Senate Reform Reference case: chart of the participants’ positions on each issue (original) (raw)
This week, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear a reference case about the procedures necessary to effect Senate reform. This is the first time the SCC will take an in-depth look at the meaning of Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, which sets out the procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada.
What follows is a chart of the position taken on each question, by each participant in the reference case, based on the written arguments (factums) filed with the Court. The Court retained John Hunter, Q.C., and Daniel Jutras as amici curiae (friends of the court); they submitted a joint factum but, as noted below, took different positions on one of the points in issue. The other participants are: the attorneys general of all provinces and all territories except Yukon; Senator Serge Joyal; Senator Anne Cools; the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA); and the Société de l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. (SANB).
The reference case was initiated by the federal government, which submitted six questions to the Supreme Court of Canada for its opinion. In the chart below, I have put my own abbreviated paraphrase of each question; the complete questions can be found here (or if you prefer a PDF: English / French).
The oral argument will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday (November 12 to 14, 2013) and the live webcast should be available here.
In a later post I will have further explanation and commentary.
| Q1 [Whether section 44 of Part V (amendments enacted by Parliament unilaterally) authorizes various types of amendment concerning senatorial tenure] | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes on all subquestions | No on all subquestions | Yes on (a), (b);No on (c);Mixed on (d);Yes, with proviso, on (e), (f), (g) | Yes on (b);No on the other subquestions | No on (a), (b), (c), (d);Takes no position on (e), (f), (g) | Takes no position |
| ●AG Canada | ●Amici curiae●AG Nfld & Lab●AG PEI●AG Nova Scotia●AG New Brunswick●AG Manitoba●AG Alberta●AG BC●AG Nunavut●Serge Joyal●Anne Cools●FCFA | ●AG Ontario | ●AG Sask | ●AG Quebec | ●AG NWT●SANB |
| Q2 [Whether Parliament may enact legislation for consultative non-binding senatorial elections, as in Bill C-20]Q3 [Whether Parliament may establish a framework for provincial legislatures to hold consultative non-binding senatorial elections, as in Bill C-7] | ||
|---|---|---|
| Yes on both Q2 and Q3 | No on both Q2 and Q3 | Takes no position |
| ●AG Canada●One amicus curiae●AG Sask●AG Alberta | ●One amicus curiae●AG Nfld & Lab●AG PEI●AG Nova Scotia●AG New Brunswick●AG Quebec●AG Ontario●AG Manitoba●AG BC●AG Nunavut●Serge Joyal●Anne Cools●FCFA●SANB | ●AG NWT |
| Q4 [Whether section 44 of Part V allows repeal of the $4,000 property qualifications for senators] | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Yes, with a proviso about subsection 23(6) | No, with respect to subsection 23(6) | No | Takes no position |
| ●AG Canada●AG PEI●AG Nova Scotia●AG New Brunswick●AG Ontario●AG Manitoba●AG Sask●AG BC | ●Amici curiae | ●Serge Joyal | ●AG Quebec | ●AG Nfld & Lab●AG Alberta●AG Nunavut●AG NWT●Anne Cools●FCFA●SANB |
| Q5 [Whether an amendment under section 38 of Part V (the 7/50 formula) can abolish the Senate]Q6 [Whether section 41 of Part V (the unanimity formula) applies to an amendment abolishing the Senate] | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes on Q5 | No on Q5;Yes on Q6 | No on Q5;Yes on Q6 with a proviso | No on Q5;No on Q6 | Takes no position |
| ●AG Canada●AG Sask●AG Alberta●AG BC | ●Amici curiae●AG Nfld & Lab●AG Nova Scotia●AG New Brunswick●AG Quebec●AG Ontario●AG Manitoba●AG Nunavut●Anne Cools●FCFA | ●AG NWT●Serge Joyal | ●AG PEI | ●SANB |
Note: I have AG NWT and Senator Serge Joyal listed together under the heading “No on Q5; Yes on Q6 with a proviso” but the two participants do not have the same proviso in the answer to Question 6. The Northwest Territories AG gives this answer to Question 6: “YES, with the added condition that the federal government must consider and represent the best interests of the Northwest Territories.” Senator Joyal gives this answer: “yes, but only after accommodating the interests of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.”