Pursuant to notice of November 25, 2021, moved:

Whereas the Senate provides representation for groups that are often underrepresented in Parliament, such as Aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and women;

Whereas paragraph (3) of section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867 requires that, in order to be qualified for appointment to and to maintain a place in the Senate, a person must own land with a net worth of at least four thousand dollars in the province for which he or she is appointed;

Whereas a person’s personal circumstances or the availability of real property in a particular location may prevent him or her from owning the required property;

Whereas appointment to the Senate should not be restricted to those who own real property of a minimum net worth;

Whereas the existing real property qualification is inconsistent with the democratic values of modern Canadian society and is no longer an appropriate or relevant measure of the fitness of a person to serve in the Senate;

Whereas, in the case of Quebec, each of the twenty-four Senators representing the province must be appointed for and must have either their real property qualification in or be resident of a specified Electoral Division;

Whereas an amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;

Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that a full repeal of paragraph (3) of section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867, respecting the real property qualification of Senators, would require a resolution of the Quebec National Assembly pursuant to section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982;

Now, therefore, the Senate resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the Schedule hereto.

SCHEDULE

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

1.(1) Paragraph (3) of section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is repealed.

(2) Section 23 of the Act is amended by replacing the semi-colon at the end of paragraph (5) with a period and by repealing paragraph (6).

2.The Declaration of Qualification set out in The Fifth Schedule to the Act is replaced by the following:

I, A.B., do declare and testify that I am by law duly qualified to be appointed a member of the Senate of Canada.

3.This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, [year of proclamation] (Real property qualification of Senators).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise again today, but this time to speak to Motion No. 19, which seeks to remove the real property requirements for senators hailing from La Belle Province.

As you know from my speech earlier today, this motion is connected with the intent of my Bill S-228, to remove net worth and property requirements from senators’ qualifications as listed in the Constitution Act, 1867. I would like to stress again that it does not remove the requirement that is in the Constitution Act which requires senators to be resident in the province or territory they represent.

Again, I draw your attention to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision of April 25, 2014, which concluded:

. . . a full repeal of the real property requirement (s. 23(3)) requires the consent of Quebec’s legislative assembly, under the special arrangements procedure. Indeed, a full repeal of that provision would also constitute an amendment in relation to s. 23(6), which contains a special arrangement applicable only to the province of Quebec.

The Supreme Court of Canada decision elaborates on the arguments that led them to such a decision, saying:

The Attorney General of Quebec contends that the repeal of the real property qualification in s. 23(3) would affect the operation of s. 23(6), which allows Quebec Senators to either reside in the electoral division for which they are appointed or to fulfill their real property qualification in that division. It follows, in his view, that Quebec’s consent is required to repeal the provision.

Colleagues in this chamber are already familiar with the special arrangement referred to in the decision: The Constitution can be amended in matters specific to a province or territory by having a motion adopted in the Senate, in the other place and in the provincial or territorial assembly. This is very similar to the Saskatchewan Act amendment currently being actively considered by this chamber.

For colleagues who may not know about the additional qualification requirement faced by our colleagues from Quebec, section 23(6) of the Constitution Act, 1867 states that:

In the Case of Quebec he shall have his Real Property Qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that Division.

As Quebec senators well know, there are 24 electoral divisions in Quebec. Historically, these divisions were created on linguistic and religious lines, separating anglophones from francophones and Catholics from Protestants. These divisions, as I feel most would agree, are no longer relevant today.

Further, it requires Quebec senators to own property in a region that they may well not live in, meaning that several senators face the additional burden of owning another property on top of their primary residence if they are not already resident in the electoral district they were appointed to represent.

I would also point out to senators that these 24 districts are anachronistic. They are focused on the southern part of the province and do not account for Nunavik and the territory of the James Bay Cree.

Our former colleague, senator Charlie Watt, in fact, owned property in southern Quebec that he had never laid eyes on.

Given the irrelevance of these divisions in this modern age and given the many arguments I made earlier today against the elitism and exclusion and barriers perpetuated by property requirements in general, I am asking senators for their support in moving this motion forward, alongside my Senate public Bill S-228.

Thank you, honourable senators. Taima.

Senator Patterson, would you take a question?

Yes.

