Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Role of Non-affiliated Senators--Debate Adjourned
May 21, 2024
Pursuant to notice of May 1, 2024, moved:
That the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament be authorized to examine and report on the role of non-affiliated senators, including mechanisms to facilitate their full contribution to and participation in a modernized Senate; and
That the committee submit its final report no later than December 19, 2024.
Honourable senators, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this motion. The Speaker pro tempore just read it into the record, but I want to repeat it so that we’re clear about the actual wording of the motion. I’m going to make the case that it’s a very narrow application, and I hope this Senate Chamber — collectively around the groups and caucus — sees merit in moving forward with this on an expeditious basis so that we can begin to address what I think are some long-standing, and clearly outstanding, injustices to the rights and privileges of senators who choose to sit as non-affiliated with any of the independent groups or with the opposition caucus.
The wording of the motion is as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament be authorized to examine and report on the role of non-affiliated senators, including —
— and this is the important part that I want to underscore —
— mechanisms to facilitate their full contribution to and participation in a modernized Senate . . . .
The motion goes on to say that the committee should submit its final report back to us in this chamber no later than December 19 of this year. We all know, on a procedural basis, that if a committee has not completed its work, it can come back and seek an extension from this chamber. It is then up to the chamber to determine, at that point, whether that’s done. That gives us a runway of, let’s say, six months regarding the time frame that we have for when the chamber is in session and when it is not.
One of the reasons I wanted to kick off this discussion today is because I spent a fair bit of the eight-plus years that I’ve been here thinking about rules and modernization. I served on those committees on and off, and then on again and off again, over a period of time. I heard often in our debates and discussions at committee and in this chamber about the rights of individual senators, and that we must be careful that the majoritarianism does not trample upon the rights of individual senators. Yet, over and over again, that is exactly what we do if a senator chooses to stay outside of the way in which we have collectively decided to organize ourselves, with the majority being in groups of independent senators, in the opposition caucus and in the Government Representative Office for the purpose of carrying through, overseeing and managing this chamber’s deliberations on government legislation.
I’ve often heard — sometimes in situations where I don’t understand what the relevance is in defending against modernization and rule changes — that this will somehow trample upon the rights of individual senators. Yet, certainly, many of the procedures and some of the Rules do that: They trample upon the rights of individual senators.
I have some examples. When I first came to the Senate, I remember a certain senator opposite who was the chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration at the time — and he has since publicly said he was wrong in doing this, so I am not chastising him; I am just remembering — when he pulled a fast one at committee with new, naive, untrained and uneducated senators in terms of the way things proceed here. As opposed to the choice of calling those individual senators “independent,” he decided to call them all “non-affiliated.” It was interesting at that time, because it wasn’t clear to me what that meant in terms of the status of the Rules and their application. I believed that I came with the right — as an individual senator — to all rights and privileges.
What I quickly found out was that unless I belonged to a group — and there was only a duopoly at that point in time until we launched the Independent Senators Group — I had no right to sit on a committee. It would suggest that I had a right if you look at the Rules and procedures, but I had no mechanism to get there, because we organized ourselves around procedures much more so than the Rules, with a preference for the process of groups putting forward names.
There was another thing that was really interesting: I was part of arguing for and fighting really hard to establish the principle of proportionality so that there was some kind of relationship between the number of seats on a committee and where senators came from around the chamber. I believe very strongly in that, but that very quickly meant if you weren’t part of a group, you didn’t get to be part of proportionality in the numbers, and, as a non-affiliated senator, you sat outside of that.
I remember we tried to address this in the Independent Senators Group. We went through a process of people putting forward their names — and there is still a similar process in place — and it was around one’s first choice of committee, second choice of committee, et cetera. You might not have received either of those, but you would get a seat on a committee. We opened that up and invited non-affiliated senators. I remember, at the time, Senator Bellemare had moved to the Government Representative Office. There wasn’t a prohibition on Government Representative Office senators sitting on committees, but as proportionality was dealt out, they were also dealt out of that process.
