Hello, I am Julie Miville-Dechene, and I have been an independent senator in this chamber for a year and a half now. I would like to welcome you on behalf of all the Senate employees here today who have worked so hard to hold this first model Senate. Without these dedicated professionals, our Chamber could not function.

It is high time we opened our doors to this kind of activity, as many provincial and foreign legislatures have done, in order to give you a chance to experience the joys and challenges of parliamentary debate, in a unique environment, since the Senate is the only upper chamber in this country.

However, the Senate’s historical nature brings unique challenges, including at a procedural level, as its rules are based on long-standing traditions and are not intuitive. Senate procedure is a humbling experience for new senators like me: we may have the best arguments in the world, but if we do not learn the ins and outs of these rules, we will not be able to make our voices heard or dispute a colleague’s interpretation. It is extremely important to master procedure, as the rhythm of debate, voting, and all the rest of our work is rooted in the use of these procedures and rules.

Like many other senators, I believe it is time to revisit some of these rules, because I think they give individual senators too much power. A single senator can block the study of a motion or bill for a long time or even indefinitely, thus preventing a vote and killing in fact the initiative.  That is what happened with my first motion in defence of Franco-Ontarians. A lack of unanimous consent in the Senate can derail everything.

In my opinion, now is a good time to discuss and introduce reforms, because the Senate is going through a transition. Since 2016, 51 independent senators have been appointed by the Trudeau government. This has fundamentally altered the partisan nature of this chamber, which used to consist mainly of senators who supported the government and senators in opposition.

In addition, the Senate is nearing gender parity, as more women have been appointed in recent years than men. I am one of 47 female senators, which is unprecedented. Another first: there are 12 Indigenous senators, accounting for 10% of the seats in this Chamber, which is real progress in this time of reconciliation.

And citizens are on board with these reforms: a survey indicated that 81% of Canadians think the fact that new senators do not participate in political party activities is a positive change.

But right now, we are still a mix of the old system and the new. There is still a partisan caucus with 23 Conservative senators, who usually vote as a block, following party discipline. And then we have two independent senators’ groups, as well as non-affiliated senators who vote individually and are more difficult to predict.  

You will be able to debate in the language of your choice, either in English or in French. Francophones, I encourage you to speak in French, because interpretation services are provided. Symbolically, it is important to hear French, the language of the francophone minority, spoken in the Senate because a language that is not used will die. Most senators are not bilingual, as it is not a requirement, but the Senate as an institution is. A text that has not been translated has no official value.

Before arriving here this morning, you surely did some research on the Senate, so I will not give you a history lesson on the institution. I will talk about the Senate from a more personal perspective.

I put my name forward to become a senator, and two and a half years later, the Prime Minister chose to appoint me, which was quite a privilege. Why was I interested in the parliamentary system? I had a busy life where I was, in turn, a news correspondent, the chair of a feminist research board and a diplomat. Throughout my career, particularly in my time as a journalist, I critiqued society and our governments. I called for change, without participating directly, because I was outside the decision-making process. In many ways, that is a comfortable place to be: criticizing is easier than proposing a compromise, or ways to contribute to the public good, or ways to advance our society. Of course, it is an essential role: a strong and free press is a vital part of our democracy.

But, as I entered my 60s, I told myself that being involved in policy-making as an independent senator was a way to make a different contribution to society, to see if I could make change happen from the inside, by being involved in creating the laws that govern our society.

It has been 18 months now, and let me tell you, I still have a lot to learn about being an effective parliamentarian. Our mandate is very broad. We defend the jurisdictions and interests of the provinces, the regions we represent—for me, that is Quebec—as well as the national interest. Easier said than done! How are these respective interests reconciled?

One example: the Government of Quebec recently decided to challenge Bill C-92 before the courts. This bill would give Indigenous communities the right to provide their own youth protection services. Quebec believes the bill infringes on its jurisdiction. As an independent senator representing Quebec, I had no hesitations in voting FOR this bill in June, as it is a meaningful gesture of reconciliation in a context where Canada has committed serious injustices toward Indigenous children.

It is time to recognize that the communities that wish to do so must be able to take back control for protecting their children. Two jurisdictions are in conflict here: the federal government’s jurisdiction over Indigenous affairs, and the Quebec government’s jurisdiction over social services. I am disappointed by Quebec’s legal challenge. In this case, I believe that our duty to reconcile with and to respect Indigenous peoples must take precedence over jurisdictional disputes.

What is the Senate’s strength, but can also be a weakness? We are appointed. We are not elected, so we do not have the legitimacy of parliamentarians who were given a mandate by voters. That is why, generally speaking, once senators have proposed amendments to bills, in the end, we defer to the other Chamber—it is very rare for the Senate to defeat a bill that has been passed by the members of the other Chamber, the House of Commons.

