Senator Arnot: I am no longer a “new” senator, having been here for two years. This timing may be explained partially as being consistent with my path — as a lawyer, judge, treaty commissioner and human rights commissioner — that I prefer to take the necessary time to have a full understanding of the facts, to weigh them carefully and to proceed with offering a judgment or decision.

Colleagues, I can say that, even with two years of tenure, I can only offer a preliminary commentary — a pre-sentence report, if you will. This commentary is shaped deeply by what I have learned from you, my colleagues, and from many other wise, articulate and passionate Canadians who have helped shape my world view. These were sometimes family, friends and parliamentarians, and sometimes teachers, educators and elders.

One specific thing I learned from elders is that, in making introductions, it is helpful to tell people about where you were born, your family, where you grew up and to give others a sense of your connections.

The biggest claim to fame I have likely comes from the fact that my grandfather played football for the Saskatchewan Roughriders for a decade, between 1919 and 1929. He played in three Grey Cup games.

In 1984, he was, at that time, the oldest living former Saskatchewan Roughrider and was interviewed by the Regina Leader-Post newspaper. He was asked what he regretted about the modern game compared to the rules he had played under. His answer was “the invention of the forward pass.” That rule allows a player to throw the ball from behind the line of scrimmage to a teammate downfield. The purpose is to accelerate the chance of a touchdown. It is, if you will, a shortcut to success.

While I have admiration for the Canadian Football League and certainly the Saskatchewan Roughriders, I sought success in the field of law. In 1972, my mother was proudly bragging to my grandmother that I had been accepted into law school. My grandmother, however, was not impressed, not at all. In fact, she was very upset. She had grave concerns — not because I might become a lawyer but because I might become a politician.

Nearly 50 years later, in July 2021, her worst fears were realized with the call from the Prime Minister when I was given the honour to join the Senate of Canada.

While I will never know for sure, I believe any worries she had about me being involved in politics would be allayed by the company I keep with you, honourable senators — people who represent regions, provinces, territories, communities, citizens and, importantly, minority groups — people entrusted with the oversight of many of the most important decisions to be made in our country — decisions to be made for Canadians by bringing our collective experience to bear and learning from one another.

Years ago, a colleague in the judiciary challenged me to better understand Indigenous peoples and communities. He asked me to attend a sweat lodge ceremony near what was then called Hobbema, Alberta. It was the first sweat lodge I ever attended. The elder looked at me and said, “I always save the hottest rocks for judges,” and I believed that.

At the end I asked the elder to help me make an outreach to the First Nations people in the Battlefords area. He wrote a name and a phone number on the back of a matchbook cover and he told me to call that person when I got home. I eventually made that telephone call about a week later, after working up the courage to pick up the phone. When a man at the other end answered, I told him, “Hi, I’m the local judge. I would like to speak to you about what’s happening in the justice system.” He said, “Oh, I know who you are. We have been waiting for your call for over 100 years.” He meant it.

That call was a catalyst for me. It changed the trajectory of my career and my life, and I felt compelled to work with Indigenous leaders, communities and people.

In doing that work, I was fortunate to learn two important things: First, there is more than one way to view the world, and Indigenous people had a world view that I needed to understand; second, I realized that my education was wholly incomplete. Education through a formal system, through oral history and through lived experience is essential.

I suspect those of you who have heard me speak about the power of education, treaty rights, Indigenous rights, human rights and citizenship wonder why this is a focus and passion for me. In part, it is a response to the intersection of two world views: politics and the life and history of my great-grandfather, J.K. McInnis. He was a politician, educator, a real estate developer and a journalist. He owned the Regina Standard daily newspaper. He was the twelfth mayor of the City of Regina and a city councillor for many years.

He ran in the 1896 federal election in Assiniboia West constituency. The result was a dead-heat tie between him and his opponent. The returning officer, as was the practice, broke the tie by casting his vote in favour of the incumbent, Nicholas Flood Davin, a lawyer from Ireland who owned a rival newspaper, the Regina Leader. Davin later became one of the key architects of the Indian residential school system, a system that prioritized assimilation over integration, the priorities of one world view over another, a disregard for the cultural mosaic that distinguishes Canada on the global stage today.

