Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 3 - Evidence - October 18, 2016
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 18, 2016
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:34 a.m. for the consideration of the orders and practices of the Senate pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(c) (designation of senators); and for the consideration of future business of the committee.
Senator Vernon White (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Senators, I will be chairing the meeting as Senator Fraser, who is the chair, is away.
We have two items on the agenda. First, there is the issue of the designation of the senators. Second, we will have a general discussion on the future business of the committee.
Let me remind everyone that on June 22, just before the Senate rose for the summer recess, the Speaker ruled on a question of privilege raised by Senator Ringuette. Her concern was that Senate websites and other places now indicated that she was a non-affiliated senator rather than independent, as was previously the case.
Copies of the ruling were given to you as you came in. I hope you have them. It should be a four-page document. I'll refer specifically to the last paragraph if you don't have time or haven't gone through it.
Although the ruling established that there was no case of privilege, the Speaker recognized the seriousness of the matter. He concluded by suggesting that the issue could be referred to the Rules Committee so that it could "conduct a thorough examination of the subject, canvassing the views of senators, noting past practice, and soliciting information from other jurisdictions.''
Our first item today is, therefore, a follow-up to what happened in late June. We haven't yet received a direction from the Senate to look into the issue of affiliations, but this doesn't prevent us from doing so under rule 12-7(2)(c), which allows the committee to "consider the orders and practices of the Senate" on its own initiative.
Today's meeting will allow us to discuss whether, in the absence of a direction from the Senate, the committee should look into how affiliations are recorded and, if so, how our work should proceed, which will help the steering committee plan work.
In practical terms, many senators will want to express their views. There will be a range of opinions, and I expect there are strong feelings on this subject. I therefore ask all senators to be aware of time so that everyone can participate, and we will look to participation from everyone here if possible.
Once we have discussed the issue of affiliations and if time allows — and I hope that it does — we will go on to future work. One possibility would be to resume the work on privilege that we began last session. On June 2, 2015, the committee tabled a discussion paper on privilege. A copy of the paper was distributed to you in advance of this meeting, and I know many of us were involved in that discussion and would like to get back to that work sooner than later.
You also have received, I believe, copies of two pieces of work, one from Genevieve Gosselin and the other from Michael Dewing, which talks about identification of political affiliation in selected upper chambers, and it looks to a number of other jurisdictions, in particular Australia and the United Kingdom, which we follow closely, but also jurisdictions such as India, the United States and South Africa.
The second document is the notes on non-affiliated parliamentarians in all party groups, and it's a more in-depth document that speaks to some of the same locations.
I will go to the final few sentences of the ruling of the Speaker in June. The Speaker said:
What I would recommend for consideration of the Senate is that this issue of the designation "independent'' versus "non affiliated'' be referred to the Rules Committee as quickly as possible. The Rules Committee should be able to conduct a thorough examination of the subject, canvassing the views of senators, noting past practice, and soliciting information from other jurisdictions. In the meantime, until a decision is made by the Rules Committee, Internal Economy may wish to consider suspending its decision to use the term "non affiliated'' for documents and records that are under its purview with respect to senators who clearly state a preference for the use of independent.
We will begin our discussion at this point. I don't know if we have any senators who are not on the committee regularly; I see that Senator Poirier is replacing Senator Wells.
I would like to allow everyone 10 seconds to identify who they are, as it's a public broadcast.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, and this morning I'm replacing Senator Wells.
Senator McInnis: Tom McInnis, Nova Scotia.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Frum: Linda Frum, Ontario.
Senator Tkachuk: David Tkachuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin, British Columbia.
The Deputy Chair: My name is Vernon White. I'm the deputy chair and I represent Ontario.
Senator Ogilvie: Kelvin Ogilvie, Nova Scotia.
Senator Lankin: Frances Lankin, Ontario.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Serge Joyal from Quebec.
Senator Bellemare: Diane Bellemare from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Batters: Denise Batters, Saskatchewan.
The Deputy Chair: Who wants to kick off this dialogue?
Senator Wallace: This issue brought up a lot of controversy at the time, and I wrote to the members of Internal Economy following the decision to make this change, to make their change from the description of independent to non-affiliated. I suppose, to the outside world, this may not seem to be an issue of a lot of consequence. The reality is that how we do our job and how we go about it is what ultimately counts, but it's also important how we describe ourselves. That description is something that the public looks to in trying to understand what it is that we stand for in this institution.
For me — I won't speak for my other colleagues, although I have a pretty good idea of where my other independent colleagues stand — as a senator, I represent New Brunswick now as an independent, non-partisan senator, and that's very important to me. In particular, having left a political caucus back in November, that description is extremely important to me.
At the time that I left the political caucus, I indicated to the clerk and to all others in authority that I would be sitting as an independent senator, and that was accepted. It was reflected on all of the parliamentary documentation; it was reflected in any correspondence that I had. I believe a number, if not all, of my independent colleagues did the same.
How we describe ourselves is important. How we describe ourselves in the Senate has historically been left to the latitude of senators to determine, and that was stated clearly by Senator Furey in his ruling on Senator Ringuette's question of privilege.
He, in particular, in his ruling, stated that this decision, unilaterally and without consent, for the Internal Economy Committee to make this change is troubling and does not reflect the idea that was set out in a previous ruling of his, on May 19, that senators should, within reasonable limits, be allowed latitude in how they designate themselves.
This decision also appears to be in conflict with the long-established practice of allowing individual senators considerable latitude in how they designate themselves.
So it was quite shocking to me — and I know to others — when this change was made by Internal Economy Committee without any consultation with independent senators and without the consent of independent senators. Again, all of it is stated clearly in Speaker Furey's decision.
He went on, in his ruling, to say:
This is not a good situation and it is contrary to our usual and long-standing practice. Nor is it helpful to the maintenance of good relations among senators.
I have my own view on this, and I think you have a sense of what that view is. I wish to continue to refer to myself as an independent senator. Quite frankly, I will go further in my own correspondence and describe myself as an independent, non-partisan senator. The ability to do that and the history behind the ability to do that was clearly stated by the Speaker in his ruling, and there has been no compelling reason to change that.
In conclusion, I feel very strongly that senators who wish to consider themselves and call themselves independent should be entitled to do that. The general public clearly understands what that means. Historically, over a long history, that is how independent senators have described themselves and how this institution, how Parliament, has allowed them to be described. I see no reason whatsoever to change that.
The expression "non-affiliated'' is ambiguous to the public. I don't believe they would understand what that means. Quite frankly, I'm not quite sure what it means. Perhaps the intention is to mean non-affiliated with a political party. Maybe, as other independent groups become part of the Senate — and that is quite possible — it means non-affiliated with other independent groups.
So the term "non-affiliated,'' to me, is a non-starter. The term to be used is "independent.'' It has always been used. It describes who we are. Speaking for myself, it's how I wish to be described going forward.
Senator Lankin: I really do want to listen to what other people have to say, but there weren't a lot of indications of speakers right up front. So maybe everybody's doing that.
