The Supreme Court has set aside three days in mid-November to hear arguments in a reference that Mr. Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and his government filed unexpectedly earlier this month, with a series of questions for constitutional advice on Parliament’s authority over key Senate changes, from limiting terms of Senators, to abolishing the Senate entirely.
But, although the Supreme Court acceded to a request from the government to hear the case as soon as “practicable” and bypass Supreme Court rules on timelines for filing submissions, an order written by Supreme Court Justice Louis LeBel dismissed federal government submissions that “after 140 years of discussion of Senate reform” no new evidence would be necessary.
Instead, the Supreme Court set a deadline to allow affidavits and evidence from historians and constitutional experts, while at the same time setting Aug. 31 as the deadline for final arguments from any provincial or territorial governments that are likely to intervene.
The Supreme Court hearings in the case, which some experts said at the outset could take up to 18 months, or even two years, are scheduled for Nov. 12, Nov. 13, and Nov 14 this year.
The Supreme Court set down the timetable in an order filed on Feb. 22, in spite of objections from the government of Quebec, which had already asked the Quebec Superior Court of Appeal to rule on the constitutionality of legislation that Mr. Harper and his government tabled in the Commons in 2011, soon after the federal Conservatives won a majority in the May 2, 2011 federal election.
The government had been unable as a minority government to pass similar bills, with its first one tabled in 2006 when Mr. Harper first won power.
Federal lawyers have filed a motion in the Quebec court case over Bill C-7, the latest version of Mr. Harper’s plan for Senate change, infuriating the Quebec government, which last week urged the Supreme Court to hold off an opinion on the government’s reference questions until after the Quebec Court of Appeal hears arguments and rules on the constitutionality of the federal Conservative government’s bill, which would limit Senate terms to nine years and establish a framework for provincial elections to select nominees for Senate appointments.
Ottawa has asked the Quebec Court of Appeal to drop its case and defer to the Supreme Court reference.
In a response to the federal request that the Supreme Court fast-track its reference, Quebec government lawyer Jean-Yves Bernard argued that the length of time that has passed since the Conservative government introduced Bill C-7 demonstrates there is no need to rush the Supreme Court case.
Federal government lawyer Robert Frater, noting that Quebec had proposed to expedite its own case, which began last April, contradicts Quebec opposition to expediting the federal case.
“The Attorney General of Quebec asserts that there is no reason to expedite this reference, but offers to take steps to expedite the current Quebec references to get answers to questions that will only partially answer the issues before this court, and the decision will be subject to appeal to this court,” Mr. Frater said in a letter filed at the court.
Arguing against time for provincial governments or other intervenors to muster up expert evidence on the constitutional questions, Mr. Frater wrote: “There is a wealth of material in the public domain concerning Senate reform and the constitutional amending procedures; parties and intervenors will be able to refer to all such material, whether or not it is part of the record. After over 140 years of discussion of Senate reform, it is very doubtful that original affidavit evidence from political scientists, historians or other experts will be helpful or relevant in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution in this regard.”
A constitutional lawyer pointed out to The Hill Times that the constitutional amendment provisions that cover provincial and federal authority over Senate changes were introduced when the federal government, with the support of all provinces but Quebec, patriated Canada’s Constitution from Britain and established the Canadian Charter of Rights.
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: TIM NAUMETZ
No comments:
Post a Comment