Supreme Court Senate decision
The court said Canada’s Constitution requires significant provincial consent for reform, and unanimity for abolition. There are no term limits of, say, nine years; the job is theirs until they turn 75. And they don’t need to worry about being elected in order to put “senator” in front of their name. He kicked senators out of the Liberal caucus and said if he were prime minister, he would rely ray bans on advice from an impartial body to pick future senators. Sounds safe, but what if someone argues in court that his plan is an end run around the Constitution?
Among the losers:Ever since he was a young Reformer, and later a Conservative, Harper has promised an elected Senate. He insisted it could be done without constitutional reform. The court told him he’s wrong. Now, he’s blaming the court for creating a “status quo.” He says there’s no consensus among provinces, and it doesn’t appear he will try to forge any. Harper is giving up on Senate reform for the foreseeable future.
The NDP says that if it ever forms a governmen ray bans t, i ray bans t will abolish the Senate. Really? The court decision suggests that’s virtually impossible. An NDP government would have to convince all 10 provinces to kill the upper chamber. That means if Mulcair ever becomes prime minister, he’ll have to do what all his predecessors have done: appoint people to the Senate.
Canadians have grown downright weary with the unelected Senate. The spending scandal in the upper chamber has only deepened public distaste. For a decade, voters have heard from leaders such as that they would inj ray bans ect democracy into the Senate. Now, that’s a pipe dream. Even abolition is off the table.
About the author rayban sunglasses