Order in Council P.C. 1978-3581 requested that the Governor General submit two questions to the Supreme Court. The questions were concerned with whether the Parliament of Canada had the legislative authority to alter the fundamental nature of the Canadian Senate. The hearings were conducted over the 20th and 21st of March, 1979; the judgement was delivered on the 21st of December, 1979.
Issues
1) Does Parliament have the legislative authority to repeal sections 21 and 36 of the British North America Act 1867, (which deal with the number of senators and the way in which legislation is voted on in the Senate respectively); as well, does Parliament have the ability to amend the British North America Act 1867 (hereinafter referred to as the BNA Act) in order to get rid of any mention of a Senate or Upper House?
2) Does Parliament have the legislative authority to enact legislation that would change either some or all of the …show more content…
C) On the question of whether Parliament could change the qualifications for senators, the Court ruled that it could answer the question conclusively, since their answer would depend on which qualifications were being changed; some qualifications were still important to the Senate, while others were outdated and could possibly be changed.
D) On the question of whether Parliament could alter the tenure of senators, the Court noted that some changes to tenure (such as the mandate that senators retire at seventy-five) was permitted, but that the Court would need to know exactly how extensive the changes to tenure were, before they ruled
Issues
1) Does Parliament have the legislative authority to repeal sections 21 and 36 of the British North America Act 1867, (which deal with the number of senators and the way in which legislation is voted on in the Senate respectively); as well, does Parliament have the ability to amend the British North America Act 1867 (hereinafter referred to as the BNA Act) in order to get rid of any mention of a Senate or Upper House?
2) Does Parliament have the legislative authority to enact legislation that would change either some or all of the …show more content…
C) On the question of whether Parliament could change the qualifications for senators, the Court ruled that it could answer the question conclusively, since their answer would depend on which qualifications were being changed; some qualifications were still important to the Senate, while others were outdated and could possibly be changed.
D) On the question of whether Parliament could alter the tenure of senators, the Court noted that some changes to tenure (such as the mandate that senators retire at seventy-five) was permitted, but that the Court would need to know exactly how extensive the changes to tenure were, before they ruled