THE COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Friday, May 1, 2020
The Committee of Selection met this day at 10:30 a.m. to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Yuen Pau Woo (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Before we move to our agenda, I want to make a few announcements for your assurance. I want to let you know that the earpieces have been sanitized. They can be plugged into your mics under the table. I remind all of us to respect physical distancing guidelines and to maintain the distances that have been requested of us.
With that, I would like to move to Item 1 of our agenda, which is the nomination of the Speaker pro tempore. I will ask Shaila —
Senator Plett: Point of order, please. I would like to raise a point of order, if I could. I would like to submit that this meeting has not been correctly called, as per the Rules and conventions of the Senate, for three reasons.
Number 1, committee sits during the adjournment of the Senate. Rule 12-18(2) of the Rules of the Senate provide that:
Except as otherwise provided, a Senate committee may meet when the Senate is adjourned:
(a) for more than a day but less than a week, provided that notice was given to the members of the committee one day before the Senate adjourned; or
(b) for more than a week, provided that the meeting was either:
(i) by order of the Senate, or
(ii) with the signed consent of the Leaders of the Government and Opposition, or their designates, in response to a written request from the chair and the deputy chair.
At the present moment, the Senate still stands adjourned. The Speaker sent a notice recalling the Senate for noon today. I stress that I, the Leader of the Opposition, never gave consent to this meeting. In fact, I never received a notice from the chair and deputy chair, as mentioned in the Rules.
There is a convention that a committee may sit on the morning of the day the Senate reconvenes after an adjournment, but I submit that this convention only applies when the date on which the Senate is due to meet is known well in advance.
For example, we know that the Senate is adjourned until June 2. So it would be fair to expect that a committee could meet the morning of June 2, as they would on any other Tuesday. If we come back for a Tuesday sitting, we know the week before that we are back on Tuesday. Senators are then able to plan, in advance, their trip to Ottawa.
For today’s sitting, the notice from the Speaker was sent less than 48 hours ago. This notice cannot be considered as sufficient to allow all senators to plan their travel.
It was also public knowledge that Parliament would sit to study Bill C-15 and that this would not be a regular sitting of the Senate. No one could have anticipated that a committee would sit this morning, before Senator Woo decided otherwise.
Second, the absence of consent and inability to attend of the deputy chair. Senator Stewart Olsen is the deputy chair of this committee. When she was informed of Senator Woo’s unilateral decision to call this meeting, she protested. There is no urgency to have this meeting, and she said so. The fact that the chair went ahead with the meeting without the deputy chair’s consent shows that this, in my opinion, is a partisan move.
In all my years in the Senate — and it’s a little over 10 — the Selection Committee has been consensus driven. Even when we had two very partisan caucuses in the chamber, we were able to function collegially. To allow this meeting to proceed, when the deputy chair did not agree to it and cannot even be here because of travel restrictions, and the short notice, shows how dysfunctional the Senate has become.
Third, the absence of Senator Seidman. One of the committee members, Senator Seidman, did not receive notice of this meeting at all. She is clearly a member of the committee, as is shown on the website, and yet notice was not sent to her at all. That in itself should warrant that this meeting be adjourned until such time as proper notice can be given to all members of the committee.
Therefore, this meeting was not duly called within the Rules and conventions of the Senate. The meeting should be adjourned at once, and notice should be given in the proper form when the Senate returns on June 2, as per the Senate’s adjournment decision.
Finally, colleagues, I would like to point out that the notice of the meeting, sent out Wednesday, April 29, at 9:08 p.m., stated that the agenda consisted of consideration of a draft agenda and future business. It made no mention of the selection of a Speaker pro tempore nor the population of various standing committees. Now we already hear that part of the agenda is the election of the Speaker pro tempore. I expect that the committee would only do what it was convened to do, which is to consider future business. Otherwise it would not be fair for members of the committee.
Given the fact that we are currently in the midst of a pandemic, I would imagine that most senators would base their decision to attend a meeting on the basis of the notice of the meeting and the business being conducted. Future business is hardly important enough to risk your potential exposure to COVID-19. However, the selection of Speaker pro tempore and the population of committees might warrant such a trip.
In any event, I consider that any decision the committee might take today, other than discussing future business, would be against our Rules, since the notice of meeting did not refer to such debate. We have the notices in front of us.