Indeed, it has been said that Canada is the most successful experiment in pluralism the world has ever seen. However, the success of Canada’s pluralistic, multi-ethnic, multitheistic and multicultural country and society is fragile. That fragility is directly related to the knowledge, understanding and commitment Canadians have for our democracy, our democratic institutions and the need for a sustained and active commitment to inherent responsibilities of citizenship.

I was and remain humbled and honoured to have been summoned to support democracy and the rights of Canadians. I am acutely aware of the tremendous responsibility and commitment to my fellow Canadian citizens and to you, my fellow senators. I embraced the challenge to be part of a new ethos in the Senate: to be non-partisan and independent, free to make decisions based on what I consider to be in the best interests of Canada, without an agenda, but rather to vote according to my experience and conscience.

As a judge, I was afforded judicial independence, a robust and essential tool defined as a core tenet of our justice system in maintaining the rule of law. I am an unwavering advocate for that independence. The 20th century was, and the 21st century is rife with examples of what happens when the rule of law and judicial independence are tampered with or even eliminated: We have social upheavals, economic chaos, wars and millions of human lives lost.

The world’s response to the Holocaust is embodied in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That was the first time in history that the rights of every individual human being were recognized. That was only 75 short years ago. That document is the foundation for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the various human rights codes in Canada and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I’m proud to say that the first human rights act in North America was the 1947 Saskatchewan Bill of Rights, created by Morris Shumiatcher and Tommy Douglas.

Human rights, treaty rights and Indigenous rights, just like the rule of law and judicial independence, are not and must never be measures of compromise. Our ability as senators to act independently from government, to be the chamber of sober second thought, is not a measure of compromise.

The rights of Canadians as citizens and as human beings remain strong because of strong institutions. Strong institutions require people of integrity who do not waver in fairness, justice and truth. Those are not measures of compromise.

Neutrality is sometimes included in that list of qualities. It is essential to the role of the judiciary and core to our work as senators when we hear from witnesses, balance their testimony and determine what to report.

However, there is a caveat. I believe that we as senators must not compromise on our responsibility to uphold the rights of minority groups. The Senate must not succumb to the tyranny of the majority. This means we have a bias in upholding the Constitution, Charter rights and human rights. It is a bias in upholding the rule of law and our commitment to truth and justice. It is in our calling to the Senate to always, without fail and with the biases required of our positions hold the government of the day accountable and improve every piece of legislation we are required to assess, and thereby make our democratic institutions stronger.

There is an old concept in common law that I believe applies to our work. We must act in accordance with the honour of the Crown. I have written and spoken about the honour of the Crown to many audiences, students, academics, lawyers, judges, chiefs, elders and policy-makers. The honour of the Crown is a principle and a convention that requires, in every action and decision, the women and men who represent the Crown in Canada to conduct themselves as if their personal honour and family name depended on it.

To be clear, I’m speaking about the people in the legislative and executive branches of government, because they are responsible for the actions of the Crown. I know that some consider the honour of the Crown to be a remnant of a time long past, an anachronism to be ignored. Colleagues, I don’t share that view. The principles of the honour of the Crown demand that senators and Canadians operating in a mature, democratic society act with principle from the highest moral standard. Perhaps most of all, it is imperative that our words and actions are honourable in the way that my grandmother would approve. While I might disagree with my grandfather about the merits of the forward pass, I know there is no quick forward pass in our work. There can be no shortcut to success that abrogates our responsibility to the next generation.

Thinking about the future, I recall the words of Chief Mistawasis during Treaty 6 negotiations at Fort Carlton in 1876, just a few kilometres north of present-day Saskatoon. He was a head chief. He really understood the power of education. He spoke about it and advocated for it. These are his words, which reflect his world view. He said:

What we speak of and do now will last as long as the sun shines and the river runs, we are looking forward to our children’s children . . . .

