I don’t wish to take any more points. I believe the point of my question was made, and it was more about the mechanics of Senator Plett’s proposal and exactly how it would work, given our true and tried principle of proportionality on the one hand, the fact that the Government Representative Office, or GRO, does not have an assigned number of seats on committees, nor do they have numbers of statements.

I’m wondering if you could explain your vision for all the non-affiliated senators being embraced by GRO as members of their caucus. I’m not quite sure how I would see that working.

Thank you, senator. I probably find myself in the same situation as you do. I’m not entirely sure how I envision that. That is, of course, why I started by asking Senator McCallum some questions.

What I did refer to is the old iteration of the Senate, when we had the two caucuses, and we did have independent or non-affiliated senators. At that time, generally they were taken in by the Leader of the Government. So I was just simply suggesting that maybe they could as well, because I believe that Senator Gagné or somebody from the government attends scroll.

As to how many unaffiliated senators there are now, I don’t know whether there are more or less than what there usually were, but, at that point, they certainly didn’t get the same number of questions as the opposition did. We’re talking about more things than Question Period, but, in the old days, during Question Period, it was basically the opposition asking questions. Every so often, somebody on the government side asked a question, but that was it.

So how do I envision this? I’m not sure. My suggestion is simply that Senator McCallum raised some good points and they need to be addressed.

Fair enough.

Thank you, Senator Housakos. Before I answer, I would like to elaborate a little bit, and certainly you talked about consensus. I was a member of Internal Economy, and even at the full committee there was consensus; we dealt with consensus. We didn’t have votes. If we didn’t reach a consensus, things didn’t move forward.

Now we are being accused of those being the dirty partisan days, and now it seems we have to vote on almost every issue that we have in the Senate.

You mentioned a few senators, and obviously, good friends and good senators, Senator Cools and Senator McCoy. When they sat in their places as independents, Senator Martin met with them daily.

I would never want to suggest to any one of our affiliated senators that leave is being asked for many times. I would never want to suggest to them that they could deny leave just as easily as you or I or an entire caucus could. So if they wanted to exercise their power, they would be able to deny leave, because that is what this is set up for. That is the reason we negotiated regularly with those non-affiliated senators, because they had that power. That power is still there, and should always remain.

I would encourage senators to take note of that and stand and be counted, and make sure that the proper people deal with them. For the sake of total transparency here, all of the leaders have received letters from non-affiliated senators asking for things. I was always of the opinion that wasn’t our job to deal with it; it was the government’s job. That is why I chose to stand up and suggest that to Senator McCallum.

But, yes, Senator Housakos, I would certainly at least go as far as saying that I would make myself very available to discuss this and make sure that the government does what the government should do and deal properly with those senators who are not represented in a caucus.

I wonder if Senator Plett would take another question.

For you, Senator Bovey, always.

I’m not so sure about that.

As a leader in the Senate — and earlier, you referred to yourself in this chamber quite rightly as the “dean of the Manitoba senators” — here is a Manitoba senator asking you a question with the comment of another Manitoba senator in the works.

You referred to the “good old days.” I’m a widow of an archivist — Manitoba’s archivist. I am a historian, albeit an art historian. As we look to our past, we are always looking at what we can pull out of our roots to build a platform to make our place a better place.

Given your experience in this place, which is much longer than mine, and mine is a little longer than Senator McCallum’s, what would you pull out of those “good old days” to make the platform for the present, which has to be the platform in the vision of the future?

We don’t go back as a society. Society evolves, and we are a major institution in Canadian society. So I wonder, senator, if you can help me think about — and if you can advise us — as to what you would be pulling out of those “good old days” to help define what might be the next steps we need to take to make a modern Senate so that all our members can reach the goals and heights that Senator McCallum talked about.

Senator Bovey, let me start off by saying that I am a firm believer that if something isn’t broken, don’t fix it. I think we had a perfectly workable Senate for a number of years. I believe it was working fine when the leader of the then-third party in the other place decided to remove all of his senators and his caucus unceremoniously out of there and decided that he would himself remodel and modernize our Senate.

When you look at it that way — and I never did mention this because I didn’t take note when I was defending and speaking up for my friends Senator McCallum and Senator McPhedran that I was defending two fellow Manitobans. I was simply defending two fellow senators, but thank you for pointing that out to me. I now have that much more reason for defending what they want. Maybe I’ll work a little harder at getting them to join a caucus again. We’ll see how that works out.

Nevertheless, Senator Bovey, I’m not fond of the modernization of our Senate, let me be clear. Having said that, I do want to qualify that. I have grown to be fond, at least — and that’s a good start — of everyone in this place. I know how much you love me now — you probably never used to — but you found out how likeable I am. So as we get to know each other, we find out that we can disagree in here, and fight and argue, but I want us to never, ever lose that. You and I had a personal conversation in the Maple Leaf Lounge in Winnipeg a few weeks ago, and we talked about some of these changes.

I want us never to lose the fact that we can debate, get angry and we can do things in the Senate, knowing that our end goal is to improve our country.

Whatever it is in this modern Senate that we can take out of the old Senate to improve our country, I will always want to continue with that.

But I’m going to be the first one to admit that I miss the Terry Mercers, the Serge Joyals and the George Bakers of the world — and I’m speaking only of Liberal senators — with whom we had these debates with, whether they were at committee or in here. It was Senators Joyal and Baker who convinced me — because I really did not enjoy being on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I’m a plumber and not a lawyer. I felt out of place and a number of times I wanted to leave that committee. It wasn’t even my own colleagues telling me that I had to stay. It was Senators Joyal and Baker who said, “Don, we need a plumber on this committee. We need someone who doesn’t think or speak like a lawyer but like an everyday individual.”

That’s the great thing about this chamber: We are all equal here; no matter where we come from, we are all equal here. And that’s good, even in this modern Senate, Senator Bovey.

I’m not sure I like the word “end goal.” Surely, we should be looking at the word “future goal.” I wasn’t in the “good old Senate” — I know that. I never had any aspirations of being in the new Senate. Surprises happen in one’s life.

However, it must have been the case — and I hope you agree with me on this, Senator Plett — that not all the workings of the old Senate were necessarily “good old.” What I’m trying to get us to — and I hope you can agree with me and I asked you about this — is to agree to look for the future goal as opposed to the end goal. And as we do so, can we think about the needs of the ever-changing society and communities that we represent?

I would be interested if you do that, too, in our changing Manitoba. Remember, Manitoba was the “keystone” province, Senator Plett, so I come from the basis of that. Can we look at how the history of even our province changed the scope of Canadian Confederation and has changed the dynamics of this country that we call Canada?

Shouldn’t we be looking at how we can make this place a better place? As a chamber of sober second thought, don’t you agree with me that we have a responsibility to look at what that sober second thought is in terms of future goals?

Whether it is end goals or future goals, some of us — and the one thing about the Senate is that we are allowed to talk about other people’s ages because anybody can look that up, and you and I are going to be retiring from here not that far apart — but for some of us, this has become looking toward the end as opposed to the future.

We have drifted a little bit away from what Senator McCallum was talking about, so I will simply leave it at that.

Would the senator take another question?

Certainly.

As you know, she’s already a minority, and we represent minorities here. Now she’s trying to protect and prevent herself from being a minority on top of a minority.

I’m sorry; I agree with you and I agree with Senator McCallum. We should not do this. She is a minority on a minority, and she is a woman — a Native woman.

Senator Lovelace Nicholas, I entirely agree with you, which is why I supported Senator McCallum in what she said. I believe that this chamber has been set up for minorities. We’re finding ourselves over here awfully close to being part of a minority as well. Of course, in the good old days we were not a minority. We’re still a few more in numbers than your caucus; nevertheless, we also find ourselves getting closer to a minority. But I support what you are saying.