Hon. Jim Quinn: Honourable senators, when I hear the words “constitutional amendment,” I believe the matter being considered to be a serious one. We have heard that there have been constitutional amendments in the past, such as when the name of the province of Newfoundland was changed to Newfoundland and Labrador. We also heard other amendments being referenced by honourable colleagues during earlier debates, and we have heard that some of these amendments have been legally challenged after the adoption of the amendment.

The amendment now under consideration has been approved by the Saskatchewan legislature and the lower chamber without debate or committee consideration, including witness input. Only the Senate of Canada has really spent time studying the bill with the involvement of witnesses.

I have two issues that I think we as senators need to reflect upon. First is the retroactivity consideration contained in the bill and the fact that we have the issue before the courts in Saskatchewan. The question of retroactivity for me is a question of fairness. We have heard that there have been numerous occasions over the past decades when a constitutional amendment could have been initiated but was not. Now we’re being asked to make the amendment while, at the same time, a court case could be influenced by such an action.

When witnesses at our committee were asked if they felt the current court case could be influenced if this amendment were passed before the conclusion of the court case, there was, I would propose, some belief that the amendment could in fact have an impact on the case. I questioned the Attorney General of Saskatchewan. I asked if he believed, given the primacy of the Constitution, that the amendment of the Constitution could in fact have an impact. His response was:

It would be our position, senator, that it would have some effect on the litigation, but we’re not sure what effect it is going to have.

In conclusion, honourable senators, why would we put the Senate in the position of agreeing with the proposed amendment when even the Attorney General of the Province of Saskatchewan is certain there will be some effect on the court case, but to what extent he’s unsure?

After all of these decades, the urgency of this bill on the eve of a court decision seems to be a way to make a change today that could influence tomorrow. Why would we not simply allow the court case to come to a conclusion over the next few weeks, after which the appropriate amendment could be introduced to allow for the request of a constitutional amendment?