I thought I would just say a couple of things that I had been thinking about over the summer. I had some conversations with people in the Conservative caucus and in the Liberal caucus. I came to understand how, for some people, the use by others, like me, of the word "independent'' felt like I was taking some independence away from those other senators in their sense of identity. I really thought on that. I've come, in the past, from a partisan background. I understand some of those dynamics, and I understand the difference, here at the Senate, and how people feel that each member of the Senate is independent in the way in which they exercise their judgment in carrying out their duties. I think that this change in the appointment process and the arrival of seven of us under this new process happened at a time when there had been a lot of sense of change and turmoil in the Senate. I didn't appreciate, certainly, the context in which people were hearing me or receiving me. I am now aware of that and sensitive to it.
I want to say on behalf of myself and, I believe, other colleagues who have used the term "independent'' that I do not see that as some superior definition of a role. I do not see partisanship as a less than honourable — I believe it is honourable — way of conducting politics and policy debate and proposing and opposing ideas around debate.
I choose not to be subject to party discipline. I think party discipline and partisanship are different things. That's a question, as we go forward, for all of us in terms of reclaiming the independence for all of us.
Having said that, if we can accept that there is no malicious intent in the use of that word, it describes something different than a member of a partisan caucus. For me, in the future, I think I will begin to describe myself as affiliated with the independent senators' group. It is a group. It is a group that may well become recognized under the Rules. That debate is still to come; I recognize that. I'm not suggesting that's a done deal. I know it's not. But I am affiliated to a group, and so I look to that.
I did some reading over the summer, as well. I looked at the June ruling of the Speaker and the May ruling on the point of order with respect to Senator Bellemare's title and the self-styling with respect to the name of the Government Representative. I looked at some the lists of the historical range of titles, affiliations and non-affiliations — or designations may be the correct word here — have taken over the years. If you look historically, it has been very broad. There are Conservatives, Progressive Conservatives, Liberal Conservatives and independents. It has not ever become an issue like this where a name or designation will be imposed on a group of people as Internal Economy did.
I have many opinions about how that was done. That's not germane to what we're doing today, so I will not comment on that. But the end result is that there is a lot of confusion. There are places on our website where we are referred to as independents and others where we're referred to as non-affiliated.
The lingo and the parlance of the Senate have changed. I attended the press conference of the Modernization Committee's release of its report. If you look at the transcript, Senator Joyal, Senator McInnis and, of course, Senator McCoy spoke about the independent senators all the way through that. I look to the discussions in the house and the debates of some of the motions coming from the report, and people referred to "the independent senators.'' It is something that we are accepting as we go through change, and it may change as things go on, but no one is regularly referring to this group as non-affiliated.
I think that the long-standing tradition can be well-accepted by all of us, and the question is whether we go back to that or not. If there is a way to fix this issue of the perceptions of what had happened about a group claiming independence while others feel to be independent and that somehow we're diminishing that, that's an issue of relations, how we work together and of trying to problem-solve around this. It's not an issue for one committee of the Senate to impose on a group of people.
That's the feeling I have coming in, but I do want to hear what others have to say and what motivates your thoughts and decision about this.
Senator Tkachuk: I have just a few points.
Historically, independent senators have been here, but they have not organized themselves as groups and asked for cash, to put it as bluntly as I can. I think that people have a right to know when different groups are getting money from the public that is extra to what they would normally get as a senator. People should know who they are. They're not just one big blob of independent senators. They're divided into groups. We have the Liberal independents, the independents appointed by the Prime Minister, some that have declared themselves independents from our caucus and those who have declared themselves independents from the Liberal caucus.
That's fine. If they want to sit there and be independents, be independents. But they don't. They want to be caucuses and they're asking for money, so I want to know who these people are. I think people have a right to know.
I think Internal Economy had a problem in that I don't think they have the obligation to identify the group. They just wanted a way to put it and so they used non-affiliated, which I think is the apt description until someone gets affiliated, because we do have a number of affiliated-type groups. And they're not taking their names from the Canada Elections Act. I don't know what they are, actually, so I think that's confusing. They have a responsibility to identify who they are.
Senator Wallace is from New Brunswick, but there are other independent senators with his group who are from all over the country. They have one thing in common: They all want money. If they all want extra money, the public has a right to know who they're giving their money to.
Senator Batters: First of all, the category that's always listed always on the website or the seating chart is political affiliation. That's what "affiliation'' means, so I submit that non-affiliated is the appropriate way to refer to senators who are not or do not wish to be affiliated with a political party. There is not a political party right now that's called the independent party that this grouping of senators belong to, and so I think that non-affiliated — meaning not affiliated to a political party recognized under the Canada Elections Act — is the appropriate reference.
When I look at the materials prepared by the Library of Parliament, we most commonly look to what the U.K. House of Lords is doing. I notice that in their categories they have many groups of senators, but they have a category called non-affiliated. They don't have a group simply called independent. They have other groups that include independent Labour, independent Social Democrat and independent Ulster Unionist, but they don't have any groups that are simply independent. Likewise, the Australian Senate has several groups, too, but none of those are independent.
To emphasize the point that Senator Lankin made, there are many senators in the Conservative and Liberal Senate caucuses who take great offence to one group of senators styling themselves and being officially called independent, because they consider themselves to be very independent senators as well. But to be classified as that way in official documents and to receive funds for that, names are important. As Senator Tkachuk said, the public needs to know who they're giving money to and they also need to know the role of that particular group. It's easier to determine when there is a role, like official opposition or representing a particular political party that people vote for. This is a little more difficult to determine.
Senator McInnis: I have nothing profound to say. My summer was much more lively than yours, Senator Lankin, to do research on a topic such as this.
The way I look at the non-affiliates, at the moment, may be different than when we hopefully approve the recommendation — I think it's number 7 in the Modernization Committee report — with respect to caucuses.
I would look at a non-affiliate, perhaps, as a person out there who is not in any group or caucus. I would see those individuals, perhaps, as non-affiliates.
So, what's in a name? In the House of Commons, if a person left the caucus they were independents, and that's the way they were referred to. That takes place in the provincial legislatures and in Parliament.
I have no difficulty with the name "independent.'' I have trouble drawing a link to our having to know who they are because they're getting funds. At the moment they're not getting funds. If the recommendation is approved they may be eligible for funds under the new recommendation, but I don't see that as a foundation for saying that they can't be called independents. They are a group of independents of like mind, apparently, and will become a caucus if they have nine or more senators.
So what I looked at as the non-affiliates, for lack of a better term, were those individuals who may not belong to a caucus or group. There may be one or two or three, but they're not affiliated with any group.
The Deputy Chair: I know you worked on that committee, senator. So that I'm clear, your perspective might be that there would possibly be affiliated independent groups and still some that sit outside of those groups, as well.
Senator McInnis: There may well be.
The Deputy Chair: They are referred to as non-affiliated because they're not affiliated with any of the independent groups — one, two, or three — or the independent Liberals or the Conservatives.
Senator McInnis: If there are 105 senators or better, conceivably you could have 11 groups. We hope that doesn't happen. We don't think it will.
