Senator Griffin: Thank you, Senator Gold. I have a question that’s related to process rather than to policy related to this constitutional amendment. In the Senate, we often talk about ensuring sober second thought when it comes to reviewing and protecting rights under the charter; and in this case, the motion proposes to remove the constitutional right, for better or for worse, that was given to the Canadian Pacific Railway. As you noted, there was a constitutional debate on the amendments to remove the Prince Edward Island ferry service and replace it with the Confederation Bridge. I don’t think you noted, though, that the debate on this amendment occurred over four sitting days. I’m a little concerned that we might be rushing here. You asked for speedy delivery of the results.

By the way, the other constitutional amendments that you cited, some of those, of course, were referred to committee. So in all of those cases I believe the Senate was sincerely providing sober second thought.

The question I have is: As a matter of procedural fairness, should Canadian Pacific Railway be afforded the opportunity to make its views known in the Senate prior to extinguishing its constitutional right? Even worse, what precedent does this set? Thank you.

Senator Dupuis: I understand the procedure for presenting the motion as a request from the Government of Saskatchewan, following a resolution adopted by its legislative assembly to amend the Constitution as it relates to the Province of Saskatchewan. However, if this is a dispute between Canadian Pacific and a government other than the Government of Saskatchewan, for instance the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan, this would no longer be part of the same constitutional discussion, because this amendment will have a direct impact not only on the Constitution as it relates to Saskatchewan, but also on federal government operations.

Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Gold, I have listened to the questions and comments of colleagues on all sides in this chamber. I would like to know if you think we should have more time to study the amendments and give sober second thought to an issue that seems complex and on which the constitutional experts in this chamber have raised some aspects that concern me personally.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your questions and your comments. The appropriate way to proceed is to follow the amending formula set out in the Constitution Act, 1982. As I outlined in my speech — and I suspect we’ll hear again from Senator Cotter who is a great constitutional expert in his own right — this is a provision that allows for the Constitution to be amended when it affects one or more but not all of the provinces, unlike constitutional amendments that affect all of the provinces and require a different formula or those that only involve the federal Parliament. That is something that can also be done differently.

Even though the Constitution was only patriated in 1982, this has been used many times. There has never been a question raised, to the best of my knowledge, as to the appropriateness of proceeding this way in cases like this. The government is satisfied that this is the appropriate constitutional way to resolve this issue, which is an issue of fairness for the people of Saskatchewan.

[Translation]