I won’t take up much more time, but I want to quickly read through the dates of letters that were sent, the time frame.
On April 29, 2020, at 7:18 p.m., Senator Woo sent an email to Senator Stewart Olsen and Senator Downe saying, “Now that the Senate has been recalled to sit on Friday, I am following up on my previous email to call a meeting of Selection.”
At 10:30 a.m. that same day, “A notice of meeting will be sent to all members shortly.”
Senator Stewart Olsen, on April 30, at 10:07 a.m., replied, “Thank you for this notice, senator. I will not be in Ottawa for the sitting.”
She then followed that up, eight minutes later, with another email, which stated, “Further to my reply, the call of the meeting makes it extremely difficult to have a replacement for me. As you know, many of us are not living in Ottawa but are at home in our regions helping our constituents and are not able to commit to extra meetings.”
Again, that’s the deputy chair.
On April 29, at 9:08 p.m., we received the notice of meeting. I have already referred to that.
On May 1, we received an email from Brigitte Martineau that states, “I removed Senator Plett, ex officio member but not regular member, and added Senator Seidman.”
Senator Seidman was not given the notice. Thus, Senator Seidman is not here. She is not even in Ottawa. She was not given a notice. I am not a regular member of this committee. The website clearly states that. So Senator Seidman has lost her privilege of attending this meeting.
We know that 10:30 in the morning, for those people who are travelling from outside of Ottawa on short notice, as we had, makes it very difficult. There is no reason this meeting needs to be going on today. I have offered to Senator Woo in the past that, on the first day of regular sitting, we will agree for Selection to sit to populate their committees and to deal with the Speaker pro tempore. And we will give leave for a committee report dealing with the population of committees so that they can immediately be constituted and, if possible, the committees can meet on the same day we come back for regular sittings. These committees will not be constituted; they will not have any reason to be constituted because they won’t have the right to meet.
So, colleagues, this meeting is entirely out of order. If this meeting goes ahead, we will have no choice but to raise both a point of order and a question of privilege in the chamber later today. I plan on doing that. I do not want to do that, colleagues. I want us to have a good day here and not deal with an issue that has no value and that is clearly called in the wrong manner. It is not called properly. It is called without the agreement of the deputy chair. It is called without any Conservative member of the committee being able to be here this morning. I submit that this meeting should be drawn to a close at this time. With that, I yield the floor and await the decision.
The Chair: May I take comments from other members of the committee?
Senator Saint-Germain: My interpretation is different from that of the Honourable Senator Plett. I will give you some background. On April 17, 2020, the Speaker extended the adjournment of the Senate to June 2, 2020. In order to sit during an adjournment of the Senate for more than one day but less than one week, or for more than one week, the committee requires the authorization of the Senate or with a signed letter from the Leader of the Government or the Leader of the Opposition after receiving a request to meet from the committee chair and deputy chair or chairs, pursuant to Rule 12-18(2).
SELE does not have permission to sit during adjournments of the Senate. This is right.
On April 19, 2020, the Speaker recalled the Senate to sit on Friday, May 1, at noon. That is today. Friday, May 1, is therefore now a sitting day, a day on which the Senate sits or is to sit under the Rules or under any orders enforced at the particular time. This refers to Appendix I of the Rules. Furthermore, Rule 12-18(1) states:
Except as otherwise ordered by the Senate, a Senate committee may meet on days the Senate sits, but it shall not meet during a sitting of the Senate.
Senate committees, by practice, and in the absence of some other decision, meet at the call of the chair. The meeting would require public notice — notice has now been issued — interpretation, quorum — we have six — a chair to preside over the meeting — we have one — and the deputy chair does not need to be present for a meeting to take place.
So I disagree with the Honourable Senator Plett’s interpretation. I will add that in these critical times, it is important that the Senate fulfill its duty. And this committee has to do it, especially with regard to the appointment of the Speaker pro tempore, whose help and duty must be exercised between the sittings if the Speaker is not able to then attend.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
Senator Dalphond: It’s not a comment, more a question. I would like to get more information about the status of Senator Seidman. When was she appointed to this committee, and did she receive notice of the meeting?
The Chair: Senator Dalphond, is that a question for the clerk?