However, being appointed and not elected does have one advantage: we do not vote based on how it will affect our chances of getting re-elected. Ideally, we bring a longer-term perspective to the legislative process.

Does that mean the Senate has limited power? Not at all—in fact, on paper, in the constitution, we have just as much power as the House of Commons. We absolutely have the power to defeat a bill. In the past, the Senate has refused to pass legislation limiting abortion rights, and also the first Canada–US free-trade agreement.  

It is this rarely used ultimate power that gives our arguments weight when we ask the government to accept our amendments. In the previous parliament, the House of Commons accepted some of our amendments in 29 of the 88 bills we considered.  

In your simulation, you may experience this back-and-forth between the Senate the House of Commons, which is a bit of a roller coaster for us as senators. Will we be heard by the government of the day, or not? And the question is even more fraught now that it is a minority government, which has less flexibility. Do not forget that the House of Commons has the final say, voting for or against the amendments put forward by the Senate.

It takes an in-depth study of bills in committee to be able to propose meaningful amendments. That is what is known as sober second thought. Sometimes this is achieved, but not always, because party lines can come into play as we study bills. I am speaking from experience. I participated in the study of Bill C-48, on an oil tanker moratorium in northern British Columbia. Alberta, which needs access to markets for its oil, was of course against this bill, as it would block the construction of an additional pipeline to the Pacific. But for me, the most difficult part was that our study was not based on science or expertise—the bill became nothing more than a partisan debate. It was a symbol of everything that was wrong in the oil and gas industry, and our proposed amendments were rejected by a government that was not open to compromise on the eve of an election.

It is not always easy to have a strong opinion on a bill. I am sure you noticed this as you prepared for the simulation. Take the oil tanker moratorium: yes, the bill would help fight climate change. But it was also an unprecedented initiative that angered Albertans at a time when their industry was suffering and their youth unemployment rate was high. You are young, so you are probably very environmentally conscious, but Canadians also want to make a living, and we still use large quantities of gas in our vehicles. So it is a challenge for each senator to have a considered opinion on each bill, especially when it may be in a field we are unfamiliar with.

One of the Senate’s recent successes is its thoughtful, well-organized debate on medical assistance in dying, where the subject matter transcended partisanship. Senator Joyal, a legal expert, even predicted that the legislation would be successfully challenged before the courts because the eligibility criteria for medical assistance in dying excluded those with an irremediable condition where natural death is not reasonably foreseeable.

The Superior Court of Quebec agreed with Senator Joyal, and the government is in the process of revising the legislation, which will then be sent to us. This debate shows that, at its best, the Senate can contribute to the public good and provide a different perspective than is found in the House of Commons. Senator Joyal, who is retiring in a few days, is a good example of an indefatigable parliamentarian who left his mark on the Senate over 23 years.

It is also important to mention the role of lobby groups in the Senate and in our Senate committees. In the past, business or union lobbyists could just go see the Senate whips or party leaders to advocate for their interests and try to influence votes. Since the reforms were brought in, lobbyists contact independent senators individually, because we get to vote freely. There are records of these interactions, because lobbyists are required to register their activities. Since 2016, lobbyist interactions with senators have tripled to one thousand five hundred (1,500). Increased lobbying does not necessarily serve democracy, because the wealthiest lobbies can use their resources to secure the most access to the Senate.

I am one of those senators who believes in a more transparent, more accessible Senate that is in touch with Canadians. How do we get there? We need to hold our debates in public as much as possible and only go in camera under exceptional circumstances. On issues ranging from budgets to ethics, the Senate must be as transparent as possible. Our credibility and our reputation depends on it.

Many senators meet with citizens to explain their work and the importance of having an upper chamber. These interactions are essential to address false perceptions and prejudices and rebuild trust in our institution.

Social media is another great tool we can use to explain what we do on a daily basis. I have been using Twitter for years, but I would invite you to check out the Twitter feed of my colleague, Alberta Senator Paula Simons, who has found a unique and interesting way to share her work in the Senate with her 50,000 Twitter followers. 

Finally, I am also here with you today because I believe we have a special duty to listen to young people. Senators are traditionally appointed in their 50s or 60s, so we are often two generations apart. We need to hear about your experiences and your ideas directly so we can have a more complete vision of society, particularly as regards environmental and cultural diversity issues. So do not hesitate to reach out to us as senators.

May your debates be rewarding, with solid arguments, a minimum of petty politics, strong intellectual debate and, most of all, may you seek compromises with each other to achieve the best possible result.