Hon. Colin Deacon: Senator Patterson, would you take another question?

Senator Patterson: Yes.

Senator C. Deacon: I would like to echo Senator Coyle’s comments in terms of supporting your efforts and gratitude for your efforts. I’m just wondering whether you have looked into what the rationale was. Why did this exist in the past as a condition? Is there anything in that research that you may have done that would present a barrier to getting this finally through the Senate and the House of Commons?

Senator Patterson: Thank you for that question. Senator Deacon, I believe that this historical anomaly goes back deep in our Westminster parliamentary history, back to the time when there were Whigs and Tories, and landowners were considered more capable of making decisions for the people than were the rabble who were in the commons and who were not landowners. It was a time when it was considered that the wealthy were the best people to govern.

There’s a long history of class behind this distinction of privilege for the wealthy, the net-worth requirement and the land‑title requirement, and it’s clearly not egalitarian. It’s clearly not the way Canada sees itself, as a country with opportunities for all, even the opportunity to participate in this august upper chamber. The origins of this are buried in history. The language I read which describes the property requirement, referring only to males, is also a relic of our history, when it was thought that men were better qualified to make decisions for the public in Parliament. That’s obviously also a very antiquated and elitist requirement.

Our history is not a proud one of why this invidious provision is still in the Constitution of Canada. Let’s get rid of it. Thank you.