The prohibition wasn’t there then, and Senator Bellemare came and participated as we put our names on sticky notes on boards and all of that. We worked to try to accommodate. We felt it was the responsibility of the Independent Senators Group — and now there are two more, so I’m not talking only about the one; it’s just what existed at the time — and we all claimed our proportionality.
The only way that a non-affiliated senator gets to sit on a committee — which should be an absolute right — is, because of the procedure, they must go cap in hand to the leadership processes of each of the other groups, including a caucus and three groups, to beg for a seat. When it serves the purposes of those groups — because they can’t fill a seat and the numbers are down — they’ll give a seat, but it is always, as I understand it, and others will speak to this, with the proviso that the seat remains belonging to that group. That’s because of proportionality.
How do we address proportionality and respect that? I believe that’s a fundamental principle, but how do we ensure there are seats for the non-affiliated senators? I’m not going to provide a response as to what that looks like, but that needs to be answered. We can’t, in all good conscience, continue this.
Let me quickly say there are other issues, such as the ability to know exactly what is going on in the scrolls. When I arrived here, scroll notes — this is for the listening public — would be the process of how we decide what business would be going on every day. We notify each other as to which senators from around the chamber are going to speak. The access to that is not an open, transparent access for non-affiliated senators. People have tried to adapt and bring forward their points of view or their requests to speak, but where is the right to have your name considered equally with everyone else’s in an organized group or caucus to get a question in Question Period or to make a statement?
When I was in the Ontario legislature, the Speaker had full responsibility for managing that. We would submit names, but if an independent — which happened from time to time, usually if someone was ejected from a caucus — stood up, the Speaker had the right — and they tried to balance it based on whether they had asked a lot of questions and had the opportunity. Again, it’s procedure, but let’s look at that and understand it. How do we ensure that the right and principle to do your job, to represent your constituencies, to represent the interests of Charter groups, equality-seeking groups, regional groups — whatever it is — that every senator has the right to defend those principles and bring those issues forward into the fray?
What about — I’m going to use a word that often inside the business is disparaging, and I am kind of using it that way — the horse-trading that goes on with private member’s bills from the House of Commons or Senate public bills, which are essentially private member’s bills? How does a non-affiliated senator have their bills considered when it’s the interests of various groups that are being traded off in bringing forward and ensuring there are equal numbers? Senator McPhedran — her bill on voting age — how long has that been around? I think she’ll probably tell us. Her bill on non-disclosure agreements, which I’m very intrigued to have a good deliberation on — she’ll tell us how long that has been around. How do we move these things forward?
Of course, being in a group doesn’t determine that you’ll get it. I think of Senator Pate, who sits directly behind me, whose bill rested at the report stage for how long before this chamber? I think it was eight or nine months before this chamber finally dealt with it. All of the horse-trading that went on kept excluding that because there was some objection within a group.
This is not the way we should be doing business. Bills deserve to be considered, and if they’re no good, the committee should reject consideration of them. There is a process for that. It shouldn’t rest on horse-trading, nor should it rest on who your friends are, who you get along with or who you are ideologically aligned with. It’s a process that should respect individual senators’ rights in bringing these things forward. There is a lot that I hope will be discussed at committee, but that’s where I think it should be discussed.
I’m not going to continue speaking about this because it’s not my voice that needs to be heard; it’s the voice of non-affiliated senators and those in particular who have held that status for a long time, who have had that experience and can enlighten this chamber. I know from discussions with Senator Bellemare and the committee that if this motion is passed, they will be invited to come and be witnesses before that committee. That is where the dialogue has to happen.
The independent groups who fought for proportionality have to figure out how we keep proportionality but maybe not all of the committee numbers — the numbers on each committee. How do we carve out a process and a right for independent senators? We may hear some suggestions. If not, the rich debate that can go on at Rules, I think, can provide this.
This motion has come forward. It’s an opportunity for us to engage in what is a natural extension of some of the debates and deliberations we have had. What are the rights and privileges of all independent senators? How do we organize ourselves in the way in which we have chosen thus far? I have some suggestions about that for the future, but that’s for another debate. How do we organize ourselves without denying the basic rights and principles of full participation to non-affiliated senators?
There is a rub in how we develop it. It’s like a cultural change. This institution — very slowly, I might add, which for some is fine, but for others there is a sense of impatience — is moving towards a different type of modernized Senate that has a different set of sensibilities about how we interact with each other. It is now the time to ensure that as we continue to move forward, we have built in full recognition, understanding, representation and respect for the rights and privileges of all senators as independent senators, whether they are in a group, a caucus or whether they sit non-affiliated.
With that, my last plea is that since I’m aware that at least three of the non-affiliated senators intend to speak, I ask you to listen and to consider. I know that there has been a request to the various groups from caucus to inform each other of whether there are other speakers to come forward. I’m going to ask people to listen to the non-affiliated senators and to move as quickly as the chamber is comfortable with in passing this motion unanimously and sending it to committee so that the real work, dialogue and, hopefully, progress can get started.
Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it, colleagues.
Senator Lankin, will you take a question?
Yes.
Senator Lankin, in drafting, you and the government group drafted an eight-page omnibus Rules change motion. Why didn’t you put non-affiliated senators anywhere in there? I assume that you consulted to some degree with the leaders or leadership of other groups. Did you consult with any of those non-affiliated senators when you did that, and if not, why not?
That is a good question — if not, why not? The fact is, I did. I appreciate your approach so much, Senator Batters, as we’ve been back and forth a few times on Rules. We sat on the steering committee together, and I understand completely where you’re coming from.
Yes, I consulted with the groups. I looked to see if there was a consensus about what could be accomplished. I particularly asked all of the leaders if they wished me to come and meet with their groups. I was informed where that would be desired, and I was told where it wouldn’t be desired or that I didn’t need to come to that group. I was never invited, let me put it that way.
Senator Lankin, the time allowed for debate has expired.
Honourable senators, I am grateful to be back to health following my third bout of COVID, which prevented me from participating in some recent important debates in this chamber. I am grateful to Senator Lankin for her alert that this motion was coming today, and I thank Senator Bellemare for her invitation to discuss what, in my experience, is entrenched discrimination against unaffiliated senators, exacerbated in the rules adopted while I had to be absent.
To Senator David Richards, with today’s announcement, we welcome you to our little unaffiliated corner of the chamber.
Colleagues, you may recall that in the debate on the recent Senate Rules changes, I asked Senator Plett a question about equality among all senators. His assurance that I was his equal put me in mind of the great philosopher Aristotle, who was not a fan of democracy and is attributed with saying, “To be the same is to be entitled to the same; to be different is to be treated differently.”
As an unaffiliated senator, I am different from you, Senator Plett, and I am treated differently.
Based on conversations, it seems that many senators do not realize that the entirely closed system of internal governance in this place in effect precludes senators from accessing their Charter rights available to us outside this system. More on that in later speeches, but it can be a shock when a senator first learns of this reality.
Soon after the Constitution Act, 1982, with its entrenched Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, became the supreme law of this land, the Aristotelian notion of formal equality was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada. In Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, the court set a precedent by exposing hierarchy in the guise of equality as never before, dismissing the old theory of formal equality — much liked by Senator Plett and Aristotle — which, in the words of esteemed Yale law professor Catharine A. MacKinnon, produces very little real social equality and, in fact, serves to protect inequality.
The recent Rules debate exposed these contrasting interpretations of equality. Appearing before the Rules Committee, Senator Tannas once explained:
The motion proposes a series of changes to the Rules of the Senate aimed at providing equality to all groups in the Senate. The changes centre around actions that, up until now, have been reserved for the government and the opposition and levels up the other groups by providing equal rights and responsibilities.
My Conservative colleagues made cogent points on their concerns and their contention in committee that the duty and function of the official opposition require a privileged role apart from those held by other groups.
Although I am hopeful that I will be able to address the Rules Committee should this motion succeed, today, I wish to speak to all of you, my honourable colleagues, on equality of senators qua senators rather than the equality of groups that bestow privilege only to senators in a caucus — a very different experience for a senator who stands alone and unaffiliated with any group.
After more than seven years in this place, I have lost count of the number of senators and officials who have opined that, “All senators are equal.” The reality is far different. Unaffiliated senators are disadvantaged by sessional orders, leadership decisions, less access to resources and no group protections, which diminishes the ability of unaffiliated senators to exercise the same rights and privileges as other senators. The adopted changes put forward by the Government Representative Office, or GRO, further entrench group privileges but do nothing to advance functional equality of unaffiliated senators vis-à-vis those with group affiliations.
Please note, colleagues, that the choice to sit without affiliation is as political, thoughtful and deliberate as the choice made by others to join a caucus. When I left my caucus to sit without affiliation, I was aware I would be giving up obvious advantages that come with group membership. I was pretty much prepared for that. However, what I was unprepared for and what I cannot accept is that as an unaffiliated senator, I am expected to accept daily discrimination and give up, in practice, my substantive equality as a senator. If there is sincere belief in the substantive equality of senators that is more than lip service, then, indeed, this motion is an important opportunity to increase transparency, accountability and fairness in this chamber.
Senator Saint-Germain, the powerful leader of the largest Senate group who sits on the Rules Committee, indicated in this chamber that the purpose of moving the recent amended Rules is to “uphold respect for the principle of senatorial equality” and “to prevent there being two classes of senators in this chamber” — which she asserted is a fundamental principle of democracy. I wholeheartedly agree with her assertion on equality as a fundamental principle of democracy among senators. However, I regretfully and respectfully disagree that those particular amendments prevent the creation of second-class citizens in this Red Chamber.
The reality is that there already exists different classes of senators. In principle, all senators are equal under the Rules. But the way Senate leaders have long implemented these Rules has resulted in ongoing, structural inequalities, and our recent Rules updates, by not fully addressing them, only add to the further entrenchment of these disparities. As such, I am grateful to Senator Lankin and the GRO for moving this present motion centred on unaffiliated members of the Senate, and I am hopeful it may bring needed scrutiny and constructive modernization that is noticeably absent from the Rules recently adopted.
I do not want to belabour what was a difficult — albeit necessary — debate over the recent Rules changes. However, to illustrate my point regarding the customary omission of unaffiliated member concerns, I hope it is helpful to provide some concrete examples. Thanking Senator Lankin for her examples, time allows me to share only two.
First, the new Rules increase the statement period to 18 minutes based on current Senate group proportionality. This was lauded as a move toward greater fairness and equality. However, it effaced me from the equation and does nothing to advance equality among all senators, further entrenching how unaffiliated senators are effectively shut out and necessitating direct appeals to the entirely discretionary application of a kind of noblesse oblige of group leaders to use our voices in this chamber.
However, Senate rule 4-2 (3) simply states that, “A Senator making a statement shall be limited to one intervention, of no more than three minutes.” The Rules of the Senate say nothing regarding the distribution or allocation of these 18 minutes of statement time. The current division of statement slots between groups is the result of private leadership decisions for a particular notion of efficiency and group privilege. But you won’t find this in the Rules.
I note that in the other place, provisions have been put in place for several years to entitle unaffiliated members one statement per every certain number of weeks. Such an accommodation is modest, proportional and respects the principle of equality. Are Senate leaders and caucuses prepared to do this? I hope the Rules Committee will consider such common-sense, equitable proposals as part of their upcoming study. Barring such acknowledgment and action, perhaps it would be more accurate for senators to refrain from the homily of “equality of senators” and limit themselves to the more accurate statement of “equality of group senators.”
