Thank you, Senator McCallum. I think your characterization of this place as “pollution” is a little harsh. I think this institution has served this country marvellously well for over 150 years, as has Parliament. As we’ve said many times, is Canada perfect? It’s a perfectly imperfect nation. But I still think it’s one of the best in the world, and in large part because of our institutions. So I won’t accept the characterization of this institution being polluted or ever having been polluted, to be honest. I thought that’s what I heard.

Oh, “solution.” I do apologize. Senator McCallum, I’m getting old and it’s late. I thought I heard “pollution” instead of “solution.” I was surprised, because I know you are very thoughtful and have made huge contributions to this place. I was a little taken aback.

Back to the substance of your question, and I do apologize, colleagues — it’s late and I’m tired. Like I said, I wasn’t planning to enter the debate. To answer your question, senator, for the time I’ve been here now, 13 years, every time a non-affiliated senator has come into this chamber and was not a member of one larger group or another, my recollection is that we have gone always out of our way to accommodate them.

We did that from day one in 2016 when the first eight or nine non-affiliated Trudeau senators were appointed and didn’t have a group. They weren’t large enough. They were facing hostility from the then Liberal caucus, which, of course, has since been expelled from the national caucus. And the Conservative caucus, no secret, had a lot of deep reservations about the government’s new experiment in this chamber. Yet, we still welcomed every member. We still found ways to make sure they were given seats on committees. That has always been the case.

Even now with the two truly independent members of this chamber, I can tell you as leader I have reached out to both of them. I have had conversations. It wasn’t because of any motion from Senator Mercer or anyone else. It was understood because I know they have a voice. Senator McPhedran can confirm that. We have reached out because we believe they have a role to play.

Furthermore, as someone who understands rules and procedures in this place, there is no other chamber in the Westminster parliamentary system anywhere in the world where the rules are so weighted in favour of non-affiliated senators. How many times every night and every afternoon does the Speaker or Speaker pro tempore get up and say, “with leave of the chamber?” This simply means any senator can say, “Speaker, I don’t grant leave.” It could be Senator McPhedran or Senator Woo — they are equal in this place.

How many bills this week that we fast-tracked past second and third reading would not be law if Senator McPhedran today — whom I call the true independent along with Senator Brazeau — did not grant leave? They don’t have a group. They don’t have leadership. They could have stopped every single bill this week. They have as much power as anybody, including the government leader. Probably even more power. And that’s the truth. We are at the pleasure of these independent senators.

So if anyone believes you are joining a group because that gives you more strength, nonsense. God bless her, Senator Anne Cools taught me that just when I was sitting with the Conservative government benches as a backbencher and government leader at the time. Every time there was a government bill, we would look at — God rest her soul — Senator McCoy and Senator Cools and we said, “Boy, they’d better agree with this government legislation or it’s never going to pass and we are going to be here for weeks.” Right? How many times did we have to sit on Friday and Monday because Senator Cools and Senator McCoy weren’t happy? Of course I’m saying things that might give Senator McPhedran some ammunition. And I can tell you, she calls me regularly for advice. She has become a quick pupil on procedure, and she’ll be using them pretty soon — government leader, I’m sorry. Again, Senator McCallum, to answer your question, that’s the nature of the place.

I have been watching you with curiosity, and you are learning very quickly yourself and you are becoming a fantastic contributor. I see you with the number and the substance of your private members’ bills that you are tabling and your motions. You are representing your community with tremendous capacity. It has nothing to do with whatever group you’re in. You are doing it because you are exercising your right as a parliamentarian. You are moving great motions. You are speaking to them in an articulate fashion, and you persuade enough of your colleagues that they are going to pass. They will become the rule of the law of the land. That’s the way it goes.

Anybody who thinks this place is designed to give some kind of an advantage to a majority group, I can tell you that’s not the case. On the contrary, the most disadvantaged people in this chamber as a group, and I saw it because I came in with the government, is the government side. Senator Gold and Senator Gagné have the toughest jobs here, and it has become tougher because they have these various groups with various values to herd. I hope that answers the question.

Like I said, if anybody feels because they are independent or in a smaller group that they are somehow diminished, that’s not true. I repeat my point: When you are appointed as chair or deputy chair on any of these committees, you are representing a caucus. You are representing many other people behind you. Again, look at the accommodations despite the Rules. How many times have we gotten up here and done things where we said, “Notwithstanding rule . . .?” Why? Because we give in. We realize we have to be decent amongst each other to have credibility as an institution.

That is what I hope we will continue to do in this place, in the spirit of respect and cooperation, not in a spirit of antagonism. Yes, sometimes there are politics. Senator Gold and I engage in it. I have the utmost respect for him, and I hope he has some respect for me. We find ways to work. We put the politics aside when we have to and we do what we need to do in the best interests of the country. Eventually, we’ll solve all the problems of all the groups we represent. Thank you.

I’m sorry, Senator McCallum. There are other senators who wish to ask a question. I’ll come back to you if there’s time.

Senator Quinn, did you have a question?

Yes.

Honourable senators, this whole debate is very interesting for a new senator like me. When I was appointed, I was appointed as an independent. I eventually choose a group, but I didn’t forfeit my independence. Rather, I embraced a group that I felt had a philosophical alignment with me, not limited to my independence.

Certainly, I feel that I must respect, in many ways, the facilitation that the leaders have brought to the institution in having discussions around proportionality. I do respect that negotiation. However, this discussion over the last few days has been very helpful, to hear both sides of an argument.

But I do feel conflicted because while wanting to respect the negotiations that were entered into by leaders, I think it is important that I, as a senator who has been appointed on an independent basis who has chosen a group that tonight is sounding more and more like a caucus — I apologize, but it does — how can I, at some point, possibly rethink my position within a group to go to another group or to become an independent and lose a position on a committee to which I feel I’m accountable to the people of Canada because I’ve been asked to serve on a committee because of a particular skill set and competency that I may represent. It’s a bit of a conflicted world for me, this whole debate. I’m sure that happens very often.

How do we rationalize the independence of this modernized institution, an institution that continues to evolve? How do we rationalize that while at the same time it’s almost like punishing someone because they’ve made a decision to realign?

I hope that realignment of someone’s philosophies isn’t something that just occurs overnight. I would hope that it is an evolution. But I don’t think that that skill set and competency should be removed from a committee to which that senator is acting and inputting on behalf of Canadians, not on behalf of a group.

How do we rationalize all of that?

Senator Quinn, those are all very good points, but with all due respect, the truth of the matter is Canadians did not put you on a committee. I’ve been put on a couple of committees by the Conservative Senate caucus. I was not put on those committees by Canadian citizens.

If tomorrow morning I philosophically change my point of view and I decide to join, for example the Canadian Senators Group or the Progressive Senate Group, then at that particular point in time I have to respect the group that sent me to do work on that particular committee on their behalf.

Now, I reiterate that your privilege as a senator is not violated. You and I can go and make representations and participate on any committee, but the moment you serve as a chair or deputy chair, at steering or you have a voting right on the committee, again, you were sent there. Your accountability is to your group on a weekly basis.

Unfortunately, there is no mechanism yet in this institution where we are accountable to the people of Canada. We don’t run for elections every four years. Furthermore, even when it comes to the Prime Ministers who appointed us here, they don’t have much accountability either to us in regard to the fact that we’re here with our privilege until the age of 75.

The self-discipline that this place imposes with the groups that we choose to philosophically associate with, that is where we get some semblance of discipline and organization. You’re right that if you make a change of group, you would think about that from a philosophical point of view, not from a self-serving point of view.

If tomorrow morning I leave my group and it costs me the chair of a committee, that chair is not mine. I would like to think the committees I have served on as chair over the years is where I have some expertise and that is why my caucus sent me there. The moment I cease to be a Conservative and I go to another group, that other group that I represent will send me to do work that that group deems necessary on their behalf.

Again, it’s difficult, because we’re not like every other Parliament. We’re uniquely different because of the fact that we’re an appointed body. We’re appointed to positions on committees by groups that represent us. It’s not an election. For example, we don’t elect every single committee seat and chair and deputy chair in this chamber. The reason we don’t is because eventually it will become a dictatorship on the part of the largest group, for example.

Historically, in this country there have been many instances where the Liberals had the vast majority of 70 or 80 seats and the Conservatives had dwindled, and there were instances where the Liberal caucus had dwindled to a small number.

By the way, I would like to inform every member here — because every independent senator that comes here thinks there’s a problem with the Senate rules — this place, ultimately, is a place of the majority. The reason we’ve survived as a coherent body is that majority group, when it becomes so big, if they don’t understand that we will only be credible by the manner in which that majority treats the minority, then the place falls apart.

I reiterate that at the beginning of 2016 when a small minority came in here, which today is becoming a plurality and a majority, the majority didn’t like it, but we knew we had to accommodate that minority. I’ve been here long enough to know that today I’m in the minority. Five or seven years from now, many of you will be in that minority. That’s just the nature of democracy. How we treat each other is fundamentally important.

Senator Duncan, do you have a question?

Thank you, Your Honour. I appreciate the opportunity to enter into this discussion and ask Senator Housakos a question.

I would like to say at the outset that it’s almost the three-year anniversary of my appointment to the Senate. From the very beginning, I have been in awe and appreciate every single senator. There is a tremendous wealth of Canadian talent, brains and energy. I appreciate the opportunity and privilege to be of service to Canadians alongside all of you.

It is the appreciation of that talent and the strengths that each individual brings to the Senate that is causing me to ask this question. I’ve listened very carefully to the debates, and repeatedly I’ve heard “the Senate appoints.” That’s true because it is the Senate as a whole. It is all of us that approve the Selection Committee report that names different senators to committees and their service.

The leaders have met and agreed on the list of names that has been presented, however their groups have decided. People are named to a committee in that Selection Committee report. Not one of us questioned that report. No one has said, “Wait a minute. Take a good, hard look at these different committees.”

The problem that I’ve seen is that we aren’t using the talents of everyone and our committees are not reflecting the diversity of our country or are necessarily representative of the population. Forgive me, Senator Mockler and my colleagues on the National Finance Committee. It does not have a representative west of Ontario except for me. I think that’s an issue.

All of us as senators approved the Selection Committee report. No one looked and said, “There is no Indigenous representation on this committee.” Yet, Indigenous businesses represent $32 billion of our GDP. That is my concern.

I respect absolutely, Senator Housakos, your expertise and your knowledge of the Rules, and I have the utmost respect for and understanding of the arguments that have been presented.

I would like to ask Senator Housakos whether he sees what I’ve outlined as an issue and whether he has a suggestion as to how to solve it.

Thank you, senator. Of course, I understand that. We can easily start micromanaging all the various imperfections of the system. No system is perfect.

I want to highlight, colleagues, that in the Western democratic world — and if I’m not mistaken in my statistics, I think in the comparison of all democratic chambers in the world — the Senate is the most diverse. If I’m not mistaken, we’ve equalled other chambers in terms of gender parity. We are very representative in terms of various visible, ethnic and linguistic minorities. Again, I challenge comparison with any other parliamentary body in the world.

In terms of composition of committees, are we where we need to be and in the perfect range with everything? I look at the Aboriginal Peoples Committee. I’ll give you my opinion. I think there are not enough non-Indigenous people on that committee. In the ongoing process of national reconciliation, people like me have to learn a heck of a lot more about our history and this issue. Quite honestly, I look at the composition and say to myself that it’s pretty stereotypical; the only people who are interested or want to talk about Aboriginal issues are Aboriginal people. That was my reflex.

I look at the Committee on Official Languages. The only people who are interested are French Canadians? English Canadians don’t care about official languages? That struck me.

These are just a couple of examples. I’m sure that if we dissect further, we will find other examples. It is incumbent upon us to go back to our groups, discuss it with our leadership, shake the cage, come back to our leadership groups and try to fix it. As I said earlier, we’re trying to be fair and representative to the best of our abilities. We understand the problems and we try to resolve them.

Canada, and this institution, are perfectly imperfect. The only way we can correct it is to recognize that this is an ongoing process and evolution. I’m sure that every other leadership group recognizes that.

We have another problem. In the process of trying to be fair to all groups, as groups become smaller and smaller, they’re not as broadly representative of the whole country and of all linguistic groups. We can talk about inequities in the process and how this institution is not perfect.

I’m from Quebec. We have 24 senators in this chamber out of 105. The Western provinces — British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba — have 24 senators. The province of Quebec has as many senators as those four provinces. Atlantic Canada is overrepresented. We can get into the debate about how the Constitution came about and how the two founding peoples came to the table. In large part, if it weren’t for that inequality in this chamber — those of us who know the history — Canada would probably never have been founded and we wouldn’t have this country to try to make even better, as we’re trying to do today.

My point, Senator Duncan, is that we’ve come a long way and we’ve done it through patience, tolerance and negotiation. That’s how Canada came about, through negotiation — not a free-for-all, not populism, not free-for-all votes here on the floor to decide every little thing. We did it through consultation, cooperation and debate, and sometimes acrimonious debate. But the Westminster model is designed such that acrimonious debate takes place behind the scenes. Senator Gold and I can have screaming matches, and he can get upset with me and I with him. We come here and work it out and get into the nitty-gritty of the substance of the debate. That’s my take on it.

Senator Kutcher, did you wish to ask a question?

I do. But I’m not sure, Your Honour, whether Senator Duncan had a supplementary.

Senator Duncan, did you have a supplementary question?

I did. However, in the interest —

I’m sorry, senator. I will put you on a list, because time is running out and we do have a number of other senators.

Understood. Thank you.

I have a question for Senator Housakos, but first an observation. I think we are demonstrating to each other that we are fully engaged in understanding who we are becoming, and that is not a bad thing.

Senator Housakos, I’m not sure if I correctly heard your response to Senator Quinn’s point and I’d like to clarify. I thought I heard you say that when we sit on committees, we speak in that committee on behalf of the group.

Now, I don’t speak on behalf of the ISG when I sit on a committee. I sit on a committee in which I have interest and expertise, and I speak from that basis as an independent senator; I do not speak as a member of a group.

Most of the colleagues whom I know quite well would see their role the same way — that we do not speak about what a group is telling us to say on a committee. We speak from our own personal experience, expertise and values.

So I’m a bit struck by your response, if I understood you correctly, because I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion. I would appreciate your either correcting me on my understanding or maybe taking it to the next level to help me out with that. Thank you very much, senator.

Thank you, Senator Kutcher. Remember, I rose and said I wasn’t planning to enter this debate; I merely wanted to share a few thoughts.

Let’s take it to the next level, because we’re not saying different things. Of course, you are named to whichever committee by the group you represent because of your expertise and knowledge. I can assure you that when leaderships of all groups identify people for committees, they’re choosing the best people to work on those committees — those with the most knowledge, experience and interest.

Having said that, we simultaneously choose to work with a group or caucus that represents our values, and we represent their values. It’s no coincidence that you’re in the group you’re sitting with, and it’s no coincidence that group thinks you’re the best person to serve in the capacities you’re serving. I don’t think either is exclusive, quite frankly.

Yes, there are times — because that’s how Parliament works — when you and I will go to our various roles in committee and articulate a point of view that is not always exclusively agreed upon by the group. It’s called democracy. That happens when it comes to our work and dealing with policy groups and political discourse.