Senator Dalphond: I suppose; I don’t know who can answer.
The Chair: Let me take the question. Senator Seidman is a member of the committee. The requirement for notice of a committee meeting is that it is publicly posted. That, in fact, was done. The public notice of the meeting was posted at 9:08 p.m., according to Rule 12-15(1) — and that is sufficient for the meeting — on April 29, which is the same day on which the Speaker recalled us. In fact, the notice of this meeting was publicly posted within, I would say, three or four hours of the Speaker’s recall.
Public notice was on April 29, which was the same day the Speaker recalled the Senate.
I would also point out that there is no requirement for a particular time frame of notice for the meeting to take place. Indeed, a meeting can be called five minutes before it happens.
Are there any other comments?
Senator Munson: I’m a non-member of this committee. I have, under Rule 12-14, the right to speak and be part of the conversation, but I know I can’t vote.
I am here representing the interests of the non-affiliated senators. We, of course, want to make sure that we have representation on a number of the committees.
Considering the urgency of putting together a Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee and a Finance Committee to deal with the major issues of the COVID-19 pandemic and what is taking place, I would like to have an explanation for the urgency of putting names into these other committees today. What value do you see in doing it now, as opposed to the day that we come back on a regular basis? When the names are put in, particularly at that time, the committees themselves would elect chairs and deputy chairs. And then we are on with doing business with other committees.
Basically, I am asking about the rationale of the urgency to call this meeting now, as opposed to, let’s say, a month down the road or maybe the fall.
The Chair: I’ll reserve my comments for when the debate is finished and when I’m ready to make a ruling.
Senator Coyle: Colleagues and Mr. Chair, I’m replacing another member on this committee, so it’s my first time sitting at this table. I listened very carefully to what my very experienced colleague Senator Plett had to say. I know he is far more experienced in these matters than many of us. Of course, Senator Plett knows well that those of us silting at the table will have done our homework as well. We heard the result of some of that homework earlier, expressed by Senator Saint-Germain.
From everything I have heard and read in advance of this meeting, I believe that we do have a right to proceed with the two items as described. I do believe there is an urgency to appoint the Speaker pro tempore. In fact, we are very behind in that. I also see that we are behind in not having fulfilled our duties earlier in appointing the members to the committees, as was agreed some time ago. I don’t see any problem in simply formalizing an agreement, as I understand it, which had previously been made. Then when we do start again, we are ready to go. We are not going to activate them. We’re just going to have them ready to go. I see no logical reason to prevent us from proceeding with both of those items today.
Senator Boehm: I’m here as a replacement for Senator Duncan. I want to associate myself with the comments made by Senators Saint-Germain and Coyle. I would like to add that we have been looking at populating our committees for several months now. The other place is far ahead of us. In fact, the other place has just struck an agriculture committee. I take Senator Plett’s points very seriously. I do have a concern that this crisis, which is unprecedented for the planet, can have rapidly moving ramifications and there may be a need for us to strike any number of the other committees quickly. I do not know whether at a future date we would be able to strike the committees immediately or not.
There are many senators who are doing some work on their own in anticipation of their role and participation in committees. This can only be encouraged. I know many are doing it or they are meeting in their regions with their constituents. I would say giving consideration to this promptly is, in fact, a good idea. It’s also a reputational issue for the Senate. I do not think the Senate has become dysfunctional, but we need to be seen to be trying and to be looking ahead.
Senator Dalphond: I have another question, following up on what Senator Boehm said. He said it was important to populate the committees in order for them to start working as soon as possible if there was any need —
The Chair: No, he did not.
Senator Dalphond: So what’s the need then of populating the committees?
The Chair: I’m happy to address that in due course.
Senator Dalphond: My understanding of the Rules is that we need an order from the Senate in order for a committee to proceed. I don’t refer to Ethics or CIBA, but I refer specifically to other committees.
Senator Plett: I would like to address that, Senator Dalphond. And in reference to what Senator Boehm said about us possibly having to populate other committees, we all know that in a matter of minutes, we populated a Finance Committee and Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee on the floor of the Senate because we believed they needed to be populated. If there is any reason why a committee needs to be populated in a hurry, that can be done on the floor of the Senate, as we did with those committees the last time we were here. There is no reason why that has to be done by this committee, if these other committees won’t be sitting in any event, Senator Dalphond. We saw that work very well. We have a Finance Committee that has been struck and a Social Affairs Science and Technology Committee that has been struck because they are supposed to specifically deal with the issue of COVID-19.
