminal fraud. I think just paying this money back as acting as if they didn't know what they did was wrong is not sufficient punishment, I instead think that they should immediately have their appointment repealed and they should face criminal charges.

 

[taxslave]

Why would it require a Constitutional Amendment when the Act clearly states that Section 33 can be used to expel any \Senator if they have been found to be not a resident of the province they were appointed to serve, and it matters not where they were born or whether they might own a summer home in that province. If they don't have a valid driver's license from that province as well as a Medicare Card, they are not residents at all. Murphy had neither and agreed to pay back this money he received fraudulently. If; he was not who he is, and just an individual who signed and filed a claim to receive EI payments and it was found they were received fraudulently two things could have happened; !) They are required to repay not only the amount of money they received that they were not entitled to, but a penalty equal to the original amount is assessed as a penalty. 2) They could and have been charged with criminal fraud. I think just paying this money back as acting as if they didn't know what they did was wrong is not sufficient punishment, I instead think that they should immediately have their appointment repealed and they should face criminal charges.

One god reason for an elected senate. If the government won't remove the criminals from their midst the voters will.

 

[Goober]

Mike Duffy still on hot seat over Senate expenses | Canadian Politics | Canada | News | National Post

The committee has asked for an external auditor to examine the claims of Duffy, Brazeau and Harb. It has also asked all senators who claim the allowance to provide proof of residency, including copies of their health care card, driver’s license and income tax return and a declaration as to where they vote in federal, provincial and municipal elections.

Those whose documentation left some doubt are now being interviewed.

As well, the committee has sought legal advice as to how residency _ a concept not defined in the Constitution _ should be determined.

Cowan said as far as he’s concerned residency is straightforward: it’s where a senator lives, pays income taxes, votes, receives health insurance and a driver’s licence.

“I don’t understand what the confusion is all about.”

However, if Cowan’s interpretation is correct, that could make Duffy, Wallin and Patterson ineligible to sit in the chamber. All three appear to reside primarily outside the province or territory they were appointed to represent.

Both Wallin, a Saskatchewan senator, and Duffy hold Ontario health care cards and appear to vote in that province as well.

The government, not surprisingly, takes a more flexible view of residency.

“Senator Patterson, Wallin and Duffy all own property in the provinces and territory they represent,” Peter Van Loan, the government’s House leader, told the Commons on Monday.

“They maintain deep, continuing ties to those regions. In fact, all three senators spend considerable time in their home provinces and territory