THE COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 1, 2021
The Committee of Selection met with videoconference this day at 4:30 p.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-13 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair.
[Translation]
I am ready to entertain a motion to that effect.
Senator Saint-Germain: Madam Clerk, it is my pleasure to nominate Senator Michael MacDonald as chair of the committee.
[English]
Ms. Anwar: Are there any other nominations?
[Translation]
Honourable Senator St-Germain moves that the Honourable Senator MacDonald do take the chair of this committee.
[English]
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
I declare the motion carried and I invite Senator MacDonald to take the chair.
Senator Michael MacDonald ( Chair ) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you all for your unanimous support. As chair of the Selection Committee, I have to confess that this is the first time I have even sat around the table at Selection. I told Shaila, “I’m a 180-pound piece of clay; mould me any way you want.” I’ll try to do my best.
The first thing we should do is nominate the deputy chair. I would like to nominate the Honourable Raymonde Saint-Germain as the deputy chair of the committee. Do we have full agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Raymonde Saint-Germain is the deputy chair. I look forward to working with you, honourable senator. We have always worked well in the past. I’m sure it will be a very fruitful combination. I am looking forward to it.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, senator, and thank you, colleagues. It will be a pleasure to work with you.
The Chair: We need a mover for motion 3. Do we have a mover for that motion? The Honourable Senator Housakos moved:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair and the other members of the committee, to be designated after the usual consultation; and
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings.
Is it agreed to adopt the motion? The motion is adopted.
Item 4 is a motion to publish the committee’s proceedings. Is there a mover for this motion? The Honourable Senator Duncan moved:
That the committee publish its proceedings.
Is it agreed to adopt the motion? The motion is adopted.
Item 5 pertains to nomination of senators to serve on committees. Do members wish to go through each standing committee to allow representatives from each party or group to name their specific members? If so, I will ask each representative to name their members, and staff will endeavour to keep track. I propose that we list the names for all of the committees, and then I will put the question to the committee on the whole membership report.
Foreign Affairs is the first committee on the list. There are two members from the Conservative Party: myself and Senator Oh.
Senator Downe: Chair, would it be easier if the members simply put the names in to the clerk and she could send them? Have we done that in the past?
The Chair: It would expedite matters if we did.
Senator Downe: If there is agreement to that.
The Chair: Is there agreement to that?
Senator Mercer: I agree. Indeed, I have forwarded a list of the Progressive Senate Group nominations to the clerk.
The Chair: Ms. Anwar was telling me there are a few names to come in yet, but they will be put on the list as soon as they arrive.
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the report nominating senators to serve on the various committees be adopted, taking into account all the nominations proposed today and the few left to come in? Agreed.
Is it agreed that the report list all members by their recognized party or recognized parliamentary group, and that any senators occupying one of those seats be identified in the report, taking into account all the nominations proposed today? Do we agree?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed and carried.
Is it agreed that I present the membership report to the Senate as soon as practicable, and that the chair ask the Senate for leave for the report to be adopted when presented? Agreed. Carried.
Item 6, which is the next item on the agenda, deals with the duration of committee memberships. You will recall that the last few sessions, the Senate has adopted a provision that specified that if a senator becomes a member of a different party or group from the time when they were first appointed to a committee, their committee seat will be returned to the original party or group that nominated them.
I understand that the Selection Committee has been asked to propose a similar provision by way of a report so that individual senators can vote on this provision separate from the membership report or the schedule report. A copy of that provision is available for circulation, so I will ask the clerk to distribute copies by email and to those in the room.
We have a couple of revisions that have been sent to the table by Senator Woo and Senator Mercer. Shall we deal with them now? Can we distribute them to the committee?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Chair, I do have a question. Because we did not name all the senators on each committee, I wonder if I could inquire as to whether Senator Gagné is on the Official Languages Committee, and I wonder if my name is on the Aboriginal Peoples Committee.
Ms. Anwar: Yes.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Great, thank you. I just wanted to confirm that.
Senator Mercer: Senator Gagné is nominated by the Progressive Senate Group, or PSG, to the Official Languages Committee.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you, senator.
The Chair: We have these two documents. Senator Woo, if you want to speak to your item, the floor is yours.
Senator Woo: Thank you, chair.
The document speaks for itself. As you have explained, the practice in the last sessional order was that seats were not portable. I don’t particularly want to go into a long explanation of why that should be the case, unless there is a debate about whether we should be doing it.
