Moved:

That the thirteenth report of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization entitled Reflecting the New Reality of the Senate, presented in the Senate on December 11, 2018, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Democratic Institutions being identified as the minister responsible for responding to the report.

He said: Honourable senators, if you have the report in front of you — and I’m sure you travel with it constantly — you will note that it is relatively brief at only 20 pages. In fact, the substance of the report and its recommendations are only six pages. But fear not, my friends, my speech will not be brief.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Modernization Committee was created to determine ways to make the Senate more effective within the current constitutional framework. The first report under the very able chairmanship of Senator McInnis, which contained nine sub reports, brought forward recommendations on how to accommodate the growing number of unaffiliated senators.

The applicable principle in the first report was the equality of senators regardless of whether they were members of a recognized caucus, group or not.

The results of that work were formal changes to the Rules of the Senate to accommodate the creation of parliamentary groups and changes to the Senate Administrative Rules which ensured office allocation and funding for unaffiliated senators to enable them to carry out their duties.

As well, less formal or temporary changes, if you will, were made such as the increased size of committees and changes to ex officio status that was done by order of the Senate and are set to expire at the end of this Parliament.

The committee’s penultimate report examined the Westminster system as it has evolved in Canada and elsewhere to meet local conditions and changing needs.

While it was tabled here for information purposes as opposed to being presented for adoption, it demonstrates there is an inherent flexibility within the Westminster system to accommodate changing circumstances, local conditions and requirements.

It was with that in mind that the committee turned its attention to the study presented in this report. With the principle of equality established for senators and the flexibility of the Westminster system noted, what remained was confirming the principle of equality for whatever Senate groups or caucus a senator might wish to join. It stands to reason that equality should be applied to senators and their groupings, whether you call them a party, a caucus or parliamentary group. The reality in the Senate today is that not all groups are equal.

As an example, the largest group of senators, the Independent Senators Group, need not be included in the consultation regarding time allocation or when it comes to a discussion of what length of time the bells to summon senators for a vote are to ring. There is no formal input from either the ISG or the independent Senate Liberal caucus. In other words, over the half senators currently have no voice on these issues. There are other examples contained in the report. We, as senators in the Senate, have the power to make these changes.

Our first recommendation is that the Senate mandate the Rules Committee to come back to the Senate with specific recommendations on changes to the rules of the Senate to fix these inequalities to better reflect the new Senate reality.

Our second recommendation is for the Internal Economy Committee as it relates to potential amendments to the Senate Administrative Rules, such as ensuring office space near the Senate chamber for the various leadership teams.

The third and final recommendation relates to amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act. As some senators have said, changes to the Senate begin and end with the government. It was the current Prime Minister, when he was leader of the third party in the other place, who cut loose several Liberal senators from their party and national caucus. It was the Prime Minister who, in the last campaign, promised to appoint only independent senators and who since his election has by and large done so.

Two changes to the Parliament of Canada Act and other acts as they relate to restrictions on the royal prerogative or requiring the spending of money must be introduced by the government in the other place.

Changes like these should include requiring consultation with all recognized groupings in the Senate on the appointment of positions like the Senate Ethics Officer or the Auditor General. Changes like these should also include salaries for those who play leadership roles in groups other the three government representatives, who perhaps should be paid a different way, such as by the government and not by the Senate, as is the case now.

Of the three recognized groups, only one, the Conservative caucus, receives extra leadership pay. I say “three groups” because, technically speaking, Senator Harder and his team are not a recognized party or parliamentary group under the Rules of the Senate, but they nevertheless receive additional pay, courtesy of the Parliament of Canada Act. Thus, the leaderships of the ISG and Independent Senate Liberals do not receive extra pay.

Ladies and gentlemen, have we not heard of equal pay for equal work? How can we fix this inequality? Should we, for example, ask Senators Harder and Smith to share some of their extra pay with Senators Day and Woo? Maybe Senators Bellemare and Martin should share their extra salary with Senators Omidvar and Mercer; and Senators Mitchell and Plett, whom we all know to be fair-minded, should they not volunteer to go sharsies with Senators Gold and Downe?

Of course, on the ground of equality or equity, I would also support that nobody should receive extra pay. After all, if the leadership of the Independent Senate Liberals and the ISG can get along without extra pay all these years, I’m sure the others could, too. Wouldn’t Canadian taxpayers be happy?

I make light of this, but shouldn’t we all work to fix this? Perhaps we should hold a tag day for Senators Woo and Day, and their teams.

Seriously, though, these inequalities surrounding remuneration symbolize the inequities and inequalities in the rules and practices throughout the Senate chamber operations. It is rather shameful we have allowed this to persist. We pride ourselves as being an example of best practices for Canadians to follow, yet in our rules of operation we are rather slipshod.

A burning question is: To what degree will the Senate get involved in such amendments? During his testimony to the committee last May, Senator Harder indicated it is not for the government to unilaterally come forward with amendments. This was reinforced later by the Minister of Democratic Institutions, who said in Question Period last fall that it was up to honourable senators to decide how the act should be updated.

These comments were made prior to December 2018, when the Modernization Committee presented its report. We should have moved quickly, perhaps — or perhaps more quickly — to take up this openness to an amendment, but we were slow. Now the Prime Minister has said in a year-end interview with The Canadian Press that the government is looking at ways to put changes made to the Senate in legislation before the next election. It’s hardly likely that will happen.

Based on the testimony on public record at the time of the committee’s deliberation, and not knowing of the government’s new intentions for legislation, the Modernization Committee recommended that the Rules Committee be tasked with an examination of the Parliament of Canada Act and, if necessary, recommend specific amendments to the act and other acts as they relate to the Senate.

If there is a potential that the government intends to unilaterally introduce amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act, I would reluctantly support that, because changes have to be made. My preference, however, would be for the Senate to be consulted and included in the drafting of such legislation. Either way, the time has come to act. I encourage the quick adoption of the report.

While I have you here, I want to offer a few thoughts on the future of modernization as a concept. For most of our existence, we used the model that distinguished only the government and recognized opposition. This has led to a Senate Chamber that seldom amended and was generally seen as a copycat of the Commons. As a result, it was regarded by the general public as irrelevant and a waste of money.

The influx of unaligned senators has shown that opposition can come from anywhere. We were a bipolar house once upon a time, but we are presently multipolar. The result is we have become more relevant. We amend more, and the cries for abolition have receded. But we need a set of rules that recognizes our multipolar nature and that encourages opposition from any corner of the Senate to form around any piece of legislation.

Second, we must keep in mind that we are usually the final step before Royal Assent. We have a serious job that really does require sober second thought. To me, this means that the various caucuses and parliamentary groups should not be beholden to partisan or group interests. Being a partisan is not a bad thing. I am one. Political parties, after all, are a way for like-minded people to coalesce in a political institution. The Senate, as a parliamentary chamber, is certainly a political institution.

Every senator has their individual beliefs, biases and ideological leanings, but being whipped, as they say, is a bad thing that makes senators beholden to self-serving partisan interests, as opposed to using the facts to assess the business before the Senate on its own merits. Perhaps the Rules Committee may want to look at ways in future to modernize the role of caucus whips to reflect this.

To that end, a number of other ideas should be entertained and examined as we proceed, including the notion of perils of groupthink, because that’s almost, if not more, dangerous to us these days than overt partisan whipping. I define groupthink as occurring when individuals in a group make decisions mainly for the sake of harmony, friendship or team playing as opposed to forming their own opinions after weighing the facts, based on personal beliefs and experiences.

Last, I believe that a caucus or group with a Senate majority is a danger to the independence of all senators. No matter how benign, recognized majorities have the potential to limit or restrict the rights of minorities. Potentially, such majorities could limit our ability to have sober second actions as well as thoughts.

A counterweight to this could be operational rules that encourage the existence of more than two recognized caucuses or groups, and would prevent the dominance of a single group.

Finally, I wish to thank all senators past and present who contributed time and effort to the modernization efforts that predate the Modernization Committee. Those senators especially include the following: Senators Nolin, Eggleton, Ringuette, Verner, Bellemare, Lankin, Tardif, Wallace, McCoy, Joyal, Campbell, Tannas, Kirby, Segal and last but not least, Senator Massicotte.

Thank you very much.

Of course.

That’s a fantastic idea. I will consult the caucus about that.

That’s a tough one. The most efficient way to achieve change I think would be to have a week-long conference, multiparty, multi-group involving the entire Senate, which would over the course of a week try to come to an agreement with respect to the operational Rules of the Senate.

The Modernization Committee itself was a good idea at the time, but it proved to be unworkable after a while as it became partisan-driven, dysfunctional and very difficult to achieve any results. I think an open chamber approach might be the best way.