This may get interesting

Well, that's one burning question answered, as Pamela Wallin is apparently claiming that appearing in Saskatchewan "monthly" is enough to qualify her as a resident entitled to be appointed to the Senate. But not surprisingly, that position seems to be coming under some serious fire. So let's take a look at the actual residency requirement, as well as how it figures to play out in Wallin's case.

The Constitution Act, 1867 includes the residency requirement for senators:

23. The Qualifications of a Senator shall be as follows:
...
(5) He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed:

As the article notes, there are numerous possible definitions of "resident". But whether one looks at spending the majority of one's time in a jurisdiction, spending the last 6 months there, or an "established habitation", it's awfully tough to see how Wallin can meet them regardless of how the Cons try to paper over a flawed appointment for the next month.

Which leads to the question: just who gets to decide whether or not the Con's senate appointments actually meet the constitutionally-required qualifications? There are two answers - and either figures to lead to some significant potential for dispute.

First, the initial appointment power is predicated on each senator being "qualified":

The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen's Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator.

Presumably, Michaelle Jean will have at least some ability to question whether any particular appointment is "qualified". And if she decides otherwise, the Constitution doesn't apparently provide for any way for Harper to override her judgment.

Mind you, I'd once again tend toward the view that Jean is best off not confronting Harper over matters short of his entitlement to hold office in the absence of the confidence of the House of Commons. But that doesn't mean that Harper's appointees will be off the hook, as the Senate may decide for itself whether or not any of its members are qualified:

33 If any Question arises respecting the Qualification of a Senator or a Vacancy in the Senate the same shall be heard and determined by the Senate.

So presumably it'll be open to the Senate as a whole to look into just what residency requirements apply to Wallin (along with Duffy and perhaps more to come). And to the extent the issue gets dealt with in the near future, there simply won't have been time for either Wallin or Duffy to meet the residency requirement: indeed, the section quoted above is clear in requiring that a senator "be resident" and not merely be in the process of acquiring residence in the province represented.

Of course, it's far from certain how much appetite the existing Senate will have for such a confrontation. But then, there could surely be little better way for the Senate to project insularity, ineffectiveness and disregard for its governing rules than to refuse to deal with possibly-unconstitutional appointments - whether out of fear that the same standards might be applied to the current members in the future, or out of a desire to appease the person driving the unconstitutional appointments in the first place.

All of which suggests that the controversy generated by Harper's trip to the trough is far from over. And it remains to be seen just who will take the worst damage resulting from the fight that Harper has set in motion.