Senator Mercer may raise an objection to it, which I welcome. If that happens, then I will take the floor again to make the case for non-portability, so there is full transparency and visibility for all senators, including those who are not taking part in this meeting.
For now, the draft report you have, which I shared in the early afternoon or late morning, is the most recent version.
Senator Mercer: We have come to a point of contention that has existed for the last few years now. As has been the practice since Confederation, generally speaking, senators appointed to the standing committees and the standing joint committees shall serve for the duration of the session. The Rules of the Senate are clear, according to some research I have seen. Although the revision has been rephrased and renumbered over time, we found no instance of the rule being removed at any point since 1973.
You have heard several senators say many times, “A senator is a senator is a senator.” Once a senator has a committee seat, it’s their seat. If they decide to change groups, they should be able to keep their seat, period. It seems to me we should look at this differently. We could follow the rules, we could change the rules, or we could bend the rules again.
If this is something the Senate wants, why has the issue not been referred to the Rules Committee for study? We have done sessional orders that subvert the rule, so, in essence, we are breaking our own traditions without a suitable or an equitable resolution on the rule.
I have a suggestion, honourable senators. Let us hear from some experts, whether constitutional, institutional or scholarly. I, for one, would like to hear some opinions other than our own. We should do our due diligence as a committee at the very least. It may provide some clarity on the consequences of continuing down this path with our own rules. Committee work is important and at the heart of the Senate’s value. We are indeed eager to get started.
This work would involve hearing from witnesses to help us guide our decisions. Why should we not hear counsel now to help us guide the decision we are about to make and recommend to the Senate?
I think the committee should entertain such suggestions on witnesses. We can coordinate that with the clerk, that is, if it is the will of the committee. Thank you, colleagues.
The Chair: We have had two different motions. I would like to ask the members of the committee around the table if they want to make an intervention to speak to either one of them.
Senator Housakos: I intend to be brief. On this rare occasion, Senator Woo and I are completely on the same page. I disagree with my good friend Senator Mercer.
Senator Mercer, the Senate, I remind everybody, is an appointed body. It’s a political body, fundamentally based on the principles of the Westminster model. It’s based on groups and political caucuses and, at the end of the day, an appointed body like ours is highly dependent on proportionality. Historically, it has always been as well. Regardless, on some occasions, there was portability on the part of committee chairs by individual senators.
The truth of the matter is that this place can only function in an organized way if the proportionality of all the groups participating is respected. That’s why, as you noticed, at the beginning of all Parliaments, the negotiations are commenced by group leadership. We divide up the positions based on proportionality. You don’t just throw that out the window in an attempt to create a system where, all of a sudden, senators who receive a position to represent the group can start jumping around, bartering or negotiating that particular seat. That is highly impractical.
I believe we should continue to have committees be proportional and respect the size of the various groups. That’s how this chamber has always functioned, respecting proportionality. At the end of the day, if we break up the system, we will have a situation where one group or another becomes such a majority down the line that they will be in a position to do whatever they want at any given time with these seats at the beginning of Parliament.
That is my opinion. Thank you for listening.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I was an active member of the negotiations in the last Parliament and in this one for committees. Proportionality was the basic principle that guided the allocation of seats in the groups and the allocation of positions on the steering committees. It is the only principle that allows for fairness and equity for all groups.
With all due respect, I believe that the proposal for seat portability would lead to a dysfunctional Senate where, as Senator Housakos correctly pointed out, there would be a kind of seat haggling, which would be to the detriment of the order and proper functioning of our institution. We do not need additional time or diversionary tactics by inviting witnesses. I believe that the best witnesses for the Senate are the people of the Senate themselves. We have a history, we have an institutional memory, and I see no point in bringing in people from outside the Senate as witnesses.
Given the important work ahead of us, both bills and committee work, we should quickly finalize our committee report, get the committees up and running, do the constitutional work that Canadians expect, and do it as soon as possible. So I do not support this motion. I intend to support the original report.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Woo, do you wish to speak again?
Senator Woo: Yes, if I may, chair. I will take a little longer, only because Senator Mercer has presented a case against non-portability. I believe he may also table a dissenting report, which will go into some detail. However, it’s important for all of us, particularly for our new colleagues and for the general public listening in to this discussion, to understand why I believe a majority of this committee — and a majority of senators — supports the non-portability of committee seats.
