Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Quebec Court of Appeal Factum

Quebec Court of Appeal Factum

Ratings: (0)|Views: 268 |Likes:
Published by Jordan Press
Factum filed by the federal government in regards to a legal challenge mounted by the Province of Quebec against the constitutionality of the Senate Reform Act. The factum outlines the government's arguments that it will be making before the court.
Factum filed by the federal government in regards to a legal challenge mounted by the Province of Quebec against the constitutionality of the Senate Reform Act. The factum outlines the government's arguments that it will be making before the court.

More info:

Published by: Jordan Press on Jul 31, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/02/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
RESPONDENT’S
MEMORANDUMTable of ContentsV
OL
. P
AGE
 
Senate Reform Reference
 –
Quebec Court of AppealDraft Factum of the Attorney General of Canada
PART I - FACTS .............................................................................................. X 1I. Overview .......................................................................................... 1II. The Constitution and the Senate ...................................................... 3A. The
Constitution Act, 1867 
and the Composition of theSenate ........................................................................................ 3B. The
Constitution Act, 1982
....................................................... 4III. Recent Legislative Initiatives for Senate Reform ............................ 6A.
 
Bill C-7 is Currently before Parliament .................................... 6B.
 
Other Recent Bills dealing with Senate Reform ....................... 8IV. Record before the Court in this Reference ....................................... 8A.
 
Christopher Manfredi ................................................................ 9B.
 
John Stilborn ............................................................................. 9V. Senate Review of Proposed Legislative Reforms ............................ 10A.
 
Report of the Special Committee on Bill S-4 (October 2006) ......................................................................................... 10B.
 
Report of the Standing Committee on Legal andConstitutional Affairs on Bill S-4 (June 2007) ......................... 11C.
 
House of Commons Review of Bill C-20 ................................. 11VI. Senate Reform in Historical Context ............................................... 11A.
 
Legislative and Other Proposals ............................................... 12B.
 
Recommendations from Reports on Senate Reform ................. 14i)
 
Term Limits ..................................................................... 15ii)
 
Method of Selection ........................................................ 16
 
 
RESPONDENT’S
MEMORANDUMTable of ContentsV
OL
. P
AGE
 
iii)
 
Powers ............................................................................. 17C.
 
Early History ............................................................................. 18i)
 
The Senate at Confederation ........................................... 18ii)
 
Early Debates and Discussions Concerning SenateReform ............................................................................. 20VII. The History of Amending Procedure Reform .................................. 21i)
 
The Absence of Formal Amending Procedures............... 22ii)
 
Favreau White Paper and the Fulton-Favreau Formula(1964-1965) ..................................................................... 24iii)
 
The ―
Victoria Ch
arter‖ 1971
........................................... 25iv)
 
The Constitution Act, 1982 ..............................................
26PART II - ISSUES ............................................................................................ X 28PART III - ARGUMENT ................................................................................. X 29I. General Approach ............................................................................. 29A.
 
The Scope of the Reference ...................................................... 29B.
 
The Relevant Interpretive Principles ........................................ 29i)
 
The Primacy of the Text of the
1982 Act 
........................ 30ii)
 
Historical Context ............................................................ 30iii)
 
―Progressive Interpretation‖ of the Constitution
............. 32iv)
 
Pith and Substance ........................................................... 33v)
 
The Ordinary Rules of Statutory Interpretation............... 35vi)
 
 No Need to Rely on Unwritten ConstitutionalPrinciples ......................................................................... 36
 
 
RESPONDENT’S
MEMORANDUMTable of ContentsV
OL
. P
AGE
 
a) The Unwritten Principles Should not Modify aClear Text ............................................................... 36 b) Reforms will not Impede the Protection of Minorities ............................................................... 38c) Unwritten principles are supportive of Part Vamendment procedures .......................................... 41vii)
 
 No weight should be accorded ―expert‖ reports on
domestic law .................................................................... 43II. Response to the Reference Questions ............................................... 431)
 
 Does Bill C-7 constitute an amendment to theConstitution of Canada in relation to the office of theGovernor General which can only be made with theassent of the Senate, House of Commons, and legislative assembly of each province pursuant to s.41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982?
......................................... 44
 
i) The Bill C-7 consultative process results do not bindthe Prime Minister or the Governor General ..................... 442)
 
 Does Bill C-7 constitute an amendment to theConstitution of Canada in relation to the method of  selecting senators under s. 42(1)(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which can only be brought by following the process set out in s. 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982?
............. 51i) Bill C-7 does not change the existing method of selecting Senators ............................................................. 54
 
ii) Consultation does not mean direct election ....................... 56iii)
―Non election‖ and independence
..................................... 58iv) Bill C-7 allows provinces to adapt the proposedelectoral division to provincial realities ............................ 61v) No delegation of legislative power by Parliament tothe provincial legislatures .................................................. 61vi) Conclusion ......................................................................... 62

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->