Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I rise today in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I have the honour of being the first of my colleagues to do so, but I am sure I will not be the last.

I want to start by acknowledging that we are here today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. As the Governor General said in the introduction of her speech, which historically are her own words, this acknowledgement is not just a symbolic declaration. In making this declaration, I want to note an important fact about our true history that was not taught to my generation, namely that in many cases, our ancestors appropriated land belonging to those who were here long before us.

I hope that, as suggested by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, then chaired by the Honourable Justice Murray Sinclair, this omission is now being addressed in every province and territory. Indeed, without a proper understanding of our country’s colonialist and assimilative past, we cannot build a viable path to reconciliation.

[English]

That said, I would now like to address the other part of the speech: the one written by the government. It is called Building a Resilient Economy: A Cleaner & Healthier Future for Our Kids.

In addition to reconciliation, the government indicated that it will focus on our collective health and well-being as we face the numerous aftermaths of the pandemic and the need to rebuild an economy that works for everyone. The government said that its priorities include plans on housing and child care. Like most of you, I agree with these plans.

The government is also committing to respond to the climate crisis that the world is facing. As stated in the speech, our earth is in danger, with some regions — particularly the North of Canada — even more exposed.

This situation calls for significant and transformative measures to our economy and even to our way of life, possibly requiring legislative support. For example, it remains to be seen how the government will achieve its goal of capping and significantly reducing oil and gas sector emissions. The climate crisis, as the government acknowledged in the speech, also requires stronger actions to prevent and prepare for floods, wildfires, droughts, coastline erosion and other extreme weather worsened by climate change.

[Translation]

Like many Quebecers, on the recommendation of a good friend I recently explored the wonderful Magdalen Islands. Unfortunately, that ecosystem is fragile. The rising water temperatures in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are causing a loss of winter sea ice, while the rising sea level is eroding the islands. I look forward to seeing meaningful proposals put forward by the federal government, in collaboration with the Government of Quebec and the Magdalen Islands residents, to save this treasure in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

[English]

The government also indicated its willingness to stand up for diversity and inclusion by investing in the empowerment of Black people, Indigenous peoples and other racialized Canadians by fighting harmful content online and by strengthening French outside and inside Quebec. These are all measures that the Senate should support while reviewing carefully.

I was also happy to hear that the government will address gun violence, which is on the rise in many of our biggest cities, including my home city of Montreal. The government’s commitment to the mandatory buyback of banned assault-style weapons is good news. However, easy access to handguns by members of street gangs — essentially young men — has resulted in increased casualties and injuries, including to young people with no connection to gangs.

I agree that the best way to deal with this problem is investing in prevention and supporting the work of law enforcement. I salute the plan, recently released by the Quebec government, to allocate $52 million for this purpose. However, other policies must include measures to further restrain access, such as more resources dedicated to preventing illegal imports of handguns into Canada and to the use of straw buyers within Canada.

(1610)

Our collective response to gun violence also requires strengthening handgun legislation as has been said repeatedly by various groups, including Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, Danforth Families for Safe Communities and PolySeSouvient. Unfortunately, the government has been rather timid so far on this issue.

[Translation]

Before the last general election, the government introduced a bill that would have allowed Canadian municipalities to ban handguns in their jurisdictions. The mayors of the largest cities in Quebec, the Fédération québécoise des municipalitiés, the mayor of Toronto and the mayors of several other major Canadian cities all spoke out against this problematic approach and the challenges it would create.

Since it came to power, the government has been floating the possibility of having the provinces ban handguns in their respective jurisdictions. This new approach, like the original one, seems motivated by the federal government’s desire to avoid assuming direct responsibility and leave it up to provincial governments to decide whether to ban handguns.

Esteemed colleagues, how can we, on the one hand, recognize that illegal importation from the United States is one of the main reasons behind the increase in handguns on the streets of our major cities, in spite of border controls, yet, on the other hand, opt for provincial bans, when provincial governments generally don’t control access to their provinces?