Senator Dalphond: May I follow up on this answer? Is there a problem with the intended population of these committees? I thought there was an agreement between all the groups to populate the committees. So are you telling me there is a problem with this or no problem with that; the problem is about the timing of when we are going to populate them?
Senator Plett: Senator Dalphond, our concern is that we have members on every committee. I won’t point to any group, because there are certainly people in my own caucus and people in other caucuses who would like very much for their committee to get going and start working. Our concern with populating the committees is that there will be members of any given committee, whether it’s Foreign Affairs, Human Rights or whatever, who want to deal specifically with an issue and they will be coming forward and saying, “Well, we are populated so why can’t we constitute?”
We believe this is a slippery slope we do not need to go on because if we are not constituting them — and we agree; I’m agreeing here on record, and I offered this to Senator Woo, Senator Saint-Germain. Senator Verner is here and she heard it. I offered at our leaders’ meeting that I would be willing to sign a letter, along with all other leaders, that the day we come back for regular sittings that every committee be populated. And if we can do them all in one day, to constitute them all that day. It may not logistically be possible to do them all in one day; it may take two days. But nevertheless, we would be in agreement with doing that immediately the day we return for regular sittings.
When Senator Coyle says she doesn’t see the reason not to do it, she may be right, but I don’t see the reason to do it. I believe it’s a slippery slope we are going down when we do things that can only create an issue for us. If these committees need to work, we, the Conservatives, will agree to doing that on the Senate floor, as we did for the other two committees.
Senator Munson: For the record, because I neglected to mention it, our leader Senator Cordy could not make it, for obvious reasons, from Halifax. She is a regular member of this committee. Since we are not recognized, I can’t officially replace her. However, I want to have it on the record that Senator Cordy would have loved to have been here to participate and I neglected to mention that in my earlier intervention.
Senator Saint-Germain: This is also clarification on two points. First, I don’t see why a letter, an agreement between the leaders, would be necessary since it’s the mandate of this committee to recommend the population of the committees and the agreement is that we recommend today, but we don’t activate the committees. Certainly, a recommendation of this committee isn’t enforceable without the agreement of the Senate. That is first.
Second, I see and I want to reiterate the importance for the Senate in these critical times for having a Speaker pro tempore. So that’s my point. Mr. Chair, I would like you to answer all the comments that were made, please.
The Chair: Yes. Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: I want to know about the Speaker pro tempore. So that means that if we do the report today, we will vote in the Senate to elect the Speaker pro tempore today?
The Chair: Only if the chamber gives us leave, of course.
Senator Dalphond: The report of the Selection Committee will be filed today, and the committees will be populated if the Senate approves that report?
The Chair: If there are no more comments on the point of order —
Senator Dalphond: That is a question you can answer later on. This is my question.
The Chair: Okay. I’m not seeing any other comments on the point of order. I have had some consultations with the clerk as you were giving your very valuable input and I’m ready to offer my ruling.
Let me remind you that the point of order is a very specific one. It is on the legitimacy of calling this meeting. There were a number of other issues raised that are not, strictly speaking, apropos to that question. There were three main points raised by Senator Plett challenging the legitimacy of the meeting. The first is the operation of 12-18(2). You have already heard from some colleagues, but I agree that the operational clause is 12-18(1), which allows a committee to meet on a day which the Senate is sitting. If there is further doubt about that legitimacy, I would refer you to Appendix 1 of the Rules, which defines a sitting day as:
A day on which the Senate sits or is to sit under the Rules or under any orders in force at a particular time.
I don’t think there can be any doubt that today’s sitting falls under that definition.
The second point that was raised is that the deputy chair is not present at this meeting and therefore this meeting is illegitimate. There is no rule to that effect, and therefore that is an invalid argument, as much as we miss the presence of Senator Stewart Olsen.
On the third point about notification to one member of this committee, I would say, first of all, that the notice of attendance was circulated to all members. And strictly speaking, the requirement for a meeting to take place is the public notice of the meeting. That public notice, as I mentioned before, was given on April 29, and that is sufficient for the meeting to go ahead.
