Honourable colleagues, I rise today to speak to the tenth report of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization on the “nature” of the Senate.

I had hoped we were finally moving past the navel gazing that seems to have consumed some of my colleagues over the past couple of years, certainly the government leader. After all, things do tend to come full circle in this place. While some may view that as a deficit, I believe it is the greatest testament to the resilience of this Westminster hybrid our founding fathers adopted when this great nation was born. But as resilient as our system is, it should not be taken for granted. And it should not be trifled with just to satisfy one Prime Minister’s legacy building.

A desire to reform the Senate in one fashion or another is as old as the Senate itself. It was the creation of the Senate and its role and composition that almost derailed Confederation. Had it not been for the creation of the Senate, Quebec and the Maritime provinces wouldn’t have signed on and Canada, as we know it, wouldn’t exist today.

The discussion of the Senate at the Quebec Conference in 1864 centred on the Upper Chamber being a balance of representation to the Lower Chamber. While the House of Commons is composed of representation by population, the Senate is composed of representation by region. This was very important because it protected minorities. It protected the less populous provinces from the more populous. It protected the cultural and linguistic minority. However — and this is very important — it also protected the electoral minority and that’s something, intentional or not, that seems to have been lost in a lot of the discussions around the Senate’s role of late.

For example, there are currently no Conservative members of Parliament in government from the Atlantic provinces. Were it not for senators from that region, those Canadians who did not vote Liberal or NDP in the last election would have nobody representing them in Parliament. The importance of this was no more evident than in the recent vote on Bill C-49.

My colleague Senator Mitchell knows the importance of this all too well. Not that long ago, he and Senator Tardif were the only Liberal representation in Parliament from the province of Alberta. After next year’s election, he might be the only one.

While the Senate was meant to balance representation, make no mistake, our founding fathers also intended for it to be a balance of power. The Senate is meant to guard against tyranny of a majority in the other place. As none other than Justin Trudeau said in 2014, “If the Senate serves a purpose at all, it is to act as a check on the extraordinary power of the prime minister and his office, especially in a majority government.” That’s a quote from Justin Trudeau.

George-Etienne Cartier referred to the Senate as a “power of resistance to oppose the democratic element.” Sir John A. Macdonald described it as a body of “sober second thought” that would curb the “democratic excesses” of the elected House of Commons.

To that end, our Fathers of Confederation gave both houses virtually the same powers. The Senate can amend or reject all legislation and, with the exception of bills imposing taxation and appropriating public funds, can also initiate legislation.

The Senate and the House of Commons also have the same power to discipline its members as does the House of Commons at Westminster. It is quite telling, colleagues, that the Senate was given the same power as the House of Commons rather than the House of Lords.

While it has not always been an easy road for the Senate, here we are, 150 years later, by and large the same institution our forefathers envisioned. And that’s a good thing. That is not to say that I do not believe that there is room for change. I was, after all, a member of the Internal Economy Committee that, through consultation and cooperation with all members of this chamber, ushered in an era of improved transparency, efficiency and accountability the likes of which has never been seen in this place or probably any other Parliament.

We adopted a new, more detailed model of proactive disclosure for senators’ expenses. We oversaw a complete transformation of our communications approach and completely opened up the meetings of Internal Economy to the public, going so far as to televise those meetings.

We were able to do all of that because, as parliamentarians, we have the privilege of setting and enforcing the rules that govern the Senate, as long as it does not change the constitutional nature of the institution. We did this through consensus, rather than one-sided, heavy-handed tactics. We did not take steps in haste just to satisfy a political agenda or a campaign promise.

The Senate has spent the past two and a half years dealing with the ramifications of just such a politically expedient decision by the then leader of the third party, Mr. Trudeau, a few years ago.

We have changed the wording of some of the rules to accommodate preferred titles and names, so now we have representatives and liaisons and parliamentary groups. And we’ve had to make budgetary changes that have seen the cost of operating the Senate increase dramatically. However, none of this required or resulted in changing the nature of the institution. Nor should it. Changing the fundamental nature of our Parliament is a much bigger undertaking than changing the composition of committees or recognizing parliamentary groups and must be treated as such.

As outlined in the 2014 Supreme Court of Canada ruling, any attempt by any one Prime Minister to fundamentally change the nature of this institution without consulting the provinces would be unconstitutional. Past Prime Ministers have known this instinctively and where there has been any doubt, have had the good sense and the intestinal fortitude to turn to the highest court in the land to draw the distinction. Our current Prime Minister should do the same.

Furthermore, before we embark on making fundamental changes to an institution and a parliamentary system that has served this country so well for so long, we must ask: What is the alternative and what does the alternative set out to do? If the alternative serves to weaken the Senate or senators in any way, especially in our responsibility and ability to hold government to account, we must then ask ourselves, who does this benefit?

A weak Parliament benefits the government and the Prime Minister of the day. It does not benefit Canadians.

And while the current Prime Minister would have you believe that his Senate is one where senators are more empowered than ever before, it couldn’t be further from the truth.

