Upper House Case Study
Re: Authority of Parliament in relation to the Upper House, [1980] 1 SCR 54, 1979
Supreme Court of Canada
Laskin, Bora; Martland, Ronald; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Estey, Willard Zebedee; Pratte, Yves; McIntyre, William Rogers
Facts:
This case is a reference question, where the government asks the court for an opinion on a legal issue, generally relating to the constitutionality of a proposed piece of legislation, which was submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorneys General of Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland (p. 485). The Federal Government contended that both of the …show more content…
Question one asks if it is within the power of the Parliament to repeal or amend sections 21 to 36 of the British North America Act, 1867, to remove any reference to an Upper House or the Senate. The second question ask if it is within the authority of the Parliament to enact law that would alter any of a list of characteristics of the existing Upper House. The list of possibly amendable areas included, (a) changing the name; (b) changing the numbers and proportions of members; (c) changing qualifications required; (d) changing the tenure of members; (e) changing the method of selection, including options such as allowing the provinces to choose or direct election; (f) to allow bills to be approved after the approval of the House of Commons, even if they were not approved by the Upper House, after a period of time (p. …show more content…
Importantly, none of the amendments examined altered the federal-provincial relationship (p. 488). In the opinion of the court, the role of the Senate, is of vital importance to the federal system that it was created to be part of. The powers given to the Federal Government in s. 91(1), according to the SCC, were only meant to apply to matters of only interest to the Federal Government, not issues that alter the federal-provincial relationship. Furthermore, they were not intended to alter the division of powers outlined in any of the subsections of s.91 or 92. In fact, the existence of the Senate is implied in s. 91(1) when it makes an exception to the requirement that there be at least one sitting of Parliament, the House of Commons and the Upper House, each year
Supreme Court of Canada
Laskin, Bora; Martland, Ronald; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Estey, Willard Zebedee; Pratte, Yves; McIntyre, William Rogers
Facts:
This case is a reference question, where the government asks the court for an opinion on a legal issue, generally relating to the constitutionality of a proposed piece of legislation, which was submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorneys General of Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland (p. 485). The Federal Government contended that both of the …show more content…
Question one asks if it is within the power of the Parliament to repeal or amend sections 21 to 36 of the British North America Act, 1867, to remove any reference to an Upper House or the Senate. The second question ask if it is within the authority of the Parliament to enact law that would alter any of a list of characteristics of the existing Upper House. The list of possibly amendable areas included, (a) changing the name; (b) changing the numbers and proportions of members; (c) changing qualifications required; (d) changing the tenure of members; (e) changing the method of selection, including options such as allowing the provinces to choose or direct election; (f) to allow bills to be approved after the approval of the House of Commons, even if they were not approved by the Upper House, after a period of time (p. …show more content…
Importantly, none of the amendments examined altered the federal-provincial relationship (p. 488). In the opinion of the court, the role of the Senate, is of vital importance to the federal system that it was created to be part of. The powers given to the Federal Government in s. 91(1), according to the SCC, were only meant to apply to matters of only interest to the Federal Government, not issues that alter the federal-provincial relationship. Furthermore, they were not intended to alter the division of powers outlined in any of the subsections of s.91 or 92. In fact, the existence of the Senate is implied in s. 91(1) when it makes an exception to the requirement that there be at least one sitting of Parliament, the House of Commons and the Upper House, each year