[English]

In other words, the government is contemplating implementing the U.S. approach to handgun control in Canada, which is a proven recipe for an ineffective, patchwork solution. I urge the government to assume its responsibilities and enact an effective handgun ban applicable all across Canada.

Finally, it is notable that the speech says nothing about the ongoing transformation of the Senate. This is despite the fact that we are now the sole upper house in the Westminster model made essentially of groups unaffiliated to political parties, where individual independence is the central principle for selecting and appointing senators. This reform requires amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act beyond additional paid leadership positions. For this, we may have to wait for bolder government initiatives.

Senate reform also requires changes to our Rules, an area where we have full authority to ensure greater transparency, equality and independence. In this task, our Rules Committee should not hesitate to take the time to consider the 12 reports of our now-dissolved Modernization Committee, as well as ideas raised by senators in the Forty-third Parliament and reports from other legislatures where there is an upper house made of more than two recognized groups.

In the French Senate, where there are 348 indirectly elected senators, there are eight recognized groups. In the House of Lords, where we currently have 783 life and hereditary peers, there are six groups with 25 or more members, including 192 cross-benchers, a group not affiliated with any political party. Interestingly, like our Senate, both places are looking at ways to be more relevant to the democratic governance of their country.

Through incremental changes, we are reforming the Senate to better complement the House of Commons and more effectively improve laws for Canadians thanks to our increasing independence from partisan politics. As a result of these internal reforms, senators now have the choice of four recognized groups, along with the options of non-affiliation or of starting a new group. Senators are exercising greater mobility, evident on many occasions since 2019, especially with the creation of the Canadian Senators Group and the rebirth of the Progressive Senate Group, now largely modelled on the cross-benchers group in the U.K. House of Lords. In addition, we have elected our Speaker pro tempore by secret ballot rather than, as we did previously, allocating the position by negotiation.

Logically, the next step in modernization should be the election of the chair and deputy chair of most committees by secret ballot, possibly in a manner consistent with the distribution of these positions by group. Greater democratization of this process will further establish these roles as positions of trust conferred by other senators. For example, we could look at the House of Lords model where some chairs of committees are elected by the whole house. As stated in the 2009 report of the House of Commons Reform Committee in the United Kingdom, the time has come to reduce the influence of leaderships and to democratize the process of committee appointments and house governance.

In our own House of Commons, rule changes have been made over the years to increase the ability of members to debate and vote on private members’ bills. The influence of party leaders has been reduced by more free votes. Furthermore, a new division was added to the Parliament of Canada Act in 2015. The Honourable Michael Chong’s Reform Act granted members of a recognized caucus in the House of Commons the power to recall and replace their leader and caucus chair by secret ballot, as well as the power to expel or readmit an MP from caucus by secret ballot. Then Prime Minister Harper supported these changes. As Mr. Chong said at the time, the Reform Act was “. . . a once-in-a-generation opportunity for MPs to reclaim their influence in caucus and, by extension, Parliament.”

No doubt, colleagues, these changes are reflective of the desire of Canadians and citizens in other democratic countries to have a new style of governance — less like a pyramid — where backbenchers have rights. Of course, political parties remain focused on winning seats and forming government, and this purpose calls for a well-organized structure and a considerable degree of discipline.

However, as senators, we sit in a chamber where members serve until 75 years of age and where direct partisan influence is limited to one group. In this framework, we should not hesitate to embrace maximum independence for each of us to discharge our constitutional function as the chamber of sober second thought.

[Translation]

In conclusion, esteemed colleagues, in 2022 we will be facing the interesting challenge of redefining this chamber.

I hope that we will all keep the objective of a more independent Senate in mind as we do this exciting work, while also acknowledging the Senate’s role as a complement to the House of Commons. We are not here to usurp the instrumental role of the chamber of elected members. We are here to provide value added to parliamentary business as the chamber of sober second thought.

I wish all senators a happy holiday season and I look forward to working with you on these reforms in the new year.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Gagné, debate adjourned.)

(1620)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cormier, for the second reading of Bill S-211, An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff.