Hon. Diane Bellemare: Thank you, everyone. I also gratefully recognize that we are gathered here today on the unceded ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, and I am extremely proud to be here with many senators from across the country, including Indigenous senators. I also thank my group, the one I am ending this adventure with in the Senate of Canada.

Naturally, I am feeling quite emotional, so I will read from my notes because I worked hard on them, and even though I feel up to debating, I want to stay on topic.

As you know, leaving the Senate after 12 years of adrenaline-filled days is not easy. This is the first time in my career that I have been the oldest person in the room. I was always the youngest for a long time, but now I’m the oldest. As my mother would often say, “I’m the oldest one around here.” So I’m going to indulge myself and talk to you about what I’ve learned in 12 years. It’s a fact that I’ve changed my affiliation a few times, but I always stayed true to my oath of office and always followed my conscience.

As Senator Lankin remarked last Tuesday, all the senators here are top-notch, and that is the first thing people notice as soon as they arrive in the Senate. They think, “Well, that’s interesting.”

In my case, as our former colleague, the Honourable André Pratte, wrote in his book on the Senate — and as many have pointed out — I am, first and foremost, an intellectual. That’s how I gain knowledge. We are supposed to learn through experience but, in my case, experience came later. First, I was a professor. I taught public policy. Then I took on an important internship with the Quebec government. The minister told me that if I wanted to do this, I needed to run for office, so I decided to jump into the world of collective action and politics. Now I am here, in the Senate, which was a better job for me.

My adventure in the Senate was not part of my career plan. I didn’t decide to become a senator. At the time, people were appointed. When someone approached me in 2012 to gauge my interest, I was flattered, obviously, but I was in the midst of writing a book, Créer et partager la prospérité : sortir l’économie canadienne de l’impasse, and trying to get used to the idea of retiring. I was 63. I’m glad I accepted this honour and privilege, though I didn’t comprehend the full extent of it when Senator Carignan, whom I didn’t know very well, called to let me know that my name was on a short list and to ask whether I was interested. I was appointed to the Senate in September 2012 by the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, and I thank him for putting his trust in me.

Around that time, the Senate was going through an existential crisis that began in 2013 with what the media was calling the “Senate expenses scandal.” It came up every time I watched the news. All senators, especially the newly appointed ones, were traumatized by the experience. However, this crisis brought to light a reality described by Justice Charles Vaillancourt, in his decision exonerating former Senator Duffy, concerning the stranglehold that the Prime Minister’s Office had on Senate affairs.

Many political scientists have described how easy it is for a prime minister to control the Senate when it’s a two-party chamber, in other words, made up of two caucuses, and when it’s the Prime Minister who chooses who to appoint.

Since Confederation, the reality is that the Prime Minister’s Office has always made sure it got a majority of votes in both chambers. The party in power just had to impose its party line in the Senate through an informal system of reward and punishment, and that was that. However, I must say that sometimes, some senators, often those in the opposition, found ways to effectively oppose things when necessary. Just because there is a party line does not mean that the opposition always remains silent.

Colleagues, particularly those of you who have just been appointed to the Senate, don’t be surprised if you occasionally find yourself wondering what planet you’re on. That happened to me too. That is why, when I was first appointed, I did a bit of research on senates around the world. As a trained economist, I worked with my adviser at the time, Étienne Gabrysz-Forget, to create numerous statistical tables on senates in the world to get answers to our questions.

Is the bicameral system in good health? Is it progressing or regressing on the world stage? I wanted to know whether senators are usually appointed or elected. What is the scope of their mandate and power? Where else has a two-party senate like Canada’s? Are there any independent senates?

This research still exists. It’s dated, but it would be worth updating. That said, I can tell you that two-party senates are few and far between. Apart from the United States and a few small Commonwealth island countries, there are few senates in the world where there are only two groups or caucuses.

Back when Canada had a two-party Senate, senators were appointed to serve until the age of 75, and this is still the case today. However, the majority of the world’s senators are elected. This has both advantages and disadvantages.

Thanks to this comparative study and other readings, I quickly realized that, to ensure the institutional independence of the Senate, there had to be at least three groups or caucuses. That way, it would be hard for one group to obtain an absolute majority and have the ruling party control the Senate.

Following that study and my readings, with the times being what they were and the crisis we were going through then, I started saying, whenever I had the opportunity, that the two-party model needed to go. The cross-benchers in the House of Lords seemed like a feasible model for the Senate of Canada to follow.

I would like to give you a few more details about the anecdote that Senator Dalphond alluded to. Back in the summer of 2015, I was still affiliated with the Conservative caucus, and several Liberal and Conservative senators had questions about the future of the Senate. Senators Greene and Massicotte organized a summit on the topic and conducted a survey to find out where senators stood on various issues. I argued for the importance of organizing senators into groups, but I wasn’t sure how far I could go in my role as a senator who belonged to a caucus.

