Honourable senators, I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised by Senator Ringuette on Wednesday, May 15, 2019.

The point of order concerned an amendment to motion 474. Motion 474 by Senator Pratte sought to establish a Special Committee on Prosecutorial Independence. Senator Plett then moved an amendment to have this study instead conducted by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Senator Ringuette argued that Senator Plett’s amendment is not admissible as it is beyond the scope of the motion. She suggested that the purpose, or the pith and substance, of Senator Pratte’s motion is the creation of a special committee. By removing the idea of a special committee, she argued that the amendment is therefore contrary to the motion.

Other senators disagreed. In particular, Senator Martin argued that the purpose of motion 474 is not to create a special committee, but to conduct a study of prosecutorial independence – the special committee is only the vehicle by which this study would take place. Senator Plett’s amendment, therefore, simply proposes a different vehicle, while maintaining the core purpose of the study.

The argument really comes down to whether the purpose of the motion is the creation of a special committee, or the study of prosecutorial independence. Either would seem to be reasonable conclusions to draw.

In a ruling on February 24, 2009, the Speaker noted that, “In situations where the analysis is ambiguous, several Senate Speakers have expressed a preference for presuming a matter to be in order, unless and until the contrary position is established. This bias in favour of allowing debate, except where a matter is clearly out of order, is fundamental to maintaining the Senate’s role as a chamber of discussion and reflection.”

In the present case, I do not believe that the motion in amendment has been clearly established as being out of order. As such, the Senate should be allowed to consider the question and determine for itself whether the alternative proposed by the amendment is desirable.

I therefore find that the amendment is in order, and debate can continue.

On debate, Senator Pratte.

Honourable senators, I would like to say a few words regarding Senator Plett’s proposed amendment to motion No. 474.

I am pleased to note that we now both agree on the substance of the parliamentary inquiry that is required. Indeed, the amendment proposed by Senator Plett changes absolutely nothing to the mandate of the special committee that I had suggested.

In line with the original motion, the honourable senator still suggests that the Senate committee be tasked with examining and reporting on the independence of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and the Attorney General of Canada; examining and reporting on the separation of the functions of the Minister of Justice and those of the Attorney General of Canada; and examining and reporting on remediation agreements, in particular the appropriate interpretation of what is called the national economic interest.

As a result, the committee’s inquiry would not be limited to the SNC-Lavalin controversy. However, as I made clear in my speech on the original motion, neither would it avoid the circumstances of the SNC-Lavalin affair. Both lines of investigation are essential if we are to address this issue in a non‑partisan manner.

They are also vital for a genuinely senatorial approach to take place, one infused by sober second thought, meaning that we should take a step back and not limit our investigation to the details of the events that unfolded recently.

I am glad that Senator Plett has now accepted this approach. I am glad, but I am also perplexed. Indeed, in the minutes before the senator moved his amendment, his colleague Senator Batters denounced the mandate proposed and, in passing, attacked the mover’s motives.

Let me recall some of the honourable senator’s statements:

. . . Senator Pratte’s motion is nothing but an attempt to help the Trudeau government continue to play hide-and-seek.

. . . Senator Pratte knows full well that his motion will shield the Trudeau government from accountability.

The honourable senator also stated:

This motion is yet another attempt by the government to silence the opposition.

Senator Batters’ comments relay at least two false attributions of motive in my regard, amongst others: One, that I am merely an agent of the government — this is undoubtedly surprising news to Senator Harder — and, two, that my motivation in proposing the motion is to silence the opposition.

On this point, I’ll simply quote my remarks in a speech delivered in our own chamber in March 2018. I stated then, and I reiterate again today:

I am convinced that, as long as the present Liberal government is in power, the Conservative senators should form the opposition and enjoy the rights and privileges resulting from that status.

And I also said:

. . . in any Parliament it is absolutely essential that the people who are fundamentally opposed to the government’s world view be represented firmly and constantly.

I believe profoundly in the crucial role of the opposition in Parliament. However, I’m also deeply convinced that partisan debate, as vigorous as it may be, should be respectful of the diverse opinions expressed and of the individuals who express them. When we come to a point where people of opposite sides insult each other, impute false motives and even avoid each other in a house which is supposed to be characterized by the collective wisdom of its members, we have gone too far.

Your Honour, in February 2017, you ruled on a question of privilege and said:

. . . words are powerful; they do matter. This is especially true when they are used to criticize not just a different point of view, but those who hold that point of view.

I agree, and I’m certain that all senators here agree, too. We should focus on the parliamentary work before us, not on the persons in this place.