Now, colleagues, there were some other questions around urgency and necessity and so on. They are not germane to the point of order. I would simply say that the work of the Selection Committee in confirming memberships of committees is integral to the work of the Senate. It is, in fact, required in our Rules that Selection meets within a few days of Parliament having reconvened, and we know Parliament reconvened four months ago and we still haven’t done the work of constituting our committees.
I would further remind everyone that what we are about to do today is in no way an unanticipated action because it simply implements the deal that was negotiated, agreed on and signed off by the leaders of all the recognized groups and which we adopted and validated through a motion already adopted in the Senate. The question, colleagues, is not why we are holding this meeting; the question is why we haven’t had this meeting earlier.
So with that, I rule the point of order out of order and proceed to agenda Item No. 1.
Senator Plett: Chair, I would like to challenge that ruling with a recorded vote.
The Chair: You have that right. I will take a vote on this question. The question is whether the ruling of the chair be sustained, which means that if you vote “yes,” you support the ruling of the chair. If you vote “no,” you don’t.
I would point out that all of you around the table are eligible voting members, except for Senator Munson. I will ask the clerk to do a roll call to record your vote. Again, the question is: Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Boehm?
Senator Boehm: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Coyle?
Senator Coyle: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: Yes, based on your explanations.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Verner, P.C.?
Senator Verner: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Anwar: Yeas, 6; nays, 1; abstentions, 0.
The Chair: The ruling of the chair is sustained. Let’s move on to agenda Item No. 1, which is the nomination of the Speaker pro tempore. The report is now being shared with all of you around the table.
While it is being circulated, I would draw your attention to the obvious. You will see in the report that Senator Ringuette is the nominee for Speaker pro tempore. The intention is to ask for leave to adopt this report in the chamber today. If leave is given, we will vote on it, of course. And if it’s agreed, then she will be the Speaker pro tempore. That, by the way, will allow her to chair the Committee of the Whole in that official capacity, as opposed to the unofficial role she has played in the previous two sittings.
Colleagues, I’ll give you a few more seconds to look over the very brief report, but I’m about to call the question.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you, chair. That report, of course, is very short. However, do I understand — because I’m standing in for somebody else today, so I wasn’t part of previous meetings — that this recommendation that the Speaker pro tempore be the Honourable Senator Ringuette has received agreement from all the groups present at the Selection Committee?
The Chair: This is the vote we are about to take now, and it is the decision of this committee to accept or not to accept this report.
Senator Dalphond: I would like to put on the record that I think the Speaker pro tempore should be elected by all the senators. So for me, it’s important that this option reflects the consensus among all senators. This is an important position of trust, and the trust must be derived from the fact that we have large support among all the groups.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dalphond. In fact, there will be a vote, if required. There could be a vote in the chamber, which in effect does what you are seeking; it will require all of the chamber to approve this report rather than just this committee.
What we are doing now, colleagues, is recommending that Senator Ringuette be the Speaker pro tempore. Let me ask now if it is agreed the first report of the Selection Committee be adopted. All in favour? Those against? Report adopted.
Let me now ask if it is agreed that this report be presented in the Senate today. All in favour, say “yea.” Nays? None. Adopted.
Let’s move to the second report, which will be circulated by our clerk. I apologize that it’s a bit cumbersome; we don’t have any pages, as you know, for obvious reasons, and the process is a little more cumbersome. Thank you to Shaila for doing triple duty. Multitasking indeed.
Colleagues, I have already said this, but the report before you simply identically mirrors the agreement that was reached six weeks to two months ago, which has been confirmed by written agreement and signed off by the leaders of all the recognized groups, and which has also been validated by a motion in the Senate and adopted by the Senate unanimously.
I will give you a minute or two, or more if you like, to look over the report, but there are no surprises in it, and it in no way violates any trust or agreement that was previously reached by the leaders.
Senator Coyle: Just for information, is there a reason we don’t have the names of the Conservative members of these committees?
The Chair: Yes, because the Conservative leader and whip have not provided us with names, but I can assure you the wording in the report fully protects their ability and right to name whomsoever they want as per the agreement signed by the leaders.
Senator Munson: In my first look at it, the names are there, except there is one glaring omission. I’m here, as I’ve said before, to represent the non-affiliated senators in their positions on a number of these committees. I notice that, unless I’m reading this wrong, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples has excluded — it’s on my list — Senator Lovelace Nicholas. I see the other two names, Senator LaBoucane-Benson and Senator Dyck.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Munson. There is a very simple explanation, and it’s the one I gave to Senator Coyle.
As you know, non-affiliated senators derive their seats via the recognized groups. The ISG offered a seat to Senator Lillian Dyck and she accepted, which is why her name is on the list as a member of APPA. My understanding is that the Conservatives have offered a seat to Senator Lovelace Nicholas, but Senator Plett has not provided that name. I suggest you take it up with him.
Senator Munson: Before you move on, I will check into that. I hope that is the case. But here I have, this morning, after we have met, her name. She is in front of me and is an extremely important representative of the Indigenous community in this country, and I’d hate to walk away from here not having her name on this list.
I can bring this up with Senator Plett, but I was under the impression that her name is on my list, and I wanted to make sure of that. That’s extremely important.
The Chair: I think we all agree about the importance of the role that Senator Lovelace Nicholas can play on that committee and, indeed, in the Senate as a whole. I suggest you speak to Senator Plett and have Senator Cordy confirm the information I have shared with you.
Senator Munson: So there will be an opportunity for her to still get onto this list before this committee ever constitutes itself or sits as a regular committee? In terms of leadership meetings, I had assumed in these meetings this was agreed to by all the leaders. This is a glaring omission. To be frank, it’s kind of upsetting not to see her name there.
The Chair: I can see why it’s very upsetting that a commitment made by one of the recognized groups to offer a seat to non-affiliated was not followed through. I wish this committee could do something about it, but it cannot.
I do take your points. I suggest that, again, you raise it, first of all, with your leader, who would have been involved directly in the discussions around receiving seats from the Conservative caucus, but those seats that the Conservatives were designated are protected in the report. At this stage, I will not get into the way in which they then assign members or others because it’s not within my power.
Senator Munson: It’s a similar situation with the joint committee in the Library of Parliament where I think that Senator Mercer is awaiting confirmation on this. Would this also come from the official opposition? Is that the case?
The Chair: I believe so. Those would have been private discussions between Senator Cordy and Senator Plett.
Senator Dalphond: First, I would like to maybe correct a lapsus that you made. You said this has been agreed by all the leaders of the groups.
The Chair: Recognized groups.
Senator Dalphond: I’m part of a group where we don’t have a leader. I don’t appreciate being told we have a leader because I was not aware of it. The whole constitution of my group is based on the fact that we are all independent and we have facilitators. We don’t have a leader, contrary to the other groups. I read from time to time in the papers that we have a leader, so it’s something I would like to point out as a question of privilege for myself that I don’t feel comfortable with this etiquette.
The second point I want to make, and I said it in my previous speech in the Senate, is that I believe all senators are equal and have the same rights, duties and privileges. I’m happy to see that this list of 12 committees, which is adding to another two committees we have set up previously, has made room for non-affiliated senators. For me, this is an important point. I want to say that I will be supporting this report because I think we have accommodated all the groups and all the non-affiliated senators.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I want to point out an error in the report.
[English]
There is a mistake. I’m not a member of the Official Languages Committee. In fact, CSG has no members on that committee. If someone within non-affiliated would like to get that seat, I’m very open to that.
The Chair: Senator Verner, I don’t doubt your genuine belief that you are not a member, but the list provided by your group had your name on that committee. But I wouldn’t worry about it in the sense that your whip, you and the leadership of the CSG can appoint somebody else to attend those meetings, another CSG member, and if needed you could offer it also —
Ms. Anwar: It would have to be done either by a decision today by Selection —
The Chair: The simplest option, if I may suggest, is that if you are willing to leave your name on the committee, the whip of the CSG is able to substitute with another member. Would that be acceptable?
Senator Verner: Not really. I just want to understand why we could not remove that name right now. There is, of course, a mistake. I don’t know who provides you the list.
The Chair: Would you like us to say that it’s named by somebody, the whip of the CSG? Would you like us to use that wording instead of your name? It amounts to the same thing.
Ms. Anwar: Unless they want to give the seat to non-affiliated senators.