Thanks to the ingenuity of my adviser at the time, Natasha Entwistle, who was working in my office, I secured a one-on-one meeting with the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney. As I was telling him about my existential qualms and explaining my solutions, he interrupted me to say:

Obviously, the Senate needs more than two groups in order to undercut the dominance of the Prime Minister’s Office.

He had been prime minister, and he knew the dynamics. He confirmed that my analysis was correct and that things needed to change. As for my plan to work on creating a third group, he added, “You might want to hold off until after the election,” meaning the election that would be held in the fall of 2015.

I took the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney’s advice, and on March 8, 2016, a few months after the election, I became an independent or non-affiliated senator, along with other non-affiliated senators, including Senator Ringuette, who suggested setting up regional caucuses. She too had come to the conclusion that there needed to be more than two caucuses, and we were the only two at the time who created the Independent Senators Group. At first, the group was informal, because it did not meet the conditions set out in the Rules for being officially recognized.

Let me go back to my experience with the Conservative Party. I learned a lot, and it made me think about other issues. I wondered how I would make decisions about bills that came before the Senate if I didn’t want to toe the party line. If I wasn’t going to toe the party line, I would have to have good reasons for objecting to bills from the other place that are generally passed by the other place. I asked myself what objective criteria a bill passed by the House of Commons would have to meet to get my vote. Those are the criteria I used.

That’s how I came to move a motion in the Senate in 2016 known as Motion No. 89. The purpose was to amend the Rules to require committees considering bills to include, in the reports they table here, observations consisting of answers to a series of important questions that could justify passing or rejecting a bill, especially a bill sponsored by a senator or an MP.

For example, does the bill respect the Constitution, the Charter of Rights, Indigenous treaties, international agreements and privacy? Did any individuals or groups present strong objections in committee? If so, what were they? Was there a consultation process? What is the regional impact of the bill, if any, and is there cause for concern? Are there any errors in the bill? Do the English and French versions match?

I thought this list of questions would be useful for people who don’t sit on the committee and don’t have time to read all the testimony. As I said, the purpose of this motion was to provide a succinct summary of the necessary information to all senators who were not participating in the study so that they could better understand the debates and form their own opinions. It also provided a framework for the use of our veto power over bills passed in the other chamber with the support of all or almost all parties.

I decided that I didn’t have the right to object to a bill just because I didn’t like it. I don’t think we really have the right, even if we do have the power, to refuse to pass a bill that has the clear support of the other chamber. To do so is to play a political game we have no right to play. As I see it, we don’t have the political standing to be arrogant. As a chamber, we must rise above that kind of thing.

As you know, Motion No. 89 was not adopted. It was discussed during the work of the Senate Modernization Committee, and we can find traces of these discussions in the committee’s reports. Personally, I use these criteria when I’m analyzing a bill, and even more so with private member’s bills introduced by MPs and senators, especially when it’s a bill I don’t like. I look at my list, and I may not like the bill, but if it meets all my criteria, then I vote in favour of it. All of this enables me to judge a bill passed by the other place without letting my personal preferences get in the way. After all, no one can fully understand a situation from every angle, no matter how brilliant they are. It would be far too complex.

The motion was not adopted, but perhaps you will consider another similar motion one day.

In May 2016, I accepted the invitation of Senator Harder, who was the first Government Representative in the Senate, to play the role of legislative deputy — which, as the opposition knows, is a made-up title. Senator Grant Mitchell became the first government liaison at the same time. That was a very intense period in my Senate career, especially since I had no practical experience with the Rules of the Senate. I didn’t know them off the top of my head like some of my opposition colleagues did. It’s one thing to read the Rules, but quite another to have to put them into practice. I am very proud that I was able to work with Senators Harder and Mitchell, for whom I have a lot of respect.

At the time, there were never any guarantees that government bills would be passed. There were times when a single vote made the difference in government bills being given Royal Assent. That happened with a bill that I was sponsoring, the critic for which was the formidable, yet kind, Conservative Senator Tannas, but we managed to pass it. It was the bill that repealed several bills that were considered anti-union by many people, including myself.

I’d like to share a little anecdote about the first budget. At the time, the Conservative senators formed the opposition, and they had the majority of seats. Certain Liberal senators were not always willing to cooperate with the Trudeau government in the wake of the events that put an end to the Liberals’ national caucus. The budget passed by one vote — yes, the budget, one vote — because a very specific number of Conservative senators were absent from the chamber during the vote. The leader of the official opposition at the time, Claude Carignan, knew how to count. I have to tell you that Peter, Grant and I broke out in a cold sweat. After the vote, as you can imagine, we burst out laughing to relieve the tension.