Some thought the threshold should be higher. There may be individual senators who may be the non-affiliated groups. I suspect that if you belong to a group, you're independent, but there may be some like-minded issues they would have in common to form that group. Under the recommendation, of course, you are unable to belong to two groups. You are either in or you are out.
Senator Joyal: I think we must try to understand the system. As Senator Wallace has mentioned, an outsider may wonder how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. On the other hand, this issue addresses itself to the core of the institution.
Senators are not elected under the banner of a political party recognized under the electoral act. We don't own our mandate from the electorate because we belong to a certain political party. We own our duty under a Royal Commission. So the Prime Minister or the leader of a party doesn't have a direct reach on us as the leader has on its elected members. If the leader refused to sign the letter recognizing you as the candidate, then you are not a candidate under the heading of that party.
The leader of any recognized party in Canada has no reach to any senator. That I think is a very important element to recognize. I repeat: We own our mandate under the terms of a Royal Commission. We are appointed by the Governor General through the convention after a recommendation by the Prime Minister. However, the Prime Minister can traditionally recommend people identified through allegiance to his own party, those who are independent or even people who are members of another party.
For example, Prime Minister Paul Martin appointed Senator Segal. Nobody would doubt that Senator Segal is a Conservative supporter or a member of that party family. He also appointed Senator Nancy Ruth, who is still a member of the Tory caucus. Other Prime Ministers have appointed independent senators that are either members of another party or standing alone as an independent. It is very important to recognize that because it has an impact on the way that political parties function in the Senate Chamber.
Once a senator is appointed, that senator can decide to do whatever he or she wants in terms of joining a political family. A senator may continue to sit with a group of like-minded people or he can decide to part with that like-minded group of people. My friend Senator Wallace decided to sit outside that group traditionally identified as an independent. We have a tradition of identifying senators who are not a member of the opposition or government. That's the way the Senate has been traditionally structured for 150 years or so. It is similar to the House of Lords. Those independents are called cross-benchers. There are two benches, otherwise there is no cross. The independents sit in between the opposition and the government, so physically you can see where they are.
How do we identify those senators who are not declaring themselves members of a political group, be it a political group that is a member of the national caucus or a group that has a certain discipline in terms of cohesion on the outcome of issues? In the Senate, you can't threaten a senator to have him or her terminated because he or she voted against the party position. The extreme sanction would be for a group to expel a senator from its group. It happens even in the House of Lords among the cross-benchers. They might ask a lord to leave if they feel that the lord has compromised his independence because he participates in partisan activities.
A group can have discipline among itself. That discipline has different degrees, the most severe being the expulsion of that senator, but for partisan activities if you are a cross-bencher. If you are not a cross-bencher and are a member of a political family, you are expected to take stands on the traditional basis of the program of that party.
Canadian political parties are very loose aggregates of people. I remember very well my first boss on the Hill was former Speaker of the Senate Jean Marchand. In the early 1970s, he said, "Do you know the difference, Serge, between the Tories and us? They have more 'Tory' than us.'' In other words, within a party there are various nuances, and the extremes almost touch; the extreme Liberals touch the NDP, and the slow Liberals touch the progressives of the Tories.
Political parties in Canada are very loose aggregates of people. You can't expect that those members, if they are free to determine their stand, will feel compelled to always vote the way the party has traditionally voted. It was visible in the Senate on Bill C-377, amending the Labour Code. On the first vote you could see where they stood in that continuum of allegiance within a party. Who is at the extreme end and who is at the other end of the spectrum? It is the same with the Liberal Party. You saw it in May when we voted on Bill C-14.
Political parties in the Senate can't be a group of people who impose a definite line of voting, while in the House of Commons, that is what you expect because there is discipline. The discipline is that you won't be appointed parliamentary secretary, won't make it to the cabinet and, in the extreme, and they will not recognize you as the official candidate in the next election. That is the supreme kind of contempt.
In the Senate we're spared from that. Political parties don't have that reach on us, even though the leader phones me and says that if he had known, he would never have appointed me. Well thank you very much but I am appointed, and I will be there when you are gone. What I'm saying is it happened to me, as a matter of fact. I'm not telling a story that I dreamt. It happened to me.
So political parties in the Senate should not be seen as a fixed group of people who always have to vote in the same direction and share the same views and arguments on an issue. The further down in history a Prime Minister recommends a senator, the looser is the member. I was appointed by Mr. Chrétien, and he's been gone for three terms. I'm certainly still grateful to Mr. Chrétien, but whatever he might think of the way I vote doesn't change the way I'm going to vote.
There is something that personally offends me in trying to understand the dynamics of political parties in the Senate, and I address my remarks to Senator Bellemare and Senator Lankin. I received two press releases from the group of independents stating that they had taken such initiatives and decisions. The last sentence was that the independents are not there to serve political parties but to serve Canadians — i.e., I am not serving Canadians.
I feel that my record could stand against the record of any senator in relation to how I serve Canadians, so I took that as a personal offence. In other words, if you are independent, you are not serving Canadians. If that would be the rationale, the House of Commons would not be serving Canadians. They are there because they have the mandate from Canadians. If you don't have the mandate from Canadians, from whom do you have the mandate?
We have the mandate from a Royal Commission. To organize the debate amongst ourselves, we have to have a group of different-minded persons in order to have that clash of ideas, because that's democracy.
I'm not here to agree all the time with what Senator Wallace or Senator Lankin or even my Liberal colleagues say. It happens that I have different stands on issues than my Liberal colleagues, and I don't resent that. On the contrary, I do it with the respect of their stand, the respect of the position that they take, but not to say this group of senators is better because they are not politically affiliated, so they are purists and their minds are not corrupted by the allegiance to a party or a family.
I don't think that is the way we should see the Senate. I am putting it on the record here because we should all understand where we come from if we want to start on a different footing of organizing the work of the Senate. I want to be candid and say it here because I think that it is the best way to reorganize the work of the Senate, to make room and space on an equal footing, with access to funds and whatnot. I have no problem with that. But certainly not in a way to categorize senators who serve Canadians and those who serve political parties.
I don't serve the Liberal Party of Canada when I am in the Senate. I am a liberal-minded person, definitely, but I am an independent-minded senator. And that's the greatest test. The greatest test is not that you are independent but that you are independent minded from your own group.
In my opinion, that is really what we have to understand. If we want to live peacefully amongst ourselves, in full respect of one another — and there is not one senator who would not want to respect another senator, whatever his or her position.
As Senator Tkachuk has said, we all come from a professional background. We all come with ideas of how Canadian society should function and on what values Canadian society should evolve. Otherwise, we would not be here. That's why we are here, as a person with professional experience that has committed his or her life to serve a way of understanding and viewing the evolution of Canada. We are not pure angels; we are not judges on the Supreme Court bench.
I could have sat as a judge in another career; I could have chosen to do that. I did not want to. I wanted to be in political debate, with an independent mind; in other words, state the things the way I see them, even though I would not negate the fact that traditionally I have identified myself as a Liberal supporter, but on certain issues I could clash with the leadership of the other place.