As former Leader of the Senate Liberals, Senator James Cowan, cited in his speech in December 2015, the opening words of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in 2014 are as follows:

The Senate is one of Canada’s foundational political institutions.

And as Senator Cowan is fond of saying, “We are all politicians. We all make political decisions.”

In his speech he said:

Excess partisanship in the Senate is not an institutional failing. When it happens, it’s a personal choice and therefore a personal failure.

I take no issue with senators who do not wish to sit as members of a caucus. And I take no issue with senators who do not wish to caucus based on political affiliation. I do take issue with anyone who denies or denigrates my wish and my privilege to do so. I assure you, I am no less independent than my colleague across the aisle. I do, however, have the benefit of being able to be part of the policy-making and legislative process in its earliest stages.

When we go to caucus and conventions, it allows us to voice our concerns and opinions at the embryonic stage and throughout the maturation of policy and eventually legislation.

Just a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of attending a convention for Quebec members of our party in Saint-Hyacinthe. This was an opportunity for all party members, not just parliamentarians, to come together to discuss and propose policy ideas that we can bring forward at our national convention this summer.

This involvement in public discourse at the grassroots level, which is sadly being denied my colleagues who have been appointed by the current Prime Minister, allows us to truly hear concerns and ideas from the constituents we represent and allows us to be part of the debate at the earliest stages of legislative creation.

Furthermore, we don’t attend caucus to receive our marching orders but rather for us, as caucus members, to let leadership know what we want and expect. I assure you, leadership is accountable to caucus members, not the other way around. At least that’s how we, as Conservatives, operate. Perhaps it is different in a “parliamentary group” or the government caucus.

I do know that if Mr. Trudeau’s appointees were allowed to attend policy conventions or sit as part of his national caucus, it would vastly improve his government’s efficiency in getting legislation passed. You see, contrary to the narrative we so often hear, it isn’t the opposition that’s holding up government legislation in the Senate. No, a big part of the problem is that Trudeau senators are shut out of the legislative process until the end stages. And only then do they have an opportunity to raise concerns rather than having done so more efficiently at national caucus before it gets to this floor. Not to mention, some then feel compelled to seize the opportunity to make a show of their independence. We have seen that time and again. A show that, in the end, amounts to much ado about nothing, something Senator Pratte knows all too well.

My colleague Senator Pratte often points to the amendments the Trudeau Senate has put forth as a badge of honour, as if it’s something new or some sort of proof that Trudeau appointees are not beholden to the Prime Minister who appointed them. Yet even his own amendment on the Infrastructure Bank, the budget bill he threatened to split, the honourable senator put on quite the show in this place, but when it was all said and done, he voted against his own motion.

Colleagues, the Fathers of Confederation would be scratching their heads. They would also be puzzled by the amount of time we have spent in the last couple of years talking about process and debating our own budgets and titles rather than debating actual legislation. It’s the navel gazing I spoke of earlier.

For example, the government leader continues to write papers and give interviews and lament about the need for a so-called business committee, disingenuously claiming it is the only way to move his government’s legislation through. And every step along the way, he points the proverbial finger at the opposition for using delay tactics.

As a matter of fact, as we now know, Senator Harder has so far remained silent on the opposition’s offer to work together on a plan for prioritization of government legislation as we near the end of this session.

And let’s be clear, we already have a business committee; it has existed for a long time and it meets daily, colleagues. It’s called scroll.

This is just another example of how Mr. Trudeau and his government leader here in the Senate want credit for fixing something that isn’t broken and inventing something that already exists. It’s like calling a whip a liaison or calling a leader a representative and then proudly claiming to have done something new.

None of this changes anything. None of this is new. We don’t need a business committee. What we need is for the government leader to spend a little less time writing policy papers and more time and energy using the tools available to him, like negotiation, as has every other government leader before him.

I find myself asking: Is it more important to the government leader and his fellow Trudeau appointees that the Senate function smoothly or that the Prime Minister who appointed them get the credit for it functioning smoothly? If it’s to be the latter, then it must be seen as being dysfunctional.

To that end, the Prime Minister and his government leader have gone out of their way to convince Canadians that the Senate, as a legislative body, has not been functioning properly. And that’s just not the case. It’s political posturing at its finest or quite frankly at its worst.

It goes back to when Mr. Trudeau was leader of the then third party. The other leaders had a position on the Senate, so Mr. Trudeau needed one too. He expelled Liberal senators from national caucus citing partisanship as the root of all evil in the Senate. It was also clever cover for absolving himself of all accountability for anything that might arise from the audit of senators’ expenses.

And now as Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau is doubling down on his false but convenient narrative about partisanship and is using it as an opportunity to centralize power and create a legacy. Despite our Prime Minister’s attempts to take credit for granting the Senate its independence, this was done by design at its inception by our founding fathers, not by Justin Trudeau.

Likewise, senators were also granted independence by design by our founding fathers. It comes from our security of tenure by virtue of appointment.

