Speech from the Throne

Honourable senators, I’m responding this evening to Senator Sinclair’s renewal of his vision of the Senate as a council of elders. I want to thank Senator Sinclair for this.

Murray, you are going to be sorely missed in this chamber by all of us.

What started as a vision several years ago has come a long way, but we still have some distance to travel. In talking about a council of elders, Senator Sinclair spoke of a Senate of wise people who behave as such; a Senate that does not take sides but helps others to find the best path in the interests of all Canadians; a Senate that listens, discusses and advises others; a Senate that is more diverse; and a Senate with a more respectful culture that results in better public policy outcomes. Who could not agree with that vision?

Listening to Senator Sinclair’s concept of a council of elders in 2016 was a key factor that drew me here to the Senate. I wouldn’t have accepted an appointment to the former mostly partisan Senate, and I know I’m not alone in that. We’ve seen some dramatic changes here. That starts with the way in which senators are appointed and in the way in which we organize ourselves.

There is, of course, no government caucus in the traditional sense, and the large majority of us are independent of the political parties in the House of Commons, appointed on the basis of, “nothing promised, nothing owed.”

It strikes me as a paradox that my independent colleagues, who are now spread among three groups, are often the government’s fiercest and, in fact, most effective critics because they are much more likely to look at evidence, data, best available policies and the concept of public value — public benefits — as opposed to political partisanship.

We’ve seen no end of amendments to government bills coming from independent senators, indeed, many more than were seen before our arrival. These amendments often make an effort to bridge differences in viewpoints and move the process along in a positive way, as opposed to choosing sides and trying to score political points. We are, instead, colleagues, seeing the emergence of the characteristics of a council of elders. Colleagues, the less partisan we are the more objective we can be.

I also agree with Senator Sinclair and Senator Dalphond that a council of elders in a less partisan Senate has to address rules rooted in the former duopoly that was in place here for decades.

The former model reflected the Liberal and Conservative “take turns in power” duopoly in the Senate, which replicates far too closely the political workings of the elected House of Commons.

Making the shift to a less partisan and more effective Senate means dealing with endemic delays in our proceedings and the purposeful stalling of Senate business and, particularly, Senate public bills and private members’ bills on which senators deserve a vote within a reasonable time frame.

Colleagues, we are moving slowly but surely towards a different Senate, and it’s not before time. Research tells us that this is supported by the public, the people who are paying for all of this.

As Senator Sinclair said, at its best, the Senate is a body composed of respected individuals with wisdom and experience, exercising their powers with restraint and helping to guide our federation by listening, by discussing and weighing in on important national issues, finding the optimal path for Canada, just as you have been doing today. He told us that if this chamber strives to operate as a council of elders, it will develop a more respectful internal culture, as well as earning greater credibility with Canadians and members of Parliament. This enhanced credibility will help the Senate deliver better public policy, just as elders in Indigenous communities influence decision making.

Colleagues, the council of elders concept takes us beyond the political parroting of discussions in the House of Commons that we sometimes see in this place. In the old Senate, when a sitting Prime Minister was vilified in the way we see here from time to time, we would likely have seen a quick riposte based on the failings of a previous prime minister of another political stripe. I imagine that they would have had plenty of material to work with, but that doesn’t happen.

That’s because we’re moving beyond the old practice of so‑called political discourse, which is the term we have heard here in defending some of the extreme partisanship that we’ve seen on display.

Colleagues, there is now no duopoly partner for that sort of political discourse. There is no tit-for-tat game of who can best tarnish the other’s prime minister. Those days are behind us. The previous duopolistic notion of sharp Conservative-versus-Liberal political discourse has evaporated. Those who engage in it are doing so in an echo chamber; they are listening to themselves.

Independent senators are not here for partisan politics. I note that fully 80% of senators in this chamber are now independent of political caucuses in the House of Commons. I think that’s as it should be. In this respect, I applaud the leadership of Senators Tannas and Cordy who, together with Senators Woo and Saint-Germain, are demonstrating respectful organizational leadership, working towards a more effective and efficient Senate and maintaining a healthy distance from the theatre of partisan politics. But I also applaud all Senate leaders, every leader in this place, for your willingness to work together in exploring priorities for further Senate reforms.

We’re charting our own course, based on our own experience, our own consultations, our own research. And we make an effort to bring wisdom to the table in the manner described by Senator Sinclair. Colleagues, Senator Sinclair calls for us to bring out the best of us, not the worst. I saw you at your best in your debates on medical assistance in dying in 2016. I noted in particular the interventions of Senator Baker, Senator Carignan and Senator Joyal, and we’ve heard from two of those senators again on this bill, on Bill C-7.

As I had hoped, we’re seeing this again in our debates on Bill C-7, and we’ve seen it from every group and caucus. Honourable senators, we’ve certainly seen it again today. Every one of us in this place has a wealth of knowledge, experience, skills and wisdom. Wisdom enough to know what’s right and decent, the strength of character to call out the bullying and intimidation that we sometimes see in this place, to tackle overt racism, and to no longer look the other way in the face of harassment.

Honourable senators, the Don Meredith days are over. As Senator Sinclair reminds us, wise people behave as such. They don’t take sides. They help others find the best path. They listen carefully, engage in discussion and advise others. As we become less partisan, we can be more objective and thoughtful.

Honourable senators, I know we will all reflect carefully on Senator Sinclair’s thoughtful and virtuous advice, and I thank you for sharing his thoughts and considerable wisdom with us. Let’s move forward together in building a stronger, wiser, more inclusive and more effective Senate of Canada. Let’s have many more days like this one. Thank you.