First of all, I want to thank Senator Mercer and our PSG colleagues for their cooperation in not letting this issue hold up the formation of committees. I know that’s their view. I respect their right to give a different opinion on portability, but it’s important that we lay out the case for and against.
The starting point in this debate, senators, is to ask where a member’s committee seats come from. We are not swanning to the upper house with a committee seat attached to our names. All of us have a right to sit on committees, but nobody has the right to sit on a particular committee. This is not about Senate independence or some other high-minded principle. It’s not about what Senator Mercer claims — that a senator is a senator is a senator. That is undoubtedly true, but that has nothing to do with portability. It is, rather, about boring math.
On most committees, the number of seats available exceeds the number of senators who want to be on those committees. Every time the Senate has to reconstitute committees, as it does now at the start of the Forty-fourth Parliament, we have to devise a way of assigning a finite number of seats to a larger number of senators who want those seats. It is, quite simply, an old‑fashioned allocation puzzle.
Everyone knows the current approach to assign committee seats is a two-step process. First, we divvy up the seats by recognized groups in the Senate, and then we have each group allocate specific seats to specific members.
The first step is relatively easy because it is guided by proportionality, whereby each group gets committee seats roughly commensurate with its numbers in the chamber.
The second step is more complicated, and each group has its own protocol for matching seats with senators. The ISG, as just one example, has devised a process that seeks to give all members their preferred choices on a ranked basis, while applying a set of criteria such as seniority, expertise, diversity and so on. ISG senators were involved in the design of this protocol and they willingly take part in its application, which is part and parcel of being a member of the group. I am sure other groups have similar processes.
Senators usually get one or more of the choices they pick, but virtually all members don’t end up getting all of their choices because of excess demand. It is important to stress here that the difference between a senator who got a seat and another who did not get a seat isn’t that the one who got the seat is more intrinsically deserving of that seat. It is simply that the agreed upon protocol for seat allocation produced a result that was favourable to said senator, which is why the removal of that seat by a senator who subsequently leaves the group is a violation of the protocol that the senator willingly joined in order to get the seat.
Let’s be very clear: The senator got the seat at the expense of a colleague. Taking the seat away from the group would be an affront to procedural fairness and an insult to colleagues who played by the group’s rules.
The underlying point here, colleagues, is that while senators have a right to sit on committees, they do not have an entitlement to any particular committee seat. Seats on particular committees can only be assigned through what is essentially a process of negotiation. For a senator to then assert his or her unalienable right to that seat is a contravention of the negotiated agreement. It is a fallacy of logic and it is an abuse of procedural fairness.
I could go on and on, colleagues, but let me just sum up by saying that while some would like to make this idea of portability a debate about Senate independence or autonomy or equality of senators, the less glamorous reality is that committee seat assignment is a routine allocation puzzle that has to be solved through negotiations. Negotiations only work if the parties subject themselves to the rules of the negotiated agreement and respect both the outcomes and the procedures that led to those outcomes.
If there is a principle at stake in this discussion, it is that of procedural fairness. Senators do not have a divine right to a given committee seat. They receive the seat on a particular committee by willingly participating in a group process that resulted in a favourable outcome for them but at the expense of other senators. If they leave that group, the seat should not go with them. That is the intent of the draft SELE report that I have shared with all of you, and that is why I disagree with the dissenters.
Senator Mercer: Honourable senators, since we are not hearing witnesses on this issue, I’m obliged to provide some comments as a dissenting opinion, which I would like to append to the report. I believe you have all received copies.
In short, whether a senator changes their group affiliation or a non-affiliated senator joins a group, rule 12-2(3) ensures the independence of each senator to conduct the committee work entrusted to them by the Senate. However, recent sessional motions have infringed on the independence of individual senators by setting aside that rule and placing the authority over committee seats directly to the leadership of parliamentary groups and political parties. This report is a continuation of that misguided practice. I do not concur with this report regarding the recommendations of the Selection Committee on this matter.
It is my view and the view of the Progressive Senate Group that the allocation of committee seats to parliamentary groups and political parties is a step backward in Senate modernization. Removing committee portability entrenches the authority of group and party leadership.
If the goal is a Senate made up of more independent senators, it is contrary to that goal to remove the right of individual senators from being appointed to committees for the duration of the session regardless of their affiliation. By removing that right and placing committee seats solely in the hands of facilitators, leaders, whips and liaisons, we would be undermining individual independence and limiting the freedom of affiliation for us all.
Thank you, colleagues.
Senator Housakos: Senator Mercer talks about forcing the authority of Senate groups upon the individual senators. At the end of the day, that’s how the Westminster model has always worked, Senator Mercer, and you know that. Each senator on each committee is a representative of a group. The way that the chamber has always functioned is that whatever committee we sit on, we are obligated to go back to our various groups as their representative on the various committees. We all have the right to sit on a committee, but your voting authority comes from that particular group that you represent.
Senator Mercer, I have a question for you. You’re now a member of the Selection Committee under whose authority? Under what auspices have you been selected to be on this committee?
Senator Mercer: Obviously the same auspices as you, Senator Housakos. I was selected by my group as the one to represent them here this evening. I’m sure the Conservative Party sat and thought long and hard about the selection of yourself and Senator MacDonald.
Senator Housakos: Exactly. Thank you very much for that answer.
Senator Downe: I’m wondering if I could ask Senator Woo a question.
Senator Woo: This is becoming a chamber debate, but by all means.
Senator Downe: I listened closely to your remarks. You made a point about groups and allocations, seniority and different considerations in committees. Is it your position as well that the same policies should apply to senators’ offices? If a senator leaves a group, they should lose their office as well, for the very same reasons you’ve outlined?
Senator Woo: It’s my view that Senate offices should actually be designated on a Senate-wide basis such that they are independent of the group allocation process.
In fact, we could also, in an ideal world, allocate committee seats in a Senate-wide process. Under those conditions, portability would be the right policy because you would be attached to that seat through a group allocation process that included all 105 senators. Therefore, within the span of that Parliament, one could well argue that that is your seat for the duration of the Parliament. But we don’t do that.
We do committee seat allocation through groups, and that requires a negotiation process within the group that allows one senator to get a seat at the expense of another. I’m sure you know all about it in your group. If you were to then take that seat away with you if you left the group, you would be doing an injustice to the member in your own group that did not get the seat.
Senator Downe: I understand we all have aspirations of how the Senate should be run. But currently, the same principles apply to senators’ offices as senators’ committee allocations. I assume your position is if a senator leaves a group, he should lose his current office as well, given that the same principles apply.
Senator Woo: In fact, Senator Downe, I believe the policy is what you described. There is a period of time after a senator leaves a group — for example, through retirement — where there is an opportunity, I think it’s a two-month period, for that office to be reallocated within the group. But then it goes into the general pool. That is a sensible policy. It is this committee, by the way, that has that responsibility. If this committee wants to change the rule such that offices go immediately to the pool, I would not be averse to that either. The principle is sound.
Senator Mercer: Why do we have a Rules Committee if the Committee of Selection is starting to make the rules?
Senator Woo: I think we’re all entitled to move a motion to ask Rules to look at this issue and that would be consistent with the effort of modernization, which we all subscribe to. It is wrong, however, to say that just because portability is part of the Rules, changing portability is against modernization. By definition, if you are for modernization, then you are for changes to the Rules. That argument in itself doesn’t carry any water. But I would be open to anyone, including you, Senator Mercer, moving a motion in the chamber suggesting that Rules look at this and other issues that will improve the functioning of our chamber.
The Chair: Thank you both for the discussion. Does anyone else want to speak to this before we move to a vote?
Senator Cordy: I’m not a member of the committee. As long as all committee members have spoken, if you don’t mind, I would like to.
The Chair: Go ahead, but Senator Housakos wants to speak as well.
Senator Housakos: I just want to again reiterate that I support Senator Woo’s motion and I would like to add a clause to the motion, which I know we sent to the clerk earlier on:
That notwithstanding any usual practice for the remainder of the current session, an unaffiliated senator named to a committee pursuant to the preceding paragraph may, by written notice to the clerk, place himself or herself under the authority of the leader or facilitator to whom a seat was originally allocated for the purpose of making membership changes to committees, including joint committees, pursuant to rule 12-5.
Senator Mercer: I’m not so sure we should be considering that now. I don’t think it was brought forward in as orderly a fashion as other changes. In the spirit of fairness, I think we should all go back to our groups and discuss the suggestion Senator Housakos has just made.
Senator Housakos: If that’s the will of the majority, we can. But if the will of the majority is to support it, we can go back to our groups and say it was supported by the majority.
Senator Saint-Germain: I have a question for Senator Mercer. The PSG has one seat on CONF and two seats on CIBA. Let’s suppose two of your senators leave the PSG and they want to sit in another group or as an unaffiliated senator. Would you agree that they leave with those seats?