Senators are free from having to worry about convincing a party leader to sign their nomination papers or being beholden to special interest groups to secure their tenure. It has nothing to do with political affiliation or lack thereof. The very first Senate under the government of Sir John A. Macdonald consisted of a government and an opposition, divided along party lines. The opposition was comprised of 25 staunch Liberals appointed by then Prime Minister Macdonald, a staunch Conservative.

As Senator Cowan alluded to, it is up to each senator individually to guard against bias, whether gender, ethnic, language, professional, economic or political. That is why we take an oath, and we all take the same oath. It doesn’t matter which side of the chamber we sit on, which group or caucus we sit in, that oath was sworn exactly the same by every single one of us.

None of this is new, colleagues. And Justin Trudeau isn’t the first Prime Minister to try to dictate to his appointees how to handle his government’s legislation. There has always been some attempt or desire to interfere or influence from the other place. All that has really varied from one government to the next is to what degree and/or the tactics employed.

What is new about Mr. Trudeau’s attempts to interfere in the Senate is his attempt to control both the government and the opposition. Mr. Trudeau can whip his appointees all he wants to get them to behave and vote accordingly, but his attempts to whip the opposition are unprecedented and frankly quite dangerous.

Let me be perfectly clear. The Senate does have the power to amend and defeat government legislation, even that on which the government of the day campaigned. As we heard in testimony from Professor David Smith at committee, “If the Senate is to play the role of sonar, detecting and communicating the views and opinions which the representative system in the House of Commons fails to detect adequately, then concluding that it could never defeat legislation would only serve to hinder its performance.”

And as Senator Serge Joyal rightfully pointed out, the Senate has the power to consent, and if we have the power to consent and say yes, we also have the power to say no.

The Supreme Court of Canada on the question of whether the Senate could be required to give Royal Assent to a bill after a certain passage of time, notwithstanding that it had not been adopted in the upper house, had this to say, and I quote the Supreme Court of Canada, and no one will question their legitimacy, I hope:

A provision of the kind contemplated would seriously impair the position of the Senate in the legislative process because it would permit legislation to be enacted under s. 91 without the consent of the Senate. . . . it is our view that Parliament cannot under s. 91(1) impair the role —

. . . it is our view that Parliament cannot under s. 91(1) impair the role of the Senate in that process. We would answer that question in the negative.

So, yes, much as the government leader, the current Prime Minister, and every prime minister before him don’t like it, the Senate does have the power and authority to defeat government legislation.

For the past 150 years, senators, Conservative and Liberal, have known full well their role and responsibility and consequences of their actions in this place.(1650)

I understand the struggle that many of you in the ISG are feeling. You were told you were appointed as independent senators. And now you’re being told by the same Prime Minister that your independence has limits. The truth of the matter is, the Prime Minister of the day put your name forward for appointment to this chamber, the same as the Prime Minister of the day put my name forward. The same goes for every one of us here. We’re all here because a prime minister saw fit to ask us to come here and serve the people of this great country. Prime ministers appoint people with whom they share common goals and values. This is not new, and I’m sure we have all, to one agree or another, felt a sense of loyalty.

I appreciate Senator Gold’s concern that he doesn’t want to be accused of being a failed experiment. More than that, we don’t want to be accused of being partisan hacks.

At the end of the day, regardless of who appointed you, there are two groups of people in this chamber: those who fundamentally, ideologically agree with the government of the day and those who don’t. Whatever we call ourselves or whoever a prime minister says we are, this truth does not cease, nor should it.

Prime ministers appoint people to the Senate to fill gaps invariably created through the electoral process in the other place. They do so in adherence to the Westminster system, which includes a government caucus and an opposition caucus. If you’re not sure which side of the coin you’re on, look no further than your voting record. The numbers are clear. Conservatives vote in favour of government legislation far more frequently than Trudeau appointees vote against it, and that’s okay. The important thing is that the government be held to account. That is the role of Parliament; the job of parliamentarians is to hold government to account.

I vehemently disagree with Senator Gold when he says we, the Senate, have no horse in that race. The Senate is a house of Parliament. It’s crystal clear in the Constitution. Senators are parliamentarians. We have a horse in the race.

And contrary to what Senator Gold said, it is not partisanship that is inconsistent with the constitutional role of the Senate; what is inconsistent with the Constitution is the current Prime Minister’s attempt to do an end run in diminishing the opposition and reducing the Senate to nothing more than an echo chamber rather than the strong, responsible legislative body our forefathers intended it to be, with all the rights and privileges of the other chamber in our bicameral Westminster system.

A strong, recognized opposition in both chambers of our Parliament ensures that the government of the day will face the level of scrutiny Canadians expect and deserve. Any attempt to thwart that responsibility is unconstitutional and an affront to our democracy.

For now, I will take comfort in knowing that we, as the opposition, will continue to hold the government to account with the protection afforded us as the minority voice in Parliament. The government leader can take comfort in knowing that the Prime Minister has named enough like-minded appointees to hold a majority number of votes to get his legislation through. Canadians can take comfort in knowing that when something is so harmful to their best interests as to be egregious, senators will thoughtfully exercise our constitutional responsibility to guard against the tyranny of a majority government, just as our forefathers had intended for this place. Thank you very much.