Colleagues, protecting our democracy requires constant vigilance. I am proud to stand with you, my Senate colleagues, as we work to strengthen the future of our country and to make Canada a better place for our children’s children. Thank you. Kinanâskomitinâwâw.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, first of all, I would like to congratulate Senator Arnot on his maiden speech in the chamber on the Speech from the Throne. I’m sure he will make a great contribution to this institution with all his knowledge and background.

I would like to also, though, participate in giving my thoughts on the Speech from the Throne, which is an important tool for parliamentarians. It is the Speech from the Throne that outlines the direction, the strategy and the objective of the Crown — of the government — and where they want to take government. And, of course, it’s our responsibility to review that document thoroughly, and for many of us who care about holding the government to account, to express their views.

So I think if we look at the Speech from the Throne and this particular Parliament, we have a government that has failed on all accounts. I think the reality of the matter is that, as parliamentarians, we have an obligation to highlight them and call upon them to do better. If we look at their commitment to fiscal responsibility, they’ve actually failed on a number of Speeches from the Throne, starting from the first one they delivered back in 2015, where they promised a balanced budget by the end of their first mandate. Of course, now, after three Speeches from the Throne, this current one has thrown out the door any fiscal responsibility whatsoever. I guess, in a way, they are actually consistent in that promise.

They also said in the Speech from the Throne that the world needs more Canada. Of course, colleagues, if we do a thorough review of our foreign policy standing — it doesn’t matter if it’s our operations in Afghanistan or the way we’re dealing with the IRGC — there has probably never before been less Canada on the global stage than there is currently. If we look at our peacekeeping and defence capabilities, we don’t have the capacity that this once-great country did on the world scene.

Of course, it’s compelling on our part to hold the government to account. We have committees here, we do studies and, more importantly, we vote on government legislation, which is rooted in the Speech from the Throne. When we see that the executive is not consistent with their objectives and don’t actually realize their goals, we have an obligation, I think, to call it out and even vote against it.

I want to get to a particular point. I don’t want to take up a lot of time because I realize you all know my views on this particular government and how successful they’ve become. We know the series of failures, and it’s indicated in the plummeting polls right now. We see how Canadians feel about this government. However, there are two cornerstones of the Speech from the Throne. We have now seen how this government is going forward, and one commitment they kept from the Speech from the Throne is putting in place a carbon tax, which they claim would clear up all the pollution in the environment and would actually be the catalyst to making Canada a world leader in dealing with pollution and making us the leaders when it comes to environmental climate change and challenges.

Of course, simultaneously, another achievement of this carbon tax is it has pummelled middle-class Canadians across the country, coast to coast to coast. Senator Carignan brought up some statistics of the number of Canadians lining up at food banks. We’ve never seen that before. In large part, it is due to the carbon tax.

We in the opposition, those of us who are partisan and actually disagree with this public policy and engage in debate, think it doesn’t fulfill any environmental goals whatsoever. It just makes Canadians poorer and poorer while driving up inflation.

Lo and behold, here is another Speech from the Throne promise that just went out the door a few minutes ago. Prime Minister Trudeau decided to go to Atlantic Canada and announced a few minutes ago — many of you might not know this; you might be hearing this for the first time — that he’s putting a pause on the carbon tax for home heating. Congratulations, Senator Gold. After months and months of us asking the question and giving sound advice, finally someone over at the PMO has heeded that advice. Congratulations.

I’m not too disturbed about breaking that promise in the Speech from the Throne. I think it’s a good start. I don’t think it goes anywhere near far enough because our agricultural sector is still being pummelled by a carbon tax that is being reflected every single time we walk into a grocery store and fill up a cart of food. The middle class and poor Canadians working hard trying to make it to that middle class — that is a line from your own Speech from the Throne — will never achieve that goal if we continue to pummel them in the spirit of trying to save the environment.

I will say this, colleagues: We should debate this thoroughly. I think we have an obligation to debate the carbon tax thoroughly.

My question is the following: Senator Galvez, is this decision today an admission that the government has failed on all fronts when it comes to combatting climate change and they’re taking a step back? Or is it an admission that this is a bad economic strategy and that taxing Canadians in the spirit of saving the environment will only create more poor Canadians and drive middle-class Canadians to the poorhouse? It’s either one or the other.

Senator Plett: It could be both.