Senator Mercer: That’s what we’ve said.
The Chair: Does anyone else want to speak to this before I put the motion to a vote?
Senator Cordy: Thanks to all of you for allowing me to speak although I’m not a member of the Rules Committee. It was mentioned today that this was done during the last two sessions of the last Parliament. Those who were on the leadership group at that time will understand that the letter was signed by three leaders. It was not signed by me, because we fundamentally disagree with the whole premise behind it. Our group believes that the rule that has been in place since 1973 still works. It has worked since 1973 — and people left groups long before 2020 or 2021 or 2015. And if so, they would continue to have their seat. The question was asked of Senator Mercer. And as the leader of the Progressive Senate Group, if Senator Mercer decided he was leaving our group in the next few months while he’s still in the Senate, I can tell you that he would still serve on the Selection Committee.
The possibility that senators might change groups has always been there, and you could point out that proportionality is only relevant on the day. So if we do talk about “a senator is a senator” or proportionality — and if we really believe in proportionality — if someone moves from one group to the next, it skews the proportionality. If it skews the proportionality, a better way to do that would be to allow the individual senator to take that seat with them. It’s not forever. It’s until the end of the session or the Parliament. And usually, if it’s a lengthy term — Senator MacDonald has been here for a while — there’s usually a prorogation at some point during a long session, which is the case during a majority government but not often during a minority government. If we truly believe in proportionality, then a person should have the seat for the duration of the term.
I’m glad that Senator Woo stated that we will not hold up the committees getting started. We believe it is of the utmost importance that we get committees started as soon as possible. We’ve made that agreement today here at the committee. You’ve made it. And I hope it will be brought forward tomorrow and, with unanimous consent, that it will be passed tomorrow so the committees can be up and running.
In terms of the portability issue, we are fundamentally against it, that it’s against the rights of each and every senator in the chamber.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Cordy, for those additional explanations. You referred to a system that has been working for 48 years, since 1973, in the context of a duality bicameral chamber with a government and opposition. But since then, there is a new reality in this chamber. We have four recognized groups other than the government, and senators who leave a group won’t leave to go across the chamber or to be unaffiliated. They have the choice now. This is why the new reality is for fairness purposes; we need to allocate the seats according to proportionality. And when this proportionality changes in a way that is so substantive that we need to revisit it, then we’ll have to do it. But it is still the fairness principle that should prevail, and I do believe, with all due respect, that your rationale is the one of an institution that was, as we described it, 48 years ago. However, this new reality has to be taken into account.
Senator Cordy: Is that a question or a statement?
Senator Saint-Germain: It’s a statement.
Senator Cordy: Since I have come to the Senate, there have certainly been independent senators, senators who left groups, senators who were independent. Senator Dyck came in as an independent and then joined a political group. That has not been going on forever, but I can tell you that it has been going on since I’ve been in the Senate. I understand there were just two main groups, but there were also a number of independent senators.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
The Chair: Does anyone else want to speak to this before we put it to a vote? Have we talked it out? Is it agreed that Senator Woo’s recommendation, with Senator Housakos’s amendment, be adopted and presented as a report to the Senate?
Senator Woo: Chair, can you repeat Senator Housakos’s amendment?
The Chair: I can. I will do that. Senator Housakos’s amendment reads as follows:
That notwithstanding any usual practice for the remainder of the current session, an unaffiliated senator named to a committee pursuant to the preceding paragraph may, by written notice to the clerk, place himself or herself under the authority of the leader or facilitator to whom a seat was originally allocated for the purposes of making membership changes in relation to the membership on one or more committees, including joint committees, pursuant to rule 12-5.
Senator Woo: Is this an entirely new clause or is it an edit to an existing clause?
The Chair: That I can’t respond to.
Senator Woo: I think it’s an entirely new paragraph, isn’t it?
Senator Housakos: It is. It’s an addition. It’s not really an amendment to anything Senator Woo has proposed. It’s just an addition, specifically in regard to unaffiliated members who are given seats through various groups. It’s reiterating that if they are absent, they fall under the purview of the facilitator or whip of the group that they represent in that particular seat.
Senator Woo: Yes. I think that makes sense. I can live with that.
The Chair: Is it agreed that Senator Woo’s recommendation, with Senator Housakos’s clarification, be presented as a report to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that Senator Mercer’s dissenting opinion be appended to the report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed.