Many know the rest of my story. In the fall of 2019, I joined the Independent Senators Group, which I left in 2021 to join the Progressive Senate Group, the PSG, with which I had and still have a special affinity.

My dear colleagues and friends, know that I respect all senators regardless of their affiliation. I changed groups over a dispute. With the ISG, it was a dispute over a different vision of an independent Senate. With all due respect to my colleagues in the ISG, I would like to talk about the nature of the dispute that led to my departure. I have to say that, in my opinion, I did it to protect the new multi-party system in the Senate of Canada. The dispute was over committee portability.

Allow me to explain for our new senators, because this is an important thing to learn. According to the Rules, a senator who leaves a group remains a member of the committee to which they were assigned at the beginning of the session until the end of the session, which may occur when Parliament is prorogued or an election is called. Rule 12-2(2) dates back to time immemorial. It was codified in the Rules at the end of the 1960s. The wording we’re familiar with, which is a little more restrictive than the 1960 version, has been around since 1972. That’s a long time. This rule can also be found in other senates around the world that have multi-party systems.

However, in recent years, this rule has been suspended so that any senator who leaves a group or caucus also has to leave the committees they were serving on. This is still a rule of the Senate, but it was suspended for this session by a motion adopted at the beginning of the session. I am against that way of doing things because, in my opinion, that rule upholds the independence of the Senate. It ensures balance and keeps things fair between groups and between senators.

I think it is a sound rule. It protects a fundamental principle, that of ensuring that every senator has the opportunity to continue their work in committee, with all of the privileges that go along with being an official committee member. This rule is good for senators and for the Senate. For those who are familiar with the philosophical principles of John Rawls, I am sure this rule was adopted by fair and rational individuals from behind a veil of ignorance. If senators would like more information about the principles of John Rawls, I won’t be here anymore, but my neighbour, Senator Gold, who is also a law professor, is very familiar with them.

I speak of this rule with conviction because it promotes healthy mobility between groups of senators. In 2015, this rule enabled any senators who were interested in becoming non-affiliated to do so, while still allowing them to carry out their constitutional duties in the Senate. Requiring a senator to leave their assigned committee if they leave a group punishes senators for following their conscience and detracts from the Senate’s independence.

Colleagues, before we get to the expressions of thanks, rest assured that the Senate is an important institution and that our work is equally important. When we first arrive, we may have the impression that the Senate is a mere formality on the way to Royal Assent. Today, I know that this is not the case. It won’t be long before you learn that. The Senate is a political institution with tremendous powers that differ from those of the House of Commons. Our role isn’t to govern but to serve as a bulwark for protecting democracy, as Senator Joyal underscored in the title of his book. We ensure that democratic choices expressed during elections serve the well-being of all Canadians and Indigenous peoples. To use a sports metaphor, we are essentially the defence.

To remain relevant and appreciated by Canadians, the Senate has to rise above partisan politics, respect democratic choices and exercise restraint, as Senator Shugart aptly said. Although our job is primarily to protect democracy, we can also provide vision and insight into medium- to long-term public policy issues. We have an opportunity and a duty to do so.

I wish I had had more time to talk to you about social dialogue, dialogue between governments and socio-economic groups, and the latest Policy Horizons Canada report, entitled “Disruptions on the Horizon,” in an inquiry that is on the Order Paper and Notice Paper. This will not be possible.

Nevertheless, I’d like to draw your attention to this document, which lists 35 probable major disruptions that could affect the well-being of Canadians in the medium term. They include Canada having demographic problems, immigration, artificial intelligence running wild, downward mobility becoming the norm, food becoming scarce, men of all ages being in crisis, people being unable to tell what’s true and what’s not, values-based clashes dividing society, energy becoming scarce, household debt reaching a tipping point, and more. Policy Horizons Canada calls on public bodies, departments, governments and political parties to take these potential disruptions into account in their plans and their work. I believe that the Senate is the chamber of Parliament that has a duty to reflect on these issues, particularly in committee, in order to fulfill its role as the chamber of sober second thought. I urge you to read this report. Policy Horizons Canada is a foresight organization that falls under the Department of Employment and Social Development.