When we are defining the status of independents, we have to be very mindful to understand the principles on which this institution functions. As much as I'm for evolution and adaptation, I think we should ensure that the principles of the institution remain understood and sound in relation to its evolution.
The Supreme Court of Canada never said you have to change the principles of the Senate. The principles of the Senate are sound the way the fathers or the founders, to put it in neutral terms, conceived it. I think the greatest expectation is independent-minded senators, whatever their political family.
As I said, I don't want to identify people who have been appointed among the independents, but as Senator Tkachuk has said, as a senator who has written articles all of his life in newspapers, do you think he would not know his allegiances, how he sees society? I write, as you know, and there is no secret about that, but to say that I'm neutral and independent — well, if you are unique politically, I'm not sure if your place is in the Senate because the Senate is a political institution.
We are part of the Parliament of Canada. Parliament is debate, and debate is a clash of ideas. To have a clash of ideas, you have to know where you stand at a certain level of your age, 50 or over, after having worked all your life in various professions where you had to take decisions based on certain numbers of principles. That's why you are a responsible person. You can stand by the reasons of your conclusions.
To me, this issue is the tree that hides the forest. We have to understand how the Senate functions and on which aspect the presence of political parties in the Senate is helpful.
I resent the idea that we have to get rid of the political parties in the Senate because we have corrupted the Senate. I can tell you that I have seen debates in my 19 years in the Senate that I have never seen in the House of Commons, the last one being the one we had last spring.
Look at what happened in the Senate. Senator Ogilvie chaired the joint committee meeting. And look at what happened in the House of Commons. You could see the difference. There were two political parties in the Senate on this issue, as there was in the House of Commons, and look at what happened in the Senate.
To me, this is a clear illustration that you can have political parties and you can have an independent chamber, where each and every senator takes his or her stand the way he or she thinks is proper.
But to say that we are hoping for the day where all political parties in the Senate will be gone, I'm not sure that we understand what a political institution is. We are not the Supreme Court of Canada. If you want to be a Supreme Court justice, you have to apply now and you'll be there. But if you want to be a member of the Parliament of Canada, whereby the overall democratic system is based on political parties, I think that you have to manage the evolution of this institution to fully recognize the participation of the independent senators, the way we have traditionally seen independents, but certainly not in a way that we are in the process of getting rid of political parties.
Political parties are not a plague on the democratic institutions of this country. They all have their story. On the other hand, what we want to achieve is the fullest and most honest debate on the floor of the Senate in relation to issues of the day. To me, this is the objective.
The fact that a senator stands in the Senate and is a member of a political party or claims that in his mind he belongs to that family to me does not reduce the credibility of the senator. I'm listening to the arguments. I want to understand the arguments, and if the argument makes sense I might share the stance of that senator in terms of final votes.
The beauty of this institution is that we are independent-minded persons whereby the political party cannot reach us, and that's the key issue. The rest to me is how we manage to make sure they are recognized, have seats on committees and access to funds. I'm all for that.
As I say, conceptually we have to be mindful that we are not trying to divide this chamber on the basis of party allegiance versus so-called independents so pure that they are going to be the new oracles of what is the good of Canada.
I'm not convinced yet. I might want to and will listen carefully to the arguments, but on the basis of how this institution functions and has functioned, before we say in 10 years from now they will all be independent, maybe. I will long be gone, but they will have to face the challenge exactly on the same principles that I outlined originally, and this is to me how we should approach this issue.
I'm sorry to have been long.
The Deputy Chair: I appreciate, as always, your words, and I thank you very much for those, senator. We have a few more speakers.
Senator Martin: I have to follow Senator Joyal. How do I follow Senator Joyal?
The Deputy Chair: Nobody would speak if we waited, though.
Senator Martin: I appreciate what all my colleagues have said, so I'll just share my point of view, which is really the only thing I can offer. What I'm hearing has also influenced the direction I would like to go on this particular issue and study.
I appreciate what Senator Lankin said about coming to appreciate the use of the word "independent'' and that by using it as a group or as the senators who have identified themselves as independent somehow implies that the rest of us are less independent or not independent.
For me, these two words "independent'' and "non-partisan,'' I identify with both. I think when we say we have a group of independent senators, as a former English teacher, I see the oxymoron in that description. Not to say that you don't have the right to stylize the group of people who are meeting as that, but the word "independent,'' one of the definitions means it's not connected with another or with each other; it's separate. But to have independent senators groups, that was an interesting name that I thought about and contemplated and saw an interesting oxymoron or irony there.
But I appreciate what you're saying. It's natural for groups of like-minded people to congregate together.
At the scroll meetings and in the chamber, it has been interesting to observe what the group of senators is doing. It's nice to have Senator McCoy, and this morning we had Senator Sinclair, so we are communicating; I totally appreciate and support that.
As to the titles "independent'' versus "non-affiliated,'' I don't see why there is an objection to saying someone is non- affiliated. I see that as a clear description, as Senator Batters said, that you are not affiliated with a party.
Now in our Senate Chamber we are sitting opposite one another and we move forward through debate, so it's important to have caucuses that allow us to enter into these debates.
But as Senator Lankin said, there have been changes. I can't imagine with new senators, and even with Senator Bellemare as the Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative, not having a caucus, per se, because the caucus allows you to organize. The caucus allows you to feel supported in terms of working with like-minded colleagues. There is a whip, and some things may seem more whipped than others, but every senator has a choice to stand, at the end of the day, to vote on a bill or a motion in the way he or she chooses. That independence is always there.
Senators have a right to want whichever titles they wish, and I appreciate that's what you want to be called, but for me personally, when that created a perception that somehow I was less independent, I found myself defending to people who said, "Well, you're part of a caucus and you're partisan,'' so somehow that was a negative thing. I would always defend myself and say, "We are all independent minded; we all have a choice at the end, and there is a lot of debate that goes on internally before we get to the vote.'' But at the same time, being part of the caucus means you are responsible to each other, and there are responsibilities that come with being a part of a party-affiliated caucus.
Moving forward, I have come to appreciate that the Senate has clear Rules. As the deputy leader and the former deputy whip, I learned about how the Rules work in the Senate. The Rules are set, but they are very malleable in terms of what they allow us to do in the chamber and in committee. They allow us to open up the debate and really bring our opinions to the floor, which is what we are doing. The Rules are there.
I absolutely respect the fact that we have our Rules. Until changes are adopted and they go through the whole process, I think it's important for us at this committee to talk about this definition or the use of "non-affiliated'' versus independent within the current Rules of the Senate, not which rules may change in the future once we adopt them. It will be hard for us because we have those ongoing debates and this discussion here. I thought it would be nice to withdraw some of these motions or studies so we can focus on what really is being asked of us, which is to consider some of these rule changes.
So it's not that way. We are doing all of the above, and so we'll hear debates in the Senate Chamber. We'll be talking about this in committee.
What guides me at this time is that we have the Rules of the Senate. I'm glad it is clear that we know we are in opposition and the role that we play and how important that has been for the Senate, because that's what has been certain. We've had stylized government representatives, and so on, but what has allowed us to continue to function as an institution are the Rules and the fact that the opposition and our role has been very clear.
I'm very open to listening to what is being discussed. I know there is more to come on the Senate floor today and going forward with all of the reports that have been brought to us by the Modernization Committee.
For this particular study, I would like to suggest to the chair and committee members that the Library of Parliament briefing document we received was very interesting, but I feel this is just the tip of the iceberg and that it would be good to further study what happened in other jurisdictions to help them transition, to open up to adding other groups. If additional groups are adopted and accepted and that's how we can refer to them, that would be helpful to us if we are going to continue to expand the way we operate as a chamber.
But for now, I want to urge and remind all senators that we do have very clear Rules to guide our deliberations, but they are quite malleable. However, until certain rules have been adopted, we should remember we have the current Rules and that's how we should proceed.
Those are my comments, chair. I would like to see added research or resources for us to consider, as well as think about the current Rules under which we are operating.
Senator Frum: I agree with a great deal of what has already been said. I would like to add that I think we have to look at this idea that senators have the latitude, within reasonable limits, to designate themselves as they wish. That's not true. A senator cannot designate himself or herself as a Liberal, even if they have donated to the Justin Trudeau leadership campaign, as we know some have, or even if they have family members who have campaigned actively for the Liberal Party. Once they're appointed here, they may be anything except for one thing; they cannot be a Liberal, so that creates a problem. If people who are Liberals can't designate themselves as Liberals, they have to designate themselves as something else. And that's the situation we have.
As Senator Joyal said, this really is a question about what is this institution, what are we here for and are we a political institution or not? Of course we're a political institution. That's what we do all day. We deal with legislation, policy and politics, and the idea that you can take the politics out of politics is just not realistic, not honest, not transparent. That is the issue for me. It's an issue of transparency.
You have a situation where some people, as I say, don't even have the option of affiliating the way they would like to if they could in a perfect world affiliate honestly with the group they want to affiliate with, so they have to create another group, other names, to describe themselves. That does a disservice to the public because then you're into renaming things, giving things sort of cover names for what they really are.
One solution I could propose to this group to consider — because I also agree that the idea that some of us are more independent than others or are more high-minded or are more able to detach ourselves from politics — is that perhaps every senator should be called an independent. We should coalesce in like-minded groups but not give ourselves political names. Some of us could be the "independent leafs'' or the "independent Canadians'' or the "independent Canucks'' because we'll just pick names. We could be colours or we could be letters in the alphabet, but we can all coalesce in groups of independents as we see fit, because that would be the way to keep it equal. Otherwise we have a situation where some of us are being transparent about who we are and some of us are not being transparent about who we are. As I see it, that is the chief difference.
If you're going to acknowledge that this is a political institution, then we should organize ourselves according to political designations.
The question for me that those who want to be somehow above politics is they would have to first show and prove that this institution is not a political institution. I think that's where the conversation would have to start in order to persuade me that we should move away from a system where people have a political designation or not, a non- affiliated designation, versus this more general category of high-minded members of some kind of replication of an aristocratic, landed gentry group that gets put here because they're better than other people and they are beyond and above politics. If you can persuade me that that's really what this institution is, fine. But if it is what we actually think it is, a political institution, then people must live with the fact that they must be defined according to their political affiliations.
The Deputy Chair: If I follow your line of thinking, though, of being an Ottawa resident, that would make me one of the few independent senators.
Senator Seidman: It's clear in listening to my colleagues around the table that at this juncture in time we ask: Why now? Why are we discussing this now and why is it important? Because we're at a juncture in time where clearly things are changing, and our Modernization Committee has that has been set up to look at that.
I do think that what has existed in traditional language in the past in this institution is not necessarily to be accepted without a serious rethink. So the mere fact that independents have asked to be called that in the past shouldn't merely be accepted, but we should look at it very seriously as we're in the process of reorganizing, perhaps rethinking how they function and rethinking some of our Rules.
I would simply say in response to Senator Wallace's point that it has always been that way in the past; therefore, it should be that way in the future. Well, I might disagree with that.
I think language really matters. I would associate myself with Senator Joyal's impassioned plea about independence and independent-minded senators.
And I think experience really matters. As a researcher in my past life, I would, in trying to understand an issue and analyze it, always look to other people's experiences. In this case, I truly appreciate the work of the Library of Parliament, which is an initial analysis and look around the world at other parliamentary systems, political systems — Senator Frum — because we are a political institution. You're quite right; I agree with you.
If you look at the preliminary work done by the Library of Parliament, the language used in the four other countries in the world that have a significant proportion of so-called independents, is not "independent''; it's "non-affiliated''; it's "cross-benchers'' and other assortments.
My desire as far as this committee is concerned, and I think it would serve us well, would be to analyze the experiences of other countries that have similar parliamentary systems and try to understand why they didn't choose the word "independent'' for those members, but chose "non-affiliated'' or "cross-benchers'' and see if we might choose the same approach going forward.
That's my best analysis at this point in time.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Seidman.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I agree with much of what the honourable senators around the table have said, but we must not lose sight of the fact that we are in a period of change and that the debate over the designation of a senator as non- affiliated versus independent stems from the current context.
Senator Martin mentioned it in her remarks earlier, as did Senator Joyal. But I must say that Senator Joyal's position, which is quite compelling, strikes me as theoretical. It is true, in theory, that we belong to a political institution and that, historically, our foundation is party-based. I clearly remember meeting Senator Joyal when I joined the Senate. I am very grateful to him because he gave me his book. He told me to read it when I had time. He also cautioned me to be careful, saying that the Senate had not always been the way it was now, explaining that decisions were often made in a very partisan manner, something that had been less common in the past. I heard all of those comments.
I have been in the Senate for five years now. I consider myself to be independent-minded, and I think those at the table know that. I espouse a range of values, some more conservative and others more liberal or social-democratic in nature. On a personal level, I have a lot of trouble putting myself in a category associated with a single political party, and I am convinced that I am not the only one here who feels that way.
More and more these days, I think that people and voters no longer support the same party their entire lives. In the past, you were born into either a red family or a blue family. Nowadays, voters are much more likely to weave back and forth.
An expert on the British model, Meg Russell, has done a number of international studies. They refer to international surveys that point to the difficulty people have aligning themselves with a single party from cradle to grave, confirming that it is indeed the trend. I would not say that voters are necessarily fickle; rather, I would say that they shift their support depending on the issue.
The Canadian Senate is quite unique. My office did some research in 2014, and the findings are available on my website. In 2014, we looked at approximately 80 countries around the world that had a Senate. The bicameral system was very present. The majority of the countries examined had a Senate, but only 17 of those 80 Senates were appointed. Basically, the vast majority of senators were elected.
It is clear that an elected Senate has a partisan identity. Senators normally associate themselves with known political parties. In most of the 17 appointed Senates — all Commonwealth countries — senators are appointed for very short terms, in the neighbourhood of four to five years, not for life.
Only the United Kingdom and Canada appoint senators for very long terms. In the U.K., they are lifetime appointments, and some are hereditary. In Canada, senators are now subject to mandatory retirement at the age of 75. Even on that point, the U.K. and Canada differ. We were told that partisanship was less of a problem in the U.K. than in other countries because senators are grouped together with a number of political parties and because of the presence of the famous cross-benchers. The U.K. has multiple parties, but none of them can obtain an absolute majority in the Senate, ensuring the organization's institutional independence. Furthermore, the U.K. has limited the veto power of the House of Lords. Suspensive veto power is subject to limits.
The dynamic is quite different here, in Canada. Not only are senators appointed during their professional lives, but also, the Senate was made up of two parties until just recently. That isn't the case in any other country, not even in the Commonwealth. Generally speaking, however, it is possible, but terms are very short.
In these countries, at election time, the Prime Minister appoints other senators, as does the opposition party. In Canada, senators are appointed for life and enjoy extensive powers under the Constitution. The goal is to ensure that Parliament does what it is supposed to, that the government is kept in check. Since Parliament was bipartisan, the tendency of the party in power has always been to control the Senate and to have an absolute majority in the Senate.
That historical reality explains a lot, and the public is not fooled. Canadians believe their Senate is too partisan. They are calling for major Senate reform to make the institution less partisan, more independent and more transparent. That is the context we are dealing with. Theory is one thing, but context is another.
In that context, when I am asked, as a senator, to identify myself, my first instinct — and I am sure that some of you react the same way — is to say that I am a senator from Quebec. That is what I would say even when I was part of the Conservative Party. When reporters ask me whether I am a senator from Quebec, I say yes. First and foremost, I am a senator from Quebec. I have my set of values, but I was appointed. Obviously, when you are appointed, your role is to represent, at the federal level, the interests of the population you are from.
I agree with all the senators who underscored how difficult it will be to settle the matter before us, in other words, deciding on the appropriate designation, independent or non-affiliated, because of the set of rules we are subject to and the fact that we are in a partisan paradigm. We are, however, in a context that requires us to address the public's will to modernize the Senate. The population is indeed changing. It is no longer partisan, no longer red or blue from cradle to grave. That is no longer the reality. Some political parties have trouble obtaining representation in the other chamber, but that representation could be possible in the Senate. It is our job to represent minorities in all groups.
In the current context, I believe that, as long as we have yet to make a decision on the future of the Senate, senators should be able to choose the designation they prefer. The title "non-affiliated'' is, by nature, very negative; it means to be "not something'' and does not qualify anything. Conversely, the title "independent'' may offend some people.
The independent Liberal senators have indeed associated themselves with the notion of independence. When they rise and introduce themselves, they are independent Liberal senators. What is the difference between independent senators and non-independent senators in that sense, then? Some political groups belong to a national caucus and have strategic ties with the other chamber, whereas others have no connection to a national caucus.
That is the reality. That is one of the issues the modernization committee has to address in the second phase of its work. Some important debates lie in store for us. In the meantime, I believe we should be free to identify ourselves as we see fit. Regardless, I always identify myself as an independent senator from Quebec.
That is what I wanted to contribute to our discussion today.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Bellemare.
[English]
The next speaker will be Senator Ogilvie.
Senator Ogilvie: Most of what I think can be said has been said. I want to specifically, as usual, align myself with the core thinking of Senator Joyal, even though a number of others have made very good points.
I find the use of the term "non-partisan'' in this environment the most offensive to me personally. "Partisan'' is a very well- understood English word, and the minute you support any concept or idea, you are a partisan of that idea. Therefore, I would assume that non-partisans will not support any particular major issue coming before the Senate of Canada.
If we simply are in a purely limited political environment in which there are only two parties — or there might be three parties — and are talking non-partisan and say we're going to deal with something non-partisan, in this context, that's easy for me to understand and accept, but not when we start filling the place with people who consider themselves independent and non-partisan. The minute they support a particular point of view, according to the definition of "partisan,'' they are partisan to that particular point of view.
With regard to "independent,'' as has been expressed very clearly by others, I also find offensive the idea that those of us who sit within a caucus defined by the political terms Liberal and Conservative are incapable of independent thinking in the Senate of Canada. I can tell you that in the seven years I have been in the Senate of Canada, no one from the political leadership of the party that represents the political group within which I sit has ever attempted to tell me how to vote on a given issue. I am clear on how the majority of people may want to vote on a particular issue, but never once has there been an attempt. When I was invited to the Senate of Canada, not one word in the Prime Minister's comments suggested a partisan role in the Senate. He was very clear on why he wanted to invite me to the Senate. It had absolutely nothing to do with whatever issues were present that day. It was to bring a certain experience to the Senate that wasn't there at that time.
The minute you get a group of nine independents together, you're no longer independent; it's not possible.
I'm not going to say any more at this time. I just find much of this debate to be unnecessary and irrelevant to the future of this country.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: Thank you, Mr. Chair; I appreciate your allowing me to speak. I know I'm not a regular member of the committee.
I agree with a lot of what has been said around the table, and a lot has been said. I just want to put a little bit of point of view on it.
Coming from a political background, having been a member of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick and a minister, when I came to the Senate, I did not come with the intention that it was going to be exactly the same. Yes, I am attached; I am affiliated. I am part of the Conservative caucus, and I have always been. But, like Senator Ogilvie said a few minutes ago, I have never felt pressured by anybody at any time. I've never felt that I would be whipped or be penalized if I didn't vote a certain way. I think that was so well seen across the whole Senate floor during the bill on assisted dying, where we had the freedom and the independence to vote normally on what we felt or what the people we represented wanted us to do. I've always felt that I had that independence.
So I do agree with Senator Lankin that when we use the word "independent,'' we have to really look at what it means and have to make sure that we are not taking that independence away. Because we are attached to a party doesn't mean we don't have the independence to vote our conscience as we want.
People sometimes ask me, "What is it like in the Senate? Is it like when you were at the legislative assembly?'' No, it's different, and it's different in many ways, as I see it. First, I find that all the speeches, whatever we speak on in the Senate, and the debates are a whole lot less political in the Senate than they are in the House of Commons or would be in a legislative assembly. So, right there, even though we are attached or a member of a certain party, we have the freedom, and we can see that.
Another big example, I would have to say, is when we do committee work. Again, it's very obvious when you're in the legislative assembly, on a committee, who is on one side and who is on the other side. As we know, great work has been done by all the different committees in the Senate. We work on a consensus basis and we work very well together. We become a united group as committee members, and we're there for the benefit of all Canadians. We all have the same thing at heart, to make things better. So on those things, I find it's different.
I listened very carefully to Senator Tkachuk and another senator about the issue of the budgets and the money and why Internal Economy felt that they were in limbo: "How do we do this?'' Obviously, we are in a modernization, and we have started with that. But we have to look also at, yes, we have people today who think they're individual and independent because they're not attached to anybody else. But then we have another group of eight or nine who have joined together, and they are the "independent group of nine.'' I don't know what other name I can call them at this point.