My second example is the de facto erasure of unaffiliated members because the new Rules are predicated on the justification that, “This is an area in which recognized parliamentary groups should be part of the process,” which was used by the GRO in the briefing documents provided to senators. This repeated rationale for expanding powers and roles to caucus leaders can be found in sections 3-3, 9-5, 9-10, 12-3 and 12-26, for example. This promotes expansion of group powers on the rationale of serving members, but ignores that unaffiliated senators have zero representation in the process unless, once again, leaders deign to exercise their version of noblesse oblige.
As I consider this present motion, I’m reminded of a statement made by Senator Woo, who was responding to the fifth report of the Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament last October:
There are . . . those who would deny us the ability to fully exercise our equal rights as senators who are not part of the government. They would have us as second-class senators who are allowed, from time to time, to sit in the front of the bus, but only with their consent. The modest changes to the Rules of the Senate and to the Parliament of Canada Act to date have been offered grudgingly and with the condescension of noblesse oblige. . . .
Senator Woo was referring to perceived inequality among Senate groups and caucuses. His every word, however, is equally applicable to the functional disparity between unaffiliated and affiliated members.
I was heartened by the strong words of honourable colleagues such as Senator Batters who argued against the recent Rules changes partly because they did nothing for unaffiliated senators. Senator Batters sits on the Rules Committee, so I trust that she will bring to the committee that same energy and sincere defence of unaffiliated members’ rights and privileges and — most importantly — access to resources for the full exercise of our senatorial rights.
As I conclude, I ask you to hear me as if it were you — as if you’d made a principled and deliberate choice to serve without affiliation. Now ask yourself what kind of equality you would want for yourself in order to fulfill your promise to do your best to serve your region and represent those who do not have privileged access to Parliament.
As unaffiliated senators, we understand that intragroup agreements supplement and interpret Senate rules in a manner seen to enhance efficiency. We also recognize that proportionality is a reality.
Honourable colleagues, we are not seeking special rights, but only a genuinely equitable balance of opportunities and access so that we can fulfill the oath we took to serve. Agreements that purposely or by consequence deny opportunity to unaffiliated members, or conversely, restrict opportunities only to group members by design, cannot be viewed as equitable nor as advancing independence. This is formal — not substantive — equality.
Can this Senate honestly claim equality among all senators? Is this the Senate you want? Entrenching the new rules gives groups and leaders additional powers and in many respects places the new reality of multiple caucuses on a more equal footing regarding operational function and responsibility — but leaves unaffiliated senators disadvantaged relative to their colleagues vis-à-vis accessing Senate services and information necessary for the functioning of their offices and preparation to fulfill their chamber and committee obligations.
Honourable senators, in the name of fairness and longer-term effectiveness, I ask you to examine more closely the direction we are going in this chamber, to ask if this inequality strengthens democracy and to examine why a perpetually inequitable house would be the Senate we want now and for the future.
Thank you. Meegwetch.
Would the Honourable Senator McPhedran take a question?
Senator Wells, unfortunately, the time allowed for debate has expired.
Honourable senators, I rise today to join debate on Government Motion No. 167, which directs the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament to study and report on the role of non‑affiliated senators in a modernized Senate.
I will be repeating some things that I have already said, but they do bear repeating.
First, to be clear, I did not become non-affiliated purely by my own choice, but rather as a result of my experience within a group. While affiliated, I faced issues that my colleagues did not. There were instances, both involving committee and not, that demonstrated I could not remain within the group while being treated disrespectfully and inequitably.
While I was able to shed the oppression that I faced within a group, I now face new oppression as a non-affiliated senator: oppression by omission. One need look no further than the recent changes adopted in the previous suite of amendments to the Rules of the Senate to understand the uphill battle our small collective continues to face.