Is it agreed that the clerk prepare a draft report for the approval of the steering committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed.
Is it agreed that I present the report in the Senate as soon as possible?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Item 7 deals with recommendations on the scheduling of committee meetings and the coordination, facilitation and enhancement of hybrid meetings.
This item relates to some additional responsibilities given to this committee, namely, proposing recommendations to the Senate on committee schedules and coordination of hybrid meetings.
For today, members have received a copy of a draft hybrid committee schedule. This is the same schedule as the all-virtual schedule adopted by the Senate last spring. My understanding is that we now have the resources to support the schedule with hybrid meetings, meaning senators can participate whether they are remote or in Ottawa.
Are there any questions on that?
Senator Downe: Yes. I’m concerned, colleagues. We originally accepted this in the middle of the pandemic, which appears to be going on for a considerable length of time.
One of the problems we have is that Tuesday morning meetings, for example, are scheduled to start at 6 a.m. in British Columbia, and we have other meetings ending at 8:30 p.m. in Newfoundland, which, in my opinion, is not as bad as the 6 a.m. start time. I’m wondering, in consultation with the clerk and advice from others, can we possibly have meetings on Friday or when the Senate is sitting, with the approval of the Senate, to change some of these times?
The Chair: What is the response to that?
Ms. Anwar: The hybrid schedule follows the schedule that was adopted by the Senate last spring, and with that there was an instruction for the whips to manage weekly additional meetings or changes to the schedule. If this committee so wishes, a similar provision could be included, but this is the starting point of the schedule that we know can be supported by the various services.
Senator Downe: The problem, chair, is the last time, like everyone else, I assumed it was a very temporary measure. This time we’re not quite sure. Will this go for one year, six months or two years? I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect our members in British Columbia to get up at 6 a.m. for a committee meeting. I think 8:30 p.m. in Newfoundland is probably acceptable.
So I think we have to ask the clerk for options — and I suggest these not knowing the technical issues — either on Friday, because we do have some committees meeting on Monday, or some committees meeting when the Senate is sitting, or other possibilities that they would recommend with their translators and technology issues.
Ms. Anwar: I would note that in order for committees to meet while the Senate is sitting, permission of the Senate would be required.
In terms of Fridays, that would be up to this committee. However, we do have some limitations in terms of the hours a Friday.
Senator Mercer: This committee, in its former iteration, prior to the election, did an extensive examination of this problem. The good news is we can now do two hybrid sessions at the same time, remembering that when the Senate is in session, that is one hybrid. We can now do two. But when the former committee did a fairly extensive analysis of the situation, one of the real problems is the availability of qualified translators. I haven’t seen the numbers recently, but the previous numbers said that the Parliament of Canada, both the House of Commons and the Senate, employed all the available translators in the National Capital Region. They all work for us. Because of the hybrid situation, it became extremely difficult to schedule meetings because of the need to protect the staff.
I’m not against meeting on Fridays or Mondays. It’s just that the technical aspect of putting this thing together goes beyond the availability and willingness of senators to meet. It’s the ability of the system to support us in those committees.
I don’t want to discourage the discussion. I do want to make sure we understand that making a decision tonight or at some time in the future that we’re going to have meetings on Fridays or Monday evenings, it’s not actually going to happen if the system cannot support it.
Senator Duncan: May I express my thanks to Senator Downe for recognizing that it’s a challenge for some of us who are on the West Coast and in the North. The Yukon wisely did not follow daylight saving time, so we only have a two-hour time change now to contend with.
I think Senator Mercer makes a very important point that there are finite resources and there was a lot of work that went into this schedule. As much as we can make suggestions, I would caution against making changes.
Also in that regard, we need to define the scope of the problem that Senator Downe is trying to address. For example, do we have any members from the West Coast on National Finance, which meets at 9:30 a.m., other than myself? Offhand, I can’t think of other members. And the same with the committee in blue. Do we really have a problem with the number of members who have an issue with that? In the same regard, Senator Marshall has respectfully participated until all hours from Newfoundland.
Thank you for the consideration. I think we should leave the schedule as it is for now.
Senator Omidvar: I appreciate Senator Downe’s concern and it’s valid. I have heard from colleagues in British Columbia who have to get up at an inordinately early hour.
I do think if it’s possible to meet on Fridays, as it’s possible to meet on Mondays, we should consider that, keeping in mind the resource capacity that Senator Mercer has pointed out.