I would like to share with you my belief that Canada must establish an institutionalized dialogue between governments and socio-economic groups. I believe that we are experiencing a crisis of governance in this country in terms of the public policies needed to work together on solutions to looming challenges and disruptions. You’ve undoubtedly seen for yourselves that we have a number of private members’ and senators’ bills that seek to fill a void but lack coordination and scope. As you know, it can be more difficult to bring about coordinated collective action in free and democratic societies than in authoritarian ones, but coordinated collective action is exactly what we need. Other countries have strengthened and institutionalized dialogue between governments and socio-economic partners, and Canada must follow suit, because the invisible hand of the market is not enough. Senators can stimulate and promote that dialogue. We have the power and the opportunity. I’d just like to plug the last chapter written by a group of senators during the pandemic. Chaired by Senator Harder, we examined what we had to do. We heard from Canadian and international witnesses. It was very interesting. We met twice a week. We knew what to do. Everyone knows it. The point is not to know what we need to do, but how to do it, especially in Canada’s confederal system. It’s very complicated.

Colleagues, in conclusion, your work is important. Take it seriously. At the same time, don’t take yourselves too seriously. Sometimes, when we face adversity, it’s hard to not take ourselves too seriously.

Now I want to say my thank-yous, dear colleagues. Many thanks to the Senate team, who look after our material well-being and physical safety; all the staff who transport us from one building to another and who give us such a beautiful, clean, bright place to work in; and all the officers who protect us as well. Special thanks to Greg Peters, the Usher of the Black Rod. I also want to thank all the staff who work behind the scenes every day so that we can accomplish the job Canadians expect us to do. I want to thank the interpreters, without whom we could not communicate with one another; all the audiovisual technicians, who give Canadians a way to judge our work; all the pages, who see to our comfort every day; and all the clerks, who support us and ensure that we are well informed and that the Senate sittings and committee meetings run smoothly. Thank you all very much.

I have the utmost admiration for the Speaker of the Senate, who always listens to us and does exemplary work, as well as the Speaker pro tempore, who manages our work so adroitly.

I want to thank everyone who worked with me in my office over the years and who helped me to carry out my role as a senator and made me look good, as Senator Dawson often says. I’m thinking of Anaida Galindo, who helped me to learn the ropes in my first years in the Senate. I’m also thinking of Nassim Derdouri and the late Étienne Gabrysz-Forget, whom I mentioned before. Thank you to Natasha Entwistle, Véronique Valenti, Alexis Fafard, Eline Hu and all those who worked in the Government Representative Office.

Special thanks go to Amélie Crosson and Marty McKendry, who were always available to advise me. A very special thank-you to the kind and clever Julie Labelle-Morissette, with whom I had the pleasure of working and who supported me for six years. I also want to thank Ermioni Tomaras, an experienced lawyer who was very good about supporting me at the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament and helping me draft Bill S-244 and move it forward. I also want to thank Jeremy Soucy and Alexandre Mattard-Michaud. I worked with them for only a few months, but I have fond memories of them.

My time in the Senate would not have been the same without the constant support of an outstanding labour economist and friend I’ve worked with many times over the course of my life. I’m referring to Michel Cournoyer, who supported me throughout my journey as a senator and well before that, back when I was a senior civil servant in the Quebec government.

Before I get into my personal thanks, I would like to thank Anne Allard, who has been working in my office for almost two years. Without her, the final years of my career here in the Senate would have been chaotic. I would like to thank her for her dedication, for always being there for me, and for being such a wonderful person.

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge absent friends. One is Lise Poulin-Simon, my soulmate. We wrote several books together, and she died far too soon. The other is Professor Jack Weldon. In my mind, they both support my bold ideas and great ambitions to this day.

I would also like to thank all the colleagues who know how to listen and all those with whom I have had important conversations over the years. You know who you are. In particular, I would like to thank all the members of the Progressive Senate Group for their warmth and friendship. Dear friends, I love you.

Last, but not least, my family and friends. Special thanks to my husband, Victor Altmejd, an immigrant who came to Canada in 1969 as a Polish Jewish refugee, the love of my life and the father of my two children, Simon and Bliss, whom I adore and who keep me young at heart.

Victor came into my life as I was turning forty—so let that reassure anyone who considers herself an “old spinster.” He came complete with two lovely and wonderful teenagers, David and Sarah, whom I love as if they were my own children. He gave me the chance to have a bigger family than I expected and grandchildren. I am grateful to him for offering me the chance to experience motherhood, for his unfailing encouragement in everything I did, and for the ambition he had for me. I would not be here without him. Thank you, Victor, and thank you Bliss, Simon, Sarah, David and grandchildren Arielle, Élie, Isaac and Hannah, who are all here. I have every intention of sharing some good times with each of you more often. I also want to thank my brother and sister-in-law, my sisters and my parents, who are no longer with us, for all they did for me. Lastly, I thank all my friends for having kept in touch with me during these 12 years, when I had less time to spare. We’ve got some catching up to do.

I loved my life in the Senate. Colleagues, I’m going to miss you. I’ll keep up with your news from a distance. So I will not say goodbye, but see you next time, and who knows, we may meet again one day for another adventure! Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.