We can't forget that we will have 20 or so senators coming on board very shortly, and as the years go on, there will be more of us leaving and more coming on. I can understand that Internal Economy was maybe thinking, "Where do we go with this?'' What happens if the 20-some divide into three different groups and want to be recognized as a certain group and want their own budgets to do things? So I can understand that the task ahead is not going to be an easy one.
I don't think any of us really know the solution right now, but I do think that there needs to be a solid discussion on this to see where we're going in the future as we change.
But, at the end of the day, I want to say that I'm here, as I feel I've always been, as an independent, independent to the point that I have the freedom to vote for and represent the people that I was appointed to represent, the people of New Brunswick, and that they know that their voice can be heard through my voice. I think all of us agree on that. That's what I wanted to share.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, senator, and thanks for being here today. It's appreciated.
Senator Wallace: Good discussion. Obviously there are a number of contrasting viewpoints on things. As Senator Joyal points out, that's why we're here, to make sure we properly consider everything.
I would comment on a couple of things. As to this issue of the designation of "independent'' senators as opposed to "non- affiliated,'' what we're talking about here is an individual designation. We're not talking about the designation of groups that would be recognized under rules for funding. That's for another day. That's another, entirely separate issue.
Senator Batters made the statement that there is a need for groups to be properly identified, and that's true because, as we know right now, funding is only provided under our Rules to recognized parties. Recognized parties are those that are affiliated directly with political caucuses, with political parties.
Certainly, in the Modernization Committee report, this fact is recognized, that there will have to be changes down the road in how groups of senators are funded, but today we're talking about individual designations, not group designations.
Number two — and it ties in with that — is the funding of groups. Senator Tkachuk made the comment about how independents would be funded, how we'd be described. That isn't the issue before us now.
As Senator McInnis pointed out, independents are not currently receiving funding. That's something that, through the modernization efforts, I'm sure will be looked at. I wouldn't call it a red herring because it isn't. It's obviously extremely important, but it's not the issue that brings us here today. We're talking about how individual senators designate themselves. Those other issues will be for another day.
Senator Joyal made a comment about political caucuses and that political caucuses should not be removed from the Senate. I just want to make it clear that I totally agree with him. For any members of the Senate who wish to be part of political caucuses, they should certainly be able to do that, but there are others who do not wish to be part of political caucuses. So there has to be room for both. So that my points aren't misunderstood, it isn't to squeeze political caucuses out of the Senate.
As Prime Minister Trudeau continues to make appointments under his existing appointment system, the result will be what it is. From what I understand, his intention is to appoint independent, non-partisan senators. But that's for him, and we'll see where it leads as far as the composition of the chamber.
In regard to the use of the term "non-affiliated'' — and we've heard it here this morning — it means different things to different people. It is not a term widely understood at all by the public and I would say it's not widely understood by members of the Senate. As Senator McInnis said, it refers to those individuals who are not associated with another formalized caucus or group. To others, as other groups do become recognized, it may be those that are non-affiliated in the case of independents with the independent group, which is a loose collation now of independent senators, or it may be something more than that.
That term "non-affiliated'' does not add clarity to it. The clarity in the mind of each of us and in the minds of the public is the use of the term "independent senators.'' We've had a long history of independent senators who have contributed greatly to this chamber, and in the time I've been here — I certainly think of Senator Murray and Senator Atkins — there is a whole host of independent senators who accounted themselves very well and in the best interests of the institution and the country. They refer to themselves as independent senators.
Senator Lankin: I just have a few points.
I heard the rawness in some people's expression of how they felt about the use of the word "independent'' and how it demeaned their sense of independence and was intended to do that. I take seriously, and will look to my own behaviour — I will continue to use the word "independent'' — in terms of how that is being perceived. There is an intent, a perception and a reception of these things, and those are part of the differences we have as we look at words.
I heard Senator Frum's definition of the landed gentry and the high-minded, and I don't ascribe to any of that. But I understand that you feel, perhaps, that that's the impression that is being given.
I have heard people suggest that if we use the word "independent'' that we're not acknowledging that this is a political institution. I acknowledge it's a political institution because politics is not all capital "P'' to me. Politics is the expression of ideas, debate, differences and bringing about the kind of change in governance that we believe is important for our country.
The way people use the words "political,'' "partisan'' and "parties,'' everybody is bringing their own perceptions to them. It's important to acknowledge that and that we all have a way of looking at these things, and we say things using the same words and meaning different things. That's just an observation of the way the discussion has gone.
I think that there is such a serious conversation to be had, as people have pointed out, and the Modernization Committee will be leading, through that discussion, what the future looks like and the role of partisan caucuses or political caucuses. I'm using multiple words because I believe people look at this differently. I think that's a really important discussion because as this change is happening we want to make sure it is working for the best interests of democratic governance for the people of our country. It should be a considered discussion. I don't think anyone should rush to thinking that they have the right answer on this at all.
With respect to what we're talking about here today, I understand how people are moving into the debate that will be coming, and I understand how it is connected. But what has happened — not for reasons of budgets and how you recognize different groups, but it's an entirely different way that this change came about — is that a very small group of our Senate body made a decision to impose a designation on a number of senators, not with considered discussion. In fact, when I asked the chair of the committee why it was done, the only answer was that we need to respond to those senators who have felt offended by the use of the word "independent'' and that it somehow takes away from their independence. I have tried in my words here to acknowledge that I understand that that's a really valid feeling.
I appreciate, Senator Joyal, what you said about the line at the bottom of press releases, and I'm going to undertake to have a discussion with some folks about that. I think that it is important to realize the impact those things have on other people.
But to work within the Rules, as Senator Martin has said, I don't think the Rules say that a small group gets to impose on others. I think this could well be an important part of the discussion going forward. But I would argue that rather than putting off to more research what we do today, we should put off to more research what we do in the future as we figure out the vision and where we're headed.
Right now, we respect the tradition that has gone on. We reset the stage here and respect that individual senators have had the right, and it has been recognized as a right, to give their own designation. And we talk about what the future looks like. Let's not mix the two things up because as much as some have genuinely felt the brunt of how we have presented the word "independents,'' or how it has been received by others, another group is feeling the brunt of having a small group impose something on them, and that's never happened in this institution before in this way.
I think that it's an important discussion that we've started and I think the discussion should continue, but I would truly implore people to understand how it came about and to understand that it has left another group of people feeling aggrieved as well. We should try to work to fix that sense and how it has occurred, and reset the opportunity for people to give their own designations and engage in this part of the discussion about what the vision looks like in the future, where we are going to end up and what designations mean, for example.
Senator Frum: I want to quickly say that I really appreciate Senator Poirier's comments. I hope that she, and everyone, understands that I think her comments about the difference between being an elected member of a provincial legislature, and how your conduct there and here, or the atmosphere in those two chambers, is different. I think it completely can coexist with my comments about this being a political institution. I appreciate what you said because I think that so much of the focus of our modernization efforts has been on destroying the idea of partisanship in the Senate. As you said, this idea that what has poisoned the Senate is excessive partisanship is just not so. We are trying to apply a solution to a problem that I don't really believe really exists, and we are focused on the wrong problem in the Senate.