Finally, I want to clarify that the schedule will only govern committee meetings until the end of March, when the motion on hybrid sittings expires. It’s not permanent.
Senator Downe: I appreciate colleagues’ comments. I notice, as I’m sure we all have, that the House of Commons has extended their hybrid until the end of June. We originally accepted this schedule — I know I certainly did — on the assumption that when we came back, this would not be a problem, we would not be having hybrid sessions anymore. None of us knows what will happen in March or June or next October. That’s why I think it’s important we lock it down.
I mentioned Friday. I’m sure committee members, given they’re hybrid meetings, would also be available on Saturday, for example, if necessary. The Senate made a decision that we would not sit later than 9 p.m., which is 10:30 p.m. in Newfoundland and Labrador, for a very good reason. You can’t expect people to be working at midnight or one o’clock, nor can you expect people to be up at their Zoom call at 6 a.m. It’s not fair.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: I would also note, colleagues, that when we were doing this in the last Parliament, most of us were at home. However, if you look around this room today, most of us are here. I don’t know about you, but there are no direct flights to Edmonton. It’s a seven- or eight-hour trip. Senator Duncan, I can only imagine how many hours you are flying right now. Having committee meetings on Monday is a real challenge for anyone who doesn’t live in Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa. I think we should take that into consideration.
If we are considering a fixed hybrid schedule, I would ask that we have a provision in writing that really ensures the priority of government business so that if, for example, we do have something that APPA is studying, perhaps they could get one of the prime time slots. That would make it much easier for everyone who sits on APPA to actually attend that meeting. If we’re going to have a fixed hybrid schedule, I’d like to have a provision in there about the priority of government business.
The Chair: Are you going to make an amendment to that effect? Is there something you want to put on the floor for us to vote on?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: I am putting it on the floor, but there’s no report other than Senator Woo’s at the moment. If the clerks are going to go back and write a report, and then if it’s going to be, perhaps, approved by steering, then that’s fine. We would just like to see that provision in that report.
The Chair: Does anybody want to speak to that?
Senator Mercer: Perhaps the executive of the committee should consider the suggestion as planning in the future, if there’s time in our schedule for that. I think it’s a worthwhile suggestion.
Senator Woo: I strongly support Senator LaBoucane-Benson’s suggestion. It’s the practice anyway, but we should make a note of it. It doesn’t belong in the first SELE report about population of committees. I’m not sure of the procedure, but if a report is coming out of this discussion about the committee having the power to work on the schedule, surely we can add a sentence about the priority that should be given to government business in allocating slots for committee meetings. The clerk can advise us on that.
The Chair: We have a consensus on that, I believe.
Senator Omidvar: It’s all being set. I hope there is a speaking order to give me.
The Chair: If there are no further questions, I would propose that we proceed with this schedule on an interim basis, so that committees will be able to organize once the membership report is adopted. We can then look at hybrid meetings more closely in the coming weeks and see if further changes are necessary. Is it agreed, honourable senators:
That a hybrid schedule be implemented on an interim basis and that any subsequent changes be approved by the whip/liaisons?
Is it agreed?
Senator Downe: No.
I think we should ask the clerk — because of the technical and the issue raised by Senator Mercer and the current status with translators — as to what the options are for the committee to examine to address some of these problems that were identified the last time. However, to do that — I’m not sure. I would ask the clerk how quickly that could be done, so we don’t delay things. Then this committee could reconvene to see what options, if any, we have.
Ms. Anwar: I can speak to that, senator. The schedule was reviewed by our colleagues in interpretation and multimedia services, and their preference is to not use the Fridays unless we need additional meetings — for example, if a committee is tasked with a bill that requires extra hearings. They would like Fridays to be kept as a swing day as opposed to having regularly scheduled meetings. It’s just the way the staffing works. We’re built to maximize Monday afternoon to Thursday evening. That is their preference, and the schedule was built based on that.
However, there’s probably some tweaking we can do with starting an hour earlier or later here and there. I just couldn’t tell you that right off the bat.
Senator Downe: We don’t want to get into the weeds, but Senator Duncan mentioned who’s on these committees. Maybe we’ll find out after the clerk examines the list and tells us who’s on these four committees that may be affected by a 6 a.m. start time. Maybe, if there’s only one committee, we could move that to Friday. That would solve the problem. If a whole bunch of people are on those committees, then we have a bigger problem.
