Moved second reading of Bill S-218, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (property qualifications of Senators).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to my bill, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (property qualifications of Senators).

This bill is significant. It seeks to amend the Constitution of Canada by removing the clauses that state that senators should have a net worth of $4,000 and own property in their region valued at $4,000 in order to qualify for appointment.

Colleagues, I stood in this chamber and spoke to this bill when I first introduced it in 2016. The words I said then are true to this day: These antiquated and elitist provisions create a barrier for almost half of all Canadian households to fully participate in the governance of this country. They are requirements put in at a time when the landed gentry were given a means to keep the great unwashed in line should their elected officials in the other place become too overzealous in their legislative roles. Clearly, this is inconsistent with modern democratic values.

The passage of this bill would end the need for a minimum net worth of $4,000 to qualify to become a senator. This measure was imposed at a time when the Senate was meant to temper the will of the masses, considered to be less educated and, overall, less pragmatic than wealthy landowners. That reasoning, of course, is no longer valid, and the requirement of a net worth fails to acknowledge the fact that the rate of pay for many Canadians does not keep pace with the rising cost of living.

In 2017, 85% of tax filers reported an income below $100,000; 65% reported an income below $50,000. Sadly, 1.7 million Canadians reported an income of less than $5,000. We can no longer build a democratic chamber using elitist and discriminatory rules. This data on income has significant bearing on the issue of property requirements currently necessary to qualify to sit in the Senate.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in their socio-economic analysis published in March 2019, stated that, “Unsurprisingly, higher-income households tend to access homeownership.”

Their research showed that for those earning above $100,000 per annum, the rate of home ownership was above 80%, and in the $200,000 per annum and above range it was in the high 90s. Conversely, those in the $50,000 to $99,999 salary range have a percentage of home ownership in the high 60s, which is reflective of the national average of 67%, while roughly 50% of those making less than $50,000 were homeowners.

Based on the previously reported numbers, that means that almost 10 million of the approximately 21.8 million Canadians who are between the ages of 30 and 75 automatically do not qualify, regardless of experience or qualification. Ten million Canadians probably don’t qualify to sit in this chamber.

According to the 2016 census, just shy of 4.5 million households in Canada are renter-occupied.

A CBC article posted online on August 12, 2016, entitled, “Senate criteria angers potential Island candidate” tells the story of P.E.I. resident Kelly Robinson. Ms. Robinson, known for her community work, did not possess the $4,000 in property required. In the article, she stated:

It felt like it was going back to when only landowners could vote, only landowners could be certain things. And I just thought that is not the Canada that I’m in or that I thought I was in. I think it’s a very old rule that hasn’t been properly confronted yet. . . . We’re coming into a time when many, especially young Canadians, do not have land and may never have land because of the state of the economy.

We have in front of us, colleagues, an opportunity to confront this antiquated rule. We have the opportunity to ensure that the Senate is a more inclusive space that includes voices reflective of the same kind of diversity we see in Canada. This exclusion of otherwise competent, intelligent and dedicated Canadians from being appointed to the upper chamber must end.

Colleagues, this is not the first time that a bill like this has been proposed. Our late former colleague the Honourable Tommy Banks tried three times to remove these provisions. Once, the bill was referred to committee but in all three instances died on the Order Paper.

Former Senator Banks also believed that these provisions were outdated. This is what he said:

This bill seeks to redress that shortfall, which I think everyone would agree is antediluvian. . . . The provision made a lot of sense, I suspect, in 1867. Putting aside, however, the purposes for which it was put in place, the amount of real property that is required in this part of the constitution would be inappropriate today if it were intended as a roadblock or as a criterion for membership.

Former senators Di Nino, Carstairs, Fraser and Tkachuk all voiced their support for the various iterations of then Senator Banks’ bill, but the one critique that continually arose was the question of the constitutionality of such legislation. That bill also came at a time when it was yet unclear if broader, more sweeping changes could be enacted by Parliament alone.

I’m happy to note and emphasize today that that question has now been answered.

On April 25, 2014, on the question of Senate reform, the Supreme Court ruled:

We conclude that the net worth requirement (s. 23(4)) can be repealed by Parliament under the unilateral federal amending procedure. However, 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.

This “special arrangements procedure” consisted of me introducing a motion at the same time as this bill in our chamber, seeking to remove the property requirements for Quebec senators. I intend to introduce such a motion again. If adopted, the motion would need to be adopted in the House of Commons and again in the National Assembly of Quebec. It is the procedure outlined in section 46(1) of the Constitution and states that:

The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41, 42 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province.

Honourable senators, it is true that what originally drove my desire to bring this bill forward is the reality of Nunavummiut. The reality is that, outside of a very small amount of grandfathered land, real property ownership — that is, the transfer of land and title — is not allowed in Nunavut. The Inuit decided in three separate referenda that such ownership was contrary to their cultural beliefs and practices.

But let me assure you, colleagues, that this is not just a Nunavut issue. This is about the millions of Canadians who deserve a chance to represent their communities in the Senate, including First Nations homeowners who live on reserve and have land they don’t own under ministerial special permit. This is about striking down an archaic provision that the Supreme Court has ruled is within our jurisdiction to strike down. This is about modernization of this institution, starting with the dismantling of barriers to entry for future senators.

I want to emphasize, in talking about amending our Constitution, that my intention is in no way to restrict, limit or change the requirement that a senator should reside in the region that they represent in this chamber. But shouldn’t they be able to reside in a rented apartment? Shouldn’t they be able to reside on ministerial title on a First Nation reserve? Shouldn’t they be able to reside in a condominium, which I’m not sure falls within the archaic definition of “property” in the Constitution Act, 1867? This is about modernization of this institution.

I’m available to discuss this with every senator. I am open to your feedback and very hopeful that I have your support in creating change. I will be sending a package of information to all honourable senators to outline, in a little more detail, the points I’ve made in this address.

The $4,000 issue goes back a very long time — too long, sadly. As our colleague said, it represents an aristocratic position with regard to the prevailing notion of the country’s upper chamber. At the time, the objective was to have important people, landowners, sit in the Senate.

When I was asked to sit in the Senate, I calculated what that $4,000 might be worth in today’s dollars. Depending on the rates that are used, and they vary a lot — the Canadian dollar did not exist in 1867 and banknotes were issued by certain banks — the money needed to be converted into pounds sterling and then reconverted according to the conversion rate of the time. Based on the rates, today that amount represents between $2 million and $3 million. That is a significant amount of money and very few Canadians, not even me, would have the opportunity to sit here today if they were required to have that much money.

This measure was founded not on a democratic spirit, but at the behest of John A. Macdonald, who wanted to have a chamber that controlled democracy and tempered the will of elected members, who perhaps didn’t adequately represent the interests of landowners in the country. At the time, members of Parliament were elected by men only. What’s more, they may have been perceived as people who weren’t to be trusted.

I’m pleased that our colleague, Senator Patterson, is proposing eliminating this measure, which was essentially undemocratic. The measure’s intent was to make this chamber off limits to everyone except landowners or people with property interests to protect.

The time has come to address this issue. Unfortunately, senators from Quebec must not only own property worth $4,000, but they must also have land holdings in certain divisions. This also involves the province.

Senator Patterson, I invite you to move your motion and I thank you for your interest in this matter.