The Chair: Senator Munson, do you think one of the non-affiliated senators might be interested in a seat on Official Languages?
Senator Munson: Absolutely.
The Chair: Okay, it’s done. Can you name the person?
Senator Munson: I’m not the leader. I’m just a voice here today. I could have a discussion with other non-affiliated senators, not necessarily part of our progressive group. We could have that discussion. We would be more than willing to —
Senator Verner: If we don’t adopt that report in front of us as is, someone could say it is not what we agreed on. Is it what we are talking about right now? Is it the issue right now?
The Chair: I don’t think so. The seat was given to CSG. That is very clear. In the agreement of the leaders, that one spot clearly belongs to the CSG. What you do with it, of course, is an internal decision. We have received from your name from your staff. We can leave it there, and you can choose to substitute.
Senator Verner: Okay. Could we just write, as the Conservatives wrote their list, just set a blank?
The Chair: We would say up to the CSG whip to designate.
[Translation]
Ms. Anwar: It will be something along the lines of a senator appointed by the leader of the CSG. If you want to give that seat to an non-affiliated member, there will need to be a selection report or a motion in the Senate. However, if it’s agreed, it can be done.
[English]
Senator Verner: For today?
[Translation]
Ms. Anwar: For today, if you’re appointed, your whip can swap the seat with another member of the CSG afterwards. There’s no issue.
Senator Verner: So we could proceed as we’ve done with other committees and offer the seat to a non-affiliated member.
Ms. Anwar: Yes.
Senator Verner: We’ll do so. However, I don’t want my name included in the report.
Ms. Anwar: Okay.
[English]
The Chair: I think it’s agreeable to everyone. Seeing no opposition to it, that’s what we will do. We will vote on the report very shortly.
Senator Saint-Germain: This is with regard to a clarification for Senator Dalphond.
[Translation]
First, “facilitator” is the title that we use. You’re right. In the media, or even in the internal jargon of the Senate, we often talk about leaders, and this includes us.
I want to reassure you on two counts. There was indeed an agreement among all the representatives of the groups. This agreement was the subject of a sessional order and was approved in the Senate during its last regular sitting, as opposed to during the special sittings that took place. At the first meeting of this new committee in the current Parliament, it was agreed that, at the next sitting, the names of the committees would be provided. At that time, the groups weren’t ready, including the Independent Senators Group.
Regarding the Independent Senators Group—I don’t think that you’re referring to this, Senator Dalphond—after consulting with the members to obtain their choices, we shared the final result with all our members, including the number of seats allocated to each group at the time of the agreement. I wanted to clarify this. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Munson: I just want to make sure, because I’ve just been informed and I want Senator Lovelace Nicholas — who is probably listening to this by audio — to know that she has not been forgotten by any means whatsoever, that her name will be put at a later date. My understanding is that it can happen at a later date, in September or June or whatever the date, with a Conservative position on that committee. And I understand that has been agreed to, that it is a Conservative position. I just want to rest assured that she will be on this committee, maybe not today but tomorrow.
The Chair: Colleagues, the only way to assure that is to put her name in right now. But we will be doing it behind the backs of the Conservatives, if I can put it that way.
Senator Munson: I don’t want to do that.
The Chair: I don’t want to do that.
Senator Munson: I’ve been assured by reliable sources that other senators can be added to these committees by Selection later or by a motion in the Senate.
The Chair: That’s exactly right.
Senator Munson: I have great respect and trust for every senator, and I know these negotiations were very delicate and fair in the sense of giving non-affiliated senators positions. It is a Conservative position. I notice the Conservatives have not put their names in for any of these positions for now. Obviously, these will all be filled in due time before any committee ever sits. I appreciate that. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Munson. Seeing no other comments or discussion on the second report, I would like to ask if it is agreed that the second report as amended — the amendment being Senator Verner’s question — be adopted now as amended. All in favour say, “yea.” Those opposed, “nay.” None opposed. The report is adopted.
Second, colleagues, is it agreed that the report be presented in the Senate today? All agreed? None opposed. So moved.
Colleagues, is there any other business that we need to attend to? If not, I call the adjournment of this committee and look forward to seeing you in the chamber in about 40 minutes.
(The committee adjourned.)