As Your Honour reminded us again earlier this week:

When senators are addressing a subject, they should deal with the issues. To criticize a person’s stand on an issue is fine, but to go behind that and start talking about the motivation or motives of an individual is really not parliamentary, and is something that should be avoided.

If we are to work cooperatively and productively in this chamber, as we must even in a partisan context, your wise words, Your Honour, should constantly guide our behaviour and speeches.

In this vein of thought, let me get back to the substance of Senator Plett’s amendment. As I have highlighted, the honourable senator and I now agree on what the committee should examine, the events that gave rise to the controversy and the lessons to be learned from these events.

Senator Housakos confirmed this agreement on the heart of the motion in his response to Senator Ringuette’s point of order:

I’m going back to the original motion. It was to have an investigation on the SNC-Lavalin affair, and he [Senator Pratte] wanted to be more wholesome. He wanted to be more detailed. He wanted to review the DPA and the Justice Department, and how the Justice Department reviews DPAs. . . . That was pretty much the theme of Senator Pratte’s motion. He talked about it in this chamber. He talked about it in the media. He was pretty consistent.

I want to thank Senator Housakos for his kind words, which are very different from his initial virulent reaction to my proposal.

Therefore, the only disagreement that persists between us regards which committee should be ordered to study this important matter. I suggested a special committee; Senator Plett proposes that the task be entrusted to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Honourable senators, we are at the end of May. We have, at best, four weeks before we adjourn for the summer. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for a special committee to conduct an in-depth study on this complex matter in the time we have left. It is even more evident that, unless we neglect government business, such as Bill C-78 and Bill C-97, and unless we do not examine Bill C-337, which is Ms. Ambrose’s bill on training for judges, the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs would have barely any time to conduct a study on the complex issues surrounding the SNC-Lavalin controversy. This is why I oppose Senator Platt’s amendment, which proposes an impossible scenario.

Let’s come back to my proposal to appoint a special committee. The opposition senators were particularly shocked when I suggested that the committee consist of six senators from the Independent Senators Group, three Conservative senators and one Liberal senator. I opted for this formula because it reflects the membership in the Senate today. The membership of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is not so different. This committee has six Independent senators, four Conservative senators and two Liberal senators. The difference between the two perspectives is so minimal that I would have expected the senators opposite to try to find a middle ground.

Unfortunately, no effort was made to do so. On the contrary, Motion No. 474 was ridiculed and the mover criticized. As a result, we ended up wasting two months of our time.

So here we are with insufficient time left to conduct an in-depth study of the matters involved, whatever committee would be tasked with the job. This is a missed opportunity for the Senate, which could have demonstrated, regarding an important and very sensitive issue, sober second thought in action.

Undoubtedly, other occasions will arise, but for us to seize these opportunities we will have to reach beyond overzealous partisanship and animosity, show respect towards each other, set aside assumptions of personal motives and work together to achieve the necessary compromises.

Honourable senators, with this motion on the SNC-Lavalin affair, I attempted to find middle ground between the partisan attacks of the Conservatives and the partisan dodges of the government. As usual, this attempt was met with anger on both sides. Maybe I’m simply too naive or too much of an idealist; I don’t know.

Partisanship is not the issue. Partisanship is the expression of deeply held convictions. It is what drives political parties, which are at the heart of our parliamentary system. But excessive partisanship, which is characterized less by conviction than by wilful blindness, is a problem. It is a problem because it leads to populism and character assassinations, because it rejects all compromise and ends in stalemate.

In the West we are living in an era where excessive partisanship is politically profitable; naturally, it is flourishing. However, if the Senate is to play the role envisaged by the Fathers of Confederation, we must move away from the slippery slope of the fractious partisanship that has already invaded the other place. If we do not, the already large number of Canadians who are critical of the upper chamber will only increase. If we succumb to excessive partisanship, the Senate could fall into irrelevance.

Colleagues, in recent months, I have become more pessimistic, noting the impossibility of reaching compromises on such significant matters as the rights of French speakers in Ontario and this SNC-Lavalin controversy.

However, I’m comforted by the fact that many in this place share, if not most of my faults, at least my weakness for Senate idealism. I’m hopeful that if the idealists on all sides work together, they may prevent this chamber from being swept away by bilious partisanship. It is crucial that they do so, because if they don’t, the idea of sober second thought will be reduced to empty words, endlessly repeated in this chamber but having no application in practice. Such an outcome would not only be sad for us in this chamber; it would be sad for the Senate and it would be sad for Canada.

Thank you.