Thank you. Honourable senators, I would like to thank my colleague for raising interesting issues for Quebec senators.

As you pointed out, and as the Supreme Court has indicated in the Reference re Senate Reform case, this will require the consent of the National Assembly of Quebec. Do you think that one of the first amendments to the Constitution of Canada, especially for Quebec senators, will have any likelihood of success in the National Assembly?

Thank you for the question, Senator Dalphond. I would certainly not opine on political matters in Quebec. I would not dare to do that. My thinking about this is that I should first seek the support of the Senate for this modernizing amendment to the Constitution, and then let the Government of Quebec deal with that as they see fit.

I have, as you may know, met with I believe all Quebec senators, and I have also spoken to the Quebec government’s office here in Ottawa — they call it la maison du Québec — but that’s as far as I have gone. I would not venture to make an opinion on how that will be dealt with. One would hope that the Province of Quebec would be open to broadening the qualifications to include all of the regions of Quebec and to include every citizen of Quebec who is 30 years of age and otherwise qualified. Thank you.

Thank you. Will you agree to take another question?

Yes.

Thank you. First, I’m impressed by the interest you have for that issue, which is an important issue, I must say. Today you have spoken to a bill that you have introduced, and that bill will amend the federal Constitution, in the sense of the Constitution of Canada limited to federal institutions. That can be done only by the federal Parliament amending its internal Constitution by an act of Parliament, which means three readings in the Senate and three readings in the House of Commons. It’s kind of a long process. What you are proposing, however, for Quebec is a motion that will require the consent of the Senate, a motion in the House of Commons, and a motion in the National Assembly, which is a slightly different process.

Would you agree that, in order to make sure that all senators are equal and remain equals in this chamber, that we should first move your motion to amend the Constitution, and if adopted by the other house and adopted by the National Assembly, then we should proceed to adopt your bill concerning the other senators of Canada?

That’s a very good question, Senator Dalphond, as ministers sometimes say when they are not sure how to answer a question. I agree with you that it would be desirable to have this provision applied to every province and territory in Canada. It would not be preferable to have Bill S-228 proceed in both chambers and have reform for every part of Canada but Quebec.

What you propose does appeal to me in that it’s logical. But what would like to suggest is that this chamber consider these two bills as companions and consider them together, which is why I am speaking to both the bill and the motion today. That’s my answer: Let’s proceed with the support of this chamber. Let’s proceed and treat them both together as interrelated and for the benefit of all of Canada. Thank you.

Senator Dupuis, do you have a question?

Yes.

Thank you for raising these two points, Senator Patterson. With respect to Motion No. 19, in recent years, months and weeks, the federal government’s position, which it outlined to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs yesterday, has been that it would rather wait until a province takes the initiative and presents a constitutional resolution to study a bilateral federal-provincial amendment to the Constitution, which would be the case with your motion.

I don’t know what your thoughts are on this position. I’m not saying that I’m against the motion, but if the Senate were to adopt the motion you are presenting, how would we move forward, given the federal government’s position?

Thank you for that intriguing question, Senator Dupuis. Maybe the best way we could proceed with this would be to give weight to the rightness of remedying this antiquated and elitist provision by endorsing it in the Senate. Then I could go to the Province of Quebec hopefully with support and advice from my esteemed colleagues from the Province of Quebec and see if, with the imprimatur of the Senate, the Government of Quebec would consider supporting such a change. Maybe that would be the logical way of dealing with the problem that you have described, which would give Quebec the opportunity to then signal its support.

I would still like to see the motion and the bill examined thoughtfully here, and hopefully approved, and then I could take that step with the support of senators from Quebec to then encourage the Province of Quebec to support such modernization and overdue reform. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for that. You know, I think you make a very good point. If the reform is approved by both houses for every province and territory except Quebec, it will place an interesting challenge to the Government of Quebec and the people of Quebec to follow suit.

I have heard Senator Dupuis’ suggestion — which I would like to explore further — that the federal government’s position is to wait for a province to initiate such a change. I am not familiar with that position. She may be referring to what happened with the Saskatchewan matter that we are considering. I would take that into account in deciding how to proceed.

Let us have the bill studied in committee and the motion considered here. I am sure I will have further opportunity to discuss the strategy as we go forward. Thank you.