Honourable senators, I would first like to commend the chair of the committee, Senator McInnis, and the committee members on the quality of their work. In fulfilling your mandate, you motivated us to think about how a modern Senate could better serve Canadians. You deserve all of our gratitude for the diligence with which you took on this difficult task.

As Senator Bellemare mentioned a little while ago in her speech, some of the recommendations set out in the report have already been implemented in practice and some are even set out in the Rules of the Senate. There are a lot of things in the report that we can all agree on.

However, both within the Modernization Committee and beyond, there are important issues upon which we do not agree. These surface regularly in our exchanges in this chamber and outside, and at the heart of many of these issues is the question of partisanship.

Some, such as our former colleague senators Kirby and Segal, argue that partisanship has undermined the effectiveness of the Senate and reduced its capacity to meet its constitutional obligations. Others, including many in this chamber, defend partisanship as fundamental and, indeed, necessary for the Senate to play its constitutional role.

This is not a new debate, as questions about the place of partisanship and its relationship to the independence of the Senate go back to the debate surrounding Confederation. But it has taken on a particular importance because of the arrival of a new group of senators, of which I am one, who are not affiliated with any political party, who are not members of a political caucus and who define ourselves as non-partisan.

Honourable senators, I believe the time has come that this fundamental question be discussed more fully and openly here in the chamber. To that end, I respectfully offer my remarks today. My purpose is to shed light on the role of partisanship in the Senate in the hope that it will clarify an issue that appears to divide us.

What are we talking about when we criticize or defend partisanship? In my opinion, our discussion to date has been hindered by a failure to properly define what we mean by partisanship, and to distinguish it from the questions of one’s own personal values and political beliefs. Let us start — but we won’t end — with some dictionary definitions of partisanship.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a partisan as “a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause or person; especially one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.”

Similarly, the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines partisanship as “zealous support for a party, person or cause; lack of impartiality.”

Consider finally the definition of partisanship offered by The American Heritage Roget’s Thesaurus: “An inclination for or against that inhibits impartial judgment.” These are pretty harsh words; I would say fighting words. Let me offer a more descriptive and functional definition.

As applied to the Senate, I understand partisanship to be the orientation whereby one’s actions in debate, deliberation and decision are informed primarily by a consideration of the tactical, strategic and/or electoral interests of the political party with which one identifies. Otherwise put, partisanship is an attitude, an orientation, that translates into behaviour.

However, as important as it is to be clear about what we mean by partisanship, it is equally important to be clear about what we do not mean.

[Translation]

Partisanship does not just mean belonging to a political party or caucus. Senators can be part of a political caucus without necessarily taking a partisan attitude to their work in the Senate. My remarks on partisanship are in no way intended to disparage senators who belong to a political caucus or to question the legitimacy of caucus membership, provided that their independence and equality as senators are not compromised. I am also not using the term “partisanship” the way others do, to refer to a senator’s deeply held political values and beliefs. You will recall that this was one of the dictionary definitions I cited earlier.

Naturally, as senators, our values and beliefs are reflected in our Senate work. That is both inevitable and desirable. Nevertheless, we need to be clear.

[English]

Our constitutional responsibility is to ensure that the laws we pass or the policy recommendations we make respect our basic constitutional principles and values. This is the primary role of senators and of the Senate. We are not here to simply give effect to our personal political views, however deeply held.

To repeat: Partisanship is not the same thing as belonging to a political party or caucus, nor is it the same thing as holding strongly held political or ideological views.

Why, then, do so many people seem to think that partisanship is a problem in the Senate?

The first point to underline, honourable colleagues, is that it’s not partisanship per se, but it’s the behaviour driven by partisanship that is at issue. Here lies the rub. In my opinion, respectfully, partisanship negatively affects the quality of debate and deliberation and, more important, is fundamentally at odds with the constitutional role of the Senate properly understood.

Let me address each of these in turn.

As senators, we are summoned to exercise independent judgment on the matters before us. In this respect, I think of it, as others before me have, as something akin to adopting a judicial mindset. Whether arguing for or against a bill, we are called upon to give a reasoned justification for our positions. But what counts as a valid reason in debate and deliberation?

A valid reason is one that speaks to the merits of a bill or policy. Conversely, an invalid reason would be one that did not address the substance of the issue but was somehow extrinsic to it. An obvious example of that would be the personal self-interest of the speaker, and that is why we have conflict of interest rules for individual senators.

However, if that is so, equally invalid would be a reason that is rooted in the electoral agenda or political fortunes of the political party with which the speaker identifies. We may honestly believe that the party in power is the best — or worst — thing that ever happened to our country, and that we would all be better off if the government stayed in the same hands — or switched hands — but that surely cannot be a reason to support or oppose a bill that is before us in this chamber.

[Translation]

I will be very clear. I am not saying that belonging to a political caucus necessarily or invariably leads a senator to behave in a partisan way. As I said earlier, partisanship, properly understood, is an orientation that informs our actions in the Senate, and it has nothing to do with the political caucuses or parliamentary groups a senator might want to belong to.

[English]

More important, nothing in my critique of partisanship is intended to impugn the integrity of anyone in this chamber who defines themselves as partisan. When those senators affirm that they approach issues in a reasoned and impartial manner, I accept that they are sincere and in good faith. However, I still maintain that, to the extent that one sees oneself as partisan, there is a real risk that one’s judgment will be tempered by such partisan considerations. And if and when that occurs, that would compromise the ideal of reasoned, deliberate debate in the Senate, to which we should all aspire.

This brings me to the heart of the matter. In my view, partisanship is inconsistent with the constitutional role of the Senate.

Since my arrival in the Senate, I have often heard it argued that partisanship is necessary and desirable because it enables the Senate to hold the government to account. However, with the greatest of respect, honourable colleagues, I believe that this conception of the role of the Senate needs to be unpacked because, as often as it is invoked, I believe it is, at the very least, misleading and incomplete, if not actually wrong.

First, it is important to distinguish the concepts of accountability and responsibility in our parliamentary tradition. With the emergence of responsible government in the 19th century, the elected lower houses in the British parliamentary system came to be organized around political parties. Partisanship played, and continues to play, an important role in the formation of such political parties, in attracting adherence to such parties and in contributing to their internal cohesion.

More important, partisanship, as embodied in the role of the opposition in the Commons, plays a critical role in our system of responsible government. Opposition parties form governments in waiting. Their role is to criticize the government and to prepare policies to potentially replace the government. This is a fundamental and foundational aspect of responsible government, and it is at the very heart — indeed, it is the heart — of what we mean when we talk of the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy.

However, honourable senators, holding the government responsible has everything to do with the House of Commons and nothing whatsoever to do with the Senate. Simply put, the Senate does not have a horse in this race.

If there is a meaning to be given to the notion of holding government to account, one that is consistent with our constitutional role as an independent and complementary law-making body, it must be this: It is the legislative output of the government — that is, government bills passed by the House of Commons — that the Senate holds to account. We have the constitutional obligation to review legislation to ensure that it respects our fundamental constitutional principles. In addition, our role is to guard against majoritarian excess and also, might I add, majoritarian sloppiness and haste. This is especially important when the government enjoys a majority in the other place. Again, however, our role is one that relates to government bills, not the government as such. In discharging this important role, there is no need for senators to act in a partisan manner.

(1700)

Finally, let me address an important argument against the position I’m advancing. It’s an important one and one with which I continue to wrestle. The argument goes something like this: The Senate is a place of debate, and debate is, by definition, adversarial. For the Senate to do its job properly, it’s necessary that there be a confrontation between differing points of view. Moreover, it’s important that such debate be structured. We would not fulfill our constitutional role if we were to behave, to use a phrase that resonates with me as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, as nothing more than a “collection of loose fish.”

From this perspective, the argument goes, partisanship plays an indispensable role in ensuring that there is critical scrutiny of government legislation in the Senate. Since that is an essential part of our constitutional obligation, does it not follow that partisanship is an important, indeed necessary, part of the Senate in discharging its constitutional role? That’s a strong argument.

The short answer to this question is, respectfully, “no.” To say that there must be a real, structured debate where all points of view are heard is not to say that it must be driven or dominated by partisan considerations. There are several ways in which the work of the Senate could be reorganized to ensure that government legislation receives sustained, critical scrutiny from all points of view in a non-partisan way.

These include revisiting how we structure our processes and stages of legislative review as well as promulgating standing rules to ensure that all relevant perspectives are brought to bear on the legislation considered in this chamber. Indeed, elements of such an approach can be found in the documents and debates of the Modernization Committee, in ideas expressed by earlier generations of senators and in the academic literature.

For my part, along with some others, I have developed some relatively concrete ideas of my own, which I would be very happy to share with anyone who is interested, but time being what it is, a proper exploration of these, at least in the chamber and at least by me, will have to wait for another occasion.

Now, honourable senators, I don’t expect and don’t assume that all of you will agree with my views on partisanship and the role of the Senate. That is to be expected, if not welcomed. As I stated at the outset, I truly believe that these issues need to be discussed more openly and broadly among us and here in this chamber.

I am grateful for the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization for having set the table for us, and I look forward to debating these issues with you as we go forward. Thank you for your kind attention.