I will tell you that we are aware of the will to modernize the Senate that is being manifested across Canada, and to some extent we subscribe to that. The Government of Quebec is not against modernizing the Senate. We say that, if the Senate is to be modernized in a way that affects its fundamental characteristics, that modernization has to be carried out in accordance with established rules. And those rules are constitutional rules. In other words, we are demanding respect for the Constitution of Canada.
Our arguments are based on a premise which we consider to be well-founded and not challengeable. The Senate as such is not a strictly federal institution, or a federal institution in its strictest sense. It is a federal-provincial institution. The Supreme Court said so in 1980. It is an institution that is close to the very core of the federal compromise achieved in 1867, which was federal-provincial in nature, and thus cannot have its essential characteristics modified unilaterally by the Government of Canada. It is as simple as that.
Even if a legal or constitutional expert told me that the 1980 decision no longer applied because the amendment procedures established in 1982 have superseded them, I would still say that the decision contained the following observation: when Canada was created in 1867—I am not talking about 1980 here—the existence of the Senate was one of the conditions Quebec imposed in order to come into the Canadian federal compromise. The same held for the Atlantic provinces. This is a historical fact. Even if it was concluded that the 1980 reference no longer applied, historical reality cannot be reviewed or revised. The Senate is a federal-provincial institution in its essential nature.
That brings us to the second question. Are the bills we have before us substantive enough for us to say that they modify essential characteristics of the Senate? If we conclude that bills C-20 and C-19 do not affect essential characteristics of the Senate, then the federal government's unilateral powers would most likely apply.
If, however, we were to conclude that the bills do indeed modify essential characteristics of the Senate and are substantive, then the rules of procedure for multilateral decisions on modification would perforce have to apply.
This is a bill that will basically change the nature of the Senate gradually, and over time transform it into an elected chamber. Thus, I believe that it is attempting to modify an essential characteristic of the Senate. That is the conclusion I reach. The more we change things, the more multilateral constitutional amendment procedures have to apply.