Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia that this motion deals with the Senate; it is not on gun control. He may have heard the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam spend half of her time speaking on gun control. The only reason she did so was that her arguments on this motion were so thin she ran out of them in about ten minutes and had to fill in the rest of her time on gun control.
This motion is about Senate reform. If the hon. member had read the motion instead of making these interruptions, he would realize what I am talking about. We are talking about the Senate and I was talking about the approach of the New Democratic Party to the Senate. It wanted to abolish it. The motion before us is not for abolition; it is for a triple E Senate and it is that to which I wish to speak.
The hon. member's motion proposes changes to the powers, the method of selecting senators and the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate. Thus, the motion would require a constitutional amendment under the seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population general amending procedure. That is what would have to be done in order to achieve the amendment as proposed by the hon. member.
This seven and fifty amendment as we call it, seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population represented by those seven provinces, must have the consent of the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies of two-thirds of the provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population according to the most current general census. The Senate could in respect of such a constitutional amendment exercise a six-month suspensive veto.
Once again, I would say to the hon. member that the Charlottetown accord contained a Senate amendment proposal along the lines proposed in the hon. member's motion, but it was defeated by a majority of Canadians in a majority of the provinces. There is little evidence to indicate that Canadians wish to reopen this constitutional debate. Other issues, such as the economy and job creation, are the priorities of Canadians. That is why the government is dealing with those issues and not the one the hon. member has raised today or any others like it.
I think the hon. member would agree that despite her best intentions, this is not a good time to be opening a constitutional debate in this country, as her motion would suggest. In Quebec the current government of that province is unlikely to approve any constitutional changes, save for an amendment making the province an independent country.
It is important to note that because Quebec's approval will be necessary to achieve the kind of Senate reform she wants, we should not bother pursuing it. We have to have that agreement. It is not just because it has to be part of the seven and fifty portion of the agreement; Quebec has a special arrangement.
Quebec of all the provinces is divided into 24 electoral divisions for the purposes of representation in the Senate pursuant to section 22 of the 1867 Constitution Act, the British North America Act. Because Quebec senators must meet their property or residence qualifications in the division they represent, it could be argued that a scheme for Senate reform which sought to provide equal representation for the provinces, as this motion does, might require not
only seven of the provinces representing half the population but also a bilateral amendment with Quebec if the current provisions respecting these 24 seats were to be altered.
Bilateral and multilateral amendments are covered by section 43 of the Constitution Act. It provides that an amendment to the Constitution in relation to a provision applying to one or more but not all provinces requires the consent of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies of each province to which the amendment applies. Imagine getting that kind of agreement in the Senate, let alone in the provincial legislatures involved.
Bilateral or multilateral amendments are not subject to minimum and maximum time limits and do not require votes by a majority of the members of the legislative bodies involved. Otherwise they are subject to the same rules as the seven and fifty amendments and the Senate is limited to a suspensive veto.
Thus even if Parliament were to pursue the motion and seek to amend the Constitution in accordance with it, it is doubtful we could secure the requisite consent of the National Assembly in Quebec. Furthermore there is also no guarantee other provinces would approve of these changes.
The Ontario government of Premier Mike Harris could hardly be expected to weaken the province's influence in the upper chamber without getting something in return, being mindful of the defeat of former Premier David Peterson in 1990 after he agreed to give up some of Ontario's seats in order to keep the Meech Lake accord alive. We all remember that. I thought it was a generous gesture on the part of the premier but it was not popular in Ontario. Mr. Speaker, you would remember that; you have a seat in Ontario.
Smaller provinces like Nova Scotia and New Brunswick which together represent 6 per cent of the population and hold 19 per cent of the Senate seats are hardly likely to be enthusiastic supporters of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam. Therefore I think there is very little reason to believe that these provinces would consent to any changes unless they got something in exchange, like a stronger constitutional obligation for the federal government to make equalization payments. I only throw that out as one suggestion out of many possibilities.
Furthermore we could not contemplate radical Senate reform without public participation. Various groups would argue that other constitutional issues are far more pressing than changes in the Senate and should take precedence over the Senate, things like entrenching specific rights of aboriginal peoples in the Constitution.
Again, I draw attention to the failure of the 1992 Charlottetown accord. This accord contained provisions for an elected, equal and more effective Senate, all of the things that are in this motion. It was rejected in a federal referendum in nine provinces and two territories and in a provincial referendum in Quebec. A majority of Canadians in a majority of provinces voted no.
Outside Quebec, Canadians rejected the accord by 54 per cent to 45 per cent with 1 per cent casting spoiled ballots. Quebecers voted 55 per cent no, 42 per cent yes. In the member for Mission-Coquitlam's own province of British Columbia the Charlottetown accord suffered its most resounding defeat where 67.2 per cent voted no. Yet she trots into the House today and puts forward exactly the same provision that was in the Charlottetown accord.
I thought her party trumpets how democratic it is all the time. The will of the people in her own province was 67 per cent against this proposal and what does she do? She trots in here and proposes the same thing. I have hit another nerve and this one is from Saskatchewan.