At no point did that recently adopted package of amendments mention, consider or serve to improve the standing of non‑affiliated senators. On the contrary, it served to further entrench and improve the lives of those already considered the “haves” in this chamber — that is, those who have the benefit of group standing, with all the resources, protections and voice that offers. In benefitting the “haves,” the Senate further marginalized the “have-nots” by leaving us further behind.
While I understand many of those previous amendments were reflective of recent changes to the Parliament of Canada Act, not all of them were. It is therefore disappointing to me that this opportunity to improve the lives of all senators — not just those in need of equity and greater consideration — was not seized while the door was open.
Honourable senators, though the intentional seclusion of non‑affiliated senators within that recent suite of amendments was frustrating for me — as it was tantamount to a lost opportunity — I am pleased with the promptness with which the motion before us has arisen.
Many of you know that changes to the Rules of the Senate are not an everyday occurrence and that the opportunity to bring about meaningful modernization is finite and incremental. However, we must ask ourselves this: If we all proudly tout the Senate as being new and improved — a modernized, more representative institution that is more fit for the 21st century — how can we, in good conscience, continue to willfully allow some senators to be treated as second-class?
Honourable senators, I purposely came to the Senate to bring along the voices and solutions of the First Nations people with whom I had worked for 40 years. When I came here, I thought that if I made senators aware of the institutional racism that existed in communities and determined our lives, you would help to bring about needed change. When you continue to silence me, you also continue to silence those voices, communities and solutions. I am disappointed by this discrimination. That is not what I expected to experience when coming here.
I asked to sit at this top corner. When someone asked me why, I said, “So that people can see how marginalized I have become from the very people who were supposed to represent the Indigenous people who don’t have voices.” Think about that.
Modernization without equity is complacency, and complacency is not conducive to modernization.
I urge my colleagues in every corner of this chamber to reflect on this reality and the fact that, as per the Rules, some of your colleagues are not afforded the right to sit on committees — which is arguably the most crucial aspect of a senator’s job. They are not afforded the right to make Senators’ Statements — which are critical to raising awareness or acknowledging important events and individuals in our work. They are not afforded the right to ask questions during ministerial Question Period — which is vital to ensuring senators can do their work in holding the government to account. The list goes on.
Honourable senators, we are left to beg for scraps at the table in the hopes that one of the established groups or caucuses will afford us a seat on a committee or a spot to make a statement or ask a question.
What is permitted to happen is worse than inequity. It is shaming, demeaning and dehumanizing. You have elected to reside in your current groups or caucuses; I have no choice but to reside as non-affiliated. I have made the determination that I will remain non-affiliated at this point. What makes us that much more expendable, or less consequential, that we have all normalized this second-class treatment? Tradition is not an excuse to treat others inequitably.
Honourable senators, the opportunity that this motion presents is long overdue and of critical importance. As the Rules of the Senate were recently amended to better accommodate and reflect the current complexion of the Senate, it is high time that we also take a fulsome and responsible look at the role and function of non-affiliated senators. I welcome this study. I look forward to the recommendations and improvements it may yield to better ensure equity and equality of all senators. I urge all my honourable colleagues to support its speedy referral to committee.
Kinanâskomitinâwâw. Thank you.
Colleagues, since this motion will likely end up before the committee, we’ve been asked to support it to move forward. I’d like to say a few words about this motion.
Honourable senators, when I arrived here 15 years ago, there were five non-affiliated senators at the time: Senator McCoy; Senator Cools; Senator Rivest; Senator Dyck, who was an independent NDP senator at the time; and Senator Prud’homme.
Here I was, a young kid looking at these non-affiliated senators, and I thought to myself, “poor them.” I thought “poor them” because, at that time, there were two parties. There was the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party and a few independent senators, and I thought to myself — as a young person joining the Senate — “poor them,” because they weren’t treated equally. They didn’t have the same power as other senators. There weren’t too many of them who were chairs or deputy chairs. There weren’t too many who were able to make senators’ statements or ask questions, and they didn’t have any financial resources because they weren’t part of a group.
Having said that, I want to focus my remarks on the fact that there is the perception out there that we are all equal in this chamber. I have always said — and I’m sure you have always said — that it doesn’t matter what seat we occupy in this place, because it’s a darn good seat, and we can’t forget that. But, having said that, we are all equal. We are all equal from the time we get named until a certain point, and that point is when a senator decides to join a group. That’s when everything changes. The same thing happens when a senator decides not to join a group, because, colleagues, I’ll tell you this: Sometimes it’s a very lonely place. Since 2018, I have seen senator after senator be named to this place — sitting behind me — and I’m hopeful that maybe I’ll create a non-affiliated group, but, unfortunately, there are better recruiters in the Senate than me. It’s very interesting to see the recruiters come from different groups, and sit here to try to get these individuals to join their groups. It’s a very interesting procedure.
Colleagues, when a decision is made either to join a group or not to join a group, that’s when the equality is over. First of all, before I say these next few words, I want to thank Senator Tannas, Senator Saint-Germain and Senator Cordy, who is leading the Progressive Senate Group, as well as the Government Representative Office, and Senator Plett and the Conservatives, because I feel that I have been — for the most part — given the floor when I have asked. But that is not always true. There have been times when — like my colleague — I have had to beg. Sometimes news stories happen, and you want to make a senator’s statement, but, unfortunately, when you’re non‑affiliated, not only do we have to go see the Liberals and the Conservatives, but now there are also five different heads of groups, which includes the Government Representative Office. It becomes a little more difficult.
I think that we have to keep those things in mind, because it’s not normal that senators should have to beg to gain a spot to speak on something. Sometimes — I’ll speak for myself again — we have to wait three or four weeks before we can gain a spot to either make a senator’s statement or to ask a question. Sometimes the question or statement becomes irrelevant because it’s a month later, but I don’t complain about that because I’m proud to be here working with all of you. Individually, I don’t need to join a group to be able to work with you. I’m non-affiliated. I consider myself one of the luckiest human beings in Canada because I get to work with great human beings all across here, regardless of whether they are Conservative or Liberal, or if they are big “L” or small “C” — it doesn’t matter. But the perception that we’re all equal is not true.
I’m not going to delve into a conversation about what was in the minds of the forefathers, because the forefathers had in mind two political parties and a partisan institution, just like the other one.
That’s what the Fathers of Confederation had in mind. That doesn’t mean that we cannot change it. I think that we need to change it because, 15 years ago, non-affiliated senators were not equal to other senators. Today, in 2024, they are not equal to other senators. If we do not do anything today to address this issue, I will be the first person to tell you that in 10 or 15 years — if we don’t do anything — nothing is going to change.
It’s up to us collectively to see if non-affiliated senators are worthy of being treated equally. On the Senate website, it states that there are currently 11 non-affiliated senators. Obviously, that includes the three from the Government Representative Office, but that in itself is a problem because we need nine members to be able to form a group. Here we are — we are 11 — but we can’t form a group because we have to delete 3 from that group, so that leaves us with 8 senators. Therefore, non-affiliated senators cannot form a group yet.
Thank you, Senator Richards, for joining us. Perhaps we will be on our way to forming our own group, but even if we don’t, all that I ask of all of you is to keep an open mind about the fact that we are not equal. I understand that some people — perhaps the older folks — may have the view that if you want to be treated equally, then join a group.
In my case, I did that, and it didn’t turn out so well. I’m proud to be where I am. I’m proud to be working with all of you. But let’s take this motion seriously, and let’s deal with it. We’re adults. This is not “Romper Room,” even though sometimes it does feel like “Romper Room.” Let’s deal with this once and for all. Thank you.