To Senator Wallace, I want to say that this idea that we're talking about individuals and not talking about groups, it's not so. We have a situation right now where our government leader, our deputy government leader and our government whip identify as independent. If that makes sense to you, you will have to explain that to me, because I do not know how you can represent the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and be independent, but that is what we are being asked to believe and accept from our government representatives. That's a problem.
Senator Lankin, I appreciate that you don't consider yourself a member of the landed gentry. I know that about you. I simply am trying to make the point about accountability. I have said this before: It is my belief that once senators remove themselves from the accountability process of being affiliated with a political party and put themselves above and beyond, in a way, the accountability of any anyone or anything, they have taken upon themselves an excessive amount of power. Once you say, "I am not accountable to the Prime Minister who appointed me or to a political party but to my own conscience and opinions,'' you have put yourself in a place above the Prime Minister himself, because he is accountable to the people. My question becomes, where does your legitimacy come from in that case? That's all I was referring to; I'm not trying to call you an elitist. I know you are not.
That's the question I have for you: Who are you accountable to and where is your legitimacy from?
Senator Lankin: I want to engage for a moment. We are all talking about the power of words and everyone is pointing to the use of "independents.''
That was a joke about the landed gentry; I'm not taking it personally.
You just said that anyone who uses and puts themselves forward as an independent senator puts themselves above and beyond, and I couldn't disagree with you more. Those words are as offensive to me as the use of word "independent'' is to you. I want to put that out there because we need to hear each other and understand these things.
I don't think that Senator Joyal said anything different than that he is not accountable to the Prime Minister who appointed him. He was grateful to but not accountable to, and not accountable to the political party. I have heard members of your caucus say the same thing.
So I throw back the question: Where does your accountable come from?
I suppose it's from years of engagement in policy debate; public service; in a belief that having been appointed from a region, I have a responsibility to understand the issues in that region; and from having been appointed to the part of the Parliament that's responsible to ensure that the Constitution, Charter and minority and regional rights are respected.
There is a considered debate that is not only a tactical debate. And I am not diminishing how the House of Commons works. I've worked in that kind of setting. But a discursive examination — I have accountability having been appointed by the Crown to do that. That comes with the job. I feel that I have a sense of accountability, and I understand your perspective could be different. But I don't think I'm saying anything different than what Senator Joyal has said.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I would like to add to what Senator Frum said. I can appreciate that people disagree with, or feel threatened by, a group calling itself independent and believing itself to be above others. As I see it, though, the problem lies elsewhere.
I have given a lot of thought to what it means to be an independent senator. It does not mean operating in a vacuum, because we do have our values. To my mind, an independent senator analyzes bills according to a set of fact- based criteria. An independent senator asks questions such as whether a bill disadvantages one province over another or one group over another. An independent senator considers whether international charters, individual charters and the Constitution have been adhered to, particularly when dealing with bills introduced by individual members. A senator asks themselves a variety of questions when analyzing a bill. Is it well-written? Are the English and French versions consistent? Does it make sense?
I do not vote against a bill simply because I do not like it. In my view, an independent senator has to respect the legislation passed in the other chamber and, in addition, endeavour to improve it. I take more than simply my values into account when examining bills; I consider a host of objective questions.
Why have I voted in favour of bills I did not believe in? Because I do not like voting against something. For me, independence is not an easy thing to define. But we can establish some parameters in order to work objectively.
[English]
Senator Batters: I want to speak briefly to the point of Senator Bellemare and how she — and perhaps this was a translation issue — described herself as being independent. I don't understand how the discussion she just undertook about scrutinizing, amending and potentially voting against legislation of a government — she did all of those things when she was in the Senate Conservative caucus, so I'm not sure how being labelled "independent'' — she is the Government Deputy Leader now and the government is Liberal — squares that circle.
Senator Bellemare: It may be translation, Senator Batters, but I introduced a motion in the chamber that tried to help the committee that studies bills to study bills in answering specific questions. To me, this is the exercise of independence. It's analyzing bills with a certain set of criteria or rules.
I don't like us to compare ourselves with judges, but in certain ways judges, when they have to decide to make a decision, have the law and some kind of criteria. They don't act to their own preferences. For senators, it's the same kind of attitude that we have to take when we study bills. It's not our preference. It's the fact that a bill has been voted on in the other chamber and is this bill okay? Can it be perfected? Can value be added?
I can tell Senator Batters that I never voted against a government bill, to my knowledge. I voted against private members' bills. I fought them because they were bad bills, especially the union bill. When I had a problem, I would be out of the chamber for things.
So I did vote for many bills, even though I thought those bills might not have been in my preferences.
We have to avoid being personal here. I understand that you feel bad about what I'm saying, but I'm still trying to explain the content I want to give to the term "independence.'' "Independence'' doesn't mean loose cannon; it doesn't mean people do whatever they want. We are here so that Parliament works and so that bills can be amended if they are not perfect. This is our role — a complement to the other chamber.
Senator Frum: I agree that it's very important not to be personal, and my comments are not in any way intended to be perceived that way to anybody. But I am struggling still. It undermines the case of this concept of independent senators when we have three independent senators who have taken on roles on behalf of the Trudeau government. I just don't understand it. The very fact that right now we have independent senators who are also Trudeau government senators, that alone makes this whole conversation extremely difficult because it completely throws into question what independence is. If that is independence, then that just doesn't work for me. Let's put it that way.
Senator Bellemare: Just to add a little thing, Senator Harder proposed amendments. It might happen in the future, too.
The Senate doesn't exist in a vacuum. The Senate exists because it's the second part of Parliament, and Parliament is there to pass laws. Our role is not to be opposition; it is to be constructive. So if ever a bill arrives in the Senate that's completely against the will of Canadians, the Senate will object, and that is its role.
As long as the bills that come to the Senate receive wide support from the elected chamber, our role is to see if this bill can be perfected. If it's possible, then it will be amended. We did some things like that in the recent past: Bill C-14; there is Bill C-7. Many amendments were proposed in committee. This is our role.
The GRT, the government representative team, is a new thing. It's a new element. It's a completely different species than the leadership role was in the past, but it's to create the links between the two chambers. We are still senators even though we are the links.
I can understand that it's very difficult to understand because I hesitated to take this position, but personally I thought that was a challenge that we have to take in the modernization of the Senate and to make the transformation in the minds also of the people.
The Deputy Chair: I want to thank everyone for this dialogue. It's been interesting. I didn't think we would get it through it today, and I was right. We have a number of people, including Senator Joyal, who want to speak again, but we are running out of time.
I want to thank all of you for the dialogue. I know that we were successful in turning a bread box into a bakery by taking that small discussion and making it larger, which is important because it is key to where we end up in the future as we receive more references from the Modernization Committee, and I anticipate we will.
We will continue the discussion at a future meeting. We'll have a steering committee meeting hopefully next week with Senator Frum, who is the third member on that committee, with myself and Senator Fraser, and come back here for a future meeting. Thank everyone for their attentiveness.
(The committee adjourned.)