On February 1, 2013, upon recommendation of the Minister of Justice, the Governor General in Council submitted a number of questions pertaining to the reform of the Senate to the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion. In the following text, the author puts forward the answers that he believes the Court should provide to the questions posed in this new reference. The author comes to the conclusion that any significant change in the tenure of senators—like the modifications proposed by the federal government in its reference—cannot be carried out unilaterally by the Parliament by virtue of section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The author comes to the same conclusion regarding the “Consultation of the population” on appointments made to the Senate, whether they be held through federal, provincial or territorial elections. It is the author’s contention that these “consultations” can neither be held by virtue of the regular legislative powers of the Parliament, nor regulated by a simple federal law. The author maintains that the Parliament can abrogate section 23(4) of the Constitution Act, 1867 on the real and personal property worth of senators. He also calls the Supreme Court not to provide an answer regarding the abrogation of section 23(3) of the Constitution Act, 1867, given the absence of the particulars of the federal government’s intentions. In addition, the author is of the opinion that it is in fact the 7/50 procedure, and not the unanimity formula, that allows for the clear and simple abolition of the Senate. Finally, he examines the possible application of a variety of underlying constitutional principles to the reform of the Senate.