Senator Omidvar: How quickly can the clerk come back to us with these considerations in mind, and how quickly can we meet again?
Ms. Anwar: In terms of the services, I’m comfortable with the schedule that was provided. In terms of the committee memberships, the lists just came in today. I’d have to look at that to see who’s on some of those committees that sit either early in the morning or late in the evening and get back to you. That can be done after today’s meeting.
The Chair: Does anybody else want to speak to this before we get to the vote?
Senator Omidvar: I want to make another intervention. Is it possible for us to accept the schedule as is and wait for recommendations from our clerk, which we can easily modify and adjust? We’re a small group of people. We can be convened. In the meantime, I would urge that we approve the schedule as is and wait for the modifications based on the clerk’s response.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: I agree with that as long as — if we are going to adopt it — we include that language that says that government business is being prioritized, and in that second report. I agree.
Senator Duncan: I would say in response to both Senators LaBoucane-Benson and Downe, I’m sure that our clerk would speak with members of the committee that are affected. I just want to ensure that is recognized, because it may be that members are able to accommodate even though it’s an early start — or they may be able to make some kind of alternate arrangement. We can get a sense of what the committee members are feeling.
Senator Downe: I’m going to vote against the motion because I think we should wait. The clerk has indicated, without putting words in her mouth, that it will not take her a particularly long time to cross-check the list to see what members are affected by those first four committees. For the matter of a day, we should try to accommodate our colleagues in this vast country. Nobody else, other than the people in B.C. and the North, are asked to rise at this incredible hour to do a 6 a.m. meeting. None of us in the East are being asked to do this. I think it’s a matter of waiting. Again, it’s up to the committee.
The Chair: There are no more interventions. We have to get this to a vote. Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the hybrid schedule be implemented on an interim basis and that any subsequent changes be approved by the whip/liaisons?
Senator Downe: No. I’d like a recorded vote, chair.
The Chair: All right. All those in favour, say “yea.” Contrary minded? The motion passes.
Here is the second part of this:
If a committee opts not to use their assigned time slot, it could be used by another committee or subcommittee, subject to the approval of the whip/liaisons.
Do we agree or disagree? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed, honourable senators, that meetings of standing senate committees be prioritized subject to available capacity for those that are meeting on government business?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Is it agreed that I report these recommendations to the Senate and that a copy of the hybrid schedule be appended to the report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We will go to senators’ office allocations now. The next item is in keeping with the process this committee agreed to the past few sessions. Is there a mover for the following motion?
It is moved by Senator Housakos:
That, pursuant to 4:03 2(2) of the Senate Administrative Rules, the committee’s authority to assign office space that has been returned by a caucus to the senators’ office accommodations pool, to senators and their staff, on the basis of seniority and special needs, be delegated to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, and that the subcommittee report their decisions to the committee.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. The motion is adopted.
Is there a mover for the following motion:
That the committee allow the transcription of the in camera portion of today’s meeting, that one copy be kept with the clerk of the committee for consultation by committee members present, that the transcript be destroyed by the clerk when authorized to do so by the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, but no later than at the end of this parliamentary session.
Senator Omidvar so moved. Is it agreed to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
On senators’ staff, is there a mover for the following motion:
That each committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings unless otherwise agreed to by the committee.
I need a mover.
Senator Mercer: Agreed.
The Chair: I need a mover, though. Senator Housakos moves the motion. Carried.
The motion adopted by the Senate last week authorizing committees to hold hybrid meetings did not include provisions for the joint committees. Given that it falls within our mandate to give both named members to the standing joint committees and to make recommendations on hybrid meetings, we can ask the staff to prepare a draft motion or a report that can be also be presented in the chamber. This is what was done last session.
Is it agreed that a similar draft be prepared, taking into account the early discussion on schedules and memberships, and that a copy be circulated to all members when ready? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Passed.
That concludes our business today. We have to schedule the next meeting. I wonder when the next meeting will be held. Do we have any idea?
Senator Mercer: I think the subcommittee should meet and decide after consulting with various groups because of the result of what we have decided this evening.
The Chair: We will hear back from the clerk in the next day or two, and the subcommittee will be able to meet on this and schedule our next meeting as soon as possible.
Colleagues, thank you for coming and making the first meeting a good one. As soon as we hear back from the clerk, we’ll get the rest of it set up and we’ll proceed to finish our business.
(The committee adjourned.)