Harper government lays out its legal arguments for Senate reform/abolishment

The Harper government has laid out it's legal argument for senate reform and abolishment.

Pierre Poilievre, Minister of State for Democratic Reform, made the announcement on Wednesday afternoon on Parliament Hill.

"I'm pleased to announce that our government is submitting it's legal argument — or factum — to the Supreme Court of Canada and the Quebec Court of Appeal on the issue of Senate reform," Poilievre said.

"The factums for both references reflect our government's continued confidence in the constitutionality of our Senate reform legislation."

The minister is referring to their Bill C-7, which would incline provinces to hold senatorial elections and impose a nine-year term limit for senators.

In February, facing resistance from senators and from the Province of Quebec, the government referred several questions to the Supreme Court about the bill's constitutionality.

The factum outlines the government's position.

"Let me summarize the questions we will ask the court and the arguments we will make to it.

We will ask: Can parliament enact term limits on senators so they serve eight or nine years rather than having job for life? We argue yes.

"We ask: Can Parliament set in place a democratic vote to recommend names to the prime minister for the Senate? We argue yes.

"We ask: Can the provinces hold a democratic vote of their own to recommend names to the prime minister for the Senate. Again we argue yes.

"We ask: Can the Parliament remove antiquated property ownership requirements for Senators. We argue yes.

"Finally we ask: Can we abolish the Senate without the unanimous consent of the provinces? We answer yes.

"We look forward to hearing the courts answers to these questions."

The Supreme Court reference will be held on November 12-14.

[ Related: Premiers say Senate is not a priority: They’re wrong ]

The legalese laden factum argues that Parliament has "exclusive authority to make laws amending the Constitution in relation to the Senate" and that the Senate can be abolished with "resolutions of the House of Commons and the Senate and of the legislative assemblies of two-thirds of the provinces with an aggregate of fifty percent of the population."

It's an argument, however, that constitutional experts have dismissed with several of them suggesting that abolition would require unanimous consent of all the provinces.

"Abolition is really a daunting thing because there’s so many sections of the Constitution that are built on the premise of two Houses—a Senate and a House of Commons," Peter Russell, a constitutional expert at the University of Toronto told the Hill Times.

"It would be an extraordinarily complex redoing of the legislative part of our founding Constitution."

Sifting through that debate is now up to the Supreme Court.

[ Related: Taxpayer watchdog calls for national vote on fate of the Senate ]

Interestingly, Poilievre insisted that his government's preference would be to reform rather than abolish the Senate.

But he added this intriguing comment in response to a question from a reporter.

"The prime minister has said since 2006 that the Senate as present is not acceptable. The Senate must either be reformed or like its provincial counterparts, it must be abolished. This reference to the Supreme Court will give Canadians a series of legal options and maybe even a 'how to guide' on how to pursue them," he said.

"And once we hear back from the top court, we can take direction from Canadians on how to do so."

Are the Conservatives keeping the door open to abolishment? It certainly sounds like it.

(Photo courtesy of the Canadian Press)

Are you a politics junkie?
Follow @politicalpoints on Twitter!