The truth of the matter is that I don’t think any leadership or group micromanages the representatives they name to the various committees because, as I said, there’s a reason you are on that committee. You are probably the one guiding and driving the debate in your group.

When I sat as chair of the Rules Committee, I think my group picked me for that role because of my expertise in procedure and the rules and rights of Parliament and what have you. I can assure you that I drove the debate in my group, but I was chosen to be put in that committee to represent my group’s interests. I cite committees like Ethics and Rules and Internal Economy because those are not philosophical roles; they are administrative roles. It would be wholly chaotic and undemocratic if chairs, deputy chairs and people serving on those committees someday find themselves representing only one group in this chamber. At that point, this place ceases to be representative and democratic. Going back to my original argument — talk about infringing on the privilege of a large number of senators. Potentially you can infringe on a large number of senators.

I don’t think that what you and I are saying, Senator Kutcher, is diametrically opposed at all. I hope that I clarified my perspective in detail.

Honourable senators, before calling the next senator for a question, we have just a little over five minutes left in Senator Housakos’s time and we have four senators who wish to ask a question. I’d ask you to please keep your questions brief.

Senator Housakos, my question will be brief.

I don’t know if I heard correctly, but you spoke about the possibility of philosophically changing your politics and maybe considering joining the Progressive Senate Group or the Canadian Senators Group.

Does the fact that you didn’t mention the Independent Senators Group, or ISG, mean that you’re ruling out ever becoming a member of a group like the ISG on principle?

No, not at all. The ISG is a group like any of the others. As everyone knows, it has attracted quite a few representatives and has many members. It is doing well, and I have no problem with that.

I’m sitting here with the strong sense that we’ve lost the plot concerning the issue. The issue is about the portability of these seats.

From my perspective, which is not as deeply entrenched and long held as yours, the seats are being used as a bargaining chip, as golden handcuffs, as a retention tool. Senator McCallum was on the cusp of that idea when she asked about someone not feeling like they’re a good fit within a group but they’re staying there because they’re on that committee. I’m putting words in her mouth, but is she hanging on to that committee because she finds it’s the place she needs to be?

To go back to the wise words of the former senator Robert Peterson, committees are where some fundamental critical work is done. I’ve heard many other senators say that. I hang on to that sentiment. That’s where we actually do a lot of good work. We study bills, and we look at topics of national interest that nobody else is looking at.

Now I’m starting to lose the plot, but what I think we need to address here is portability. I know I’ve seen someone leave a group and keep their seat, much to the chagrin of the group they left. When the senator left, the group was relying on the rule that seats weren’t portable, and the senator shouldn’t have left with that seat. The other group, the one on the receiving end, would say, “Oh, no. They get to keep their seat.” There’s a little bit of hypocrisy going on.

What I would like to know is why a seat cannot be portable. Again, from my perspective, it is a bargaining chip, a retention tool and golden handcuffs.

I don’t think it’s that at all. It’s a question of maintaining respect for proportionality and respect for the operational semblance of this institution without it becoming the Wild West where votes on seats become negotiable with groups. On the contrary, if you or I want to change affiliations, yes, I will lose a voting right on a committee because, again, there must be respect for proportionality, but it doesn’t prevent me from doing work.

In this Parliament, I no longer serve on the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee. That’s one of my loves. As you can see from what I do in this chamber, I do a lot of work on human rights and on foreign affairs issues. About 80% of what I do here is touched upon at the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee. Unfortunately, because of our group’s proportional representation, we’re down to two members on that committee, so two of us had to cede our seats. I was one of them.

Do you think in any way it hinders my capacity if I’m in this group or any other group to move the motions I’m moving, to table the private member’s bills I’m moving? Do you think I will be prevented from participating in the debate on issues of Foreign Affairs and International Trade? Absolutely not. I will be there. I will be participating. I will be asking questions, but I won’t be casting a vote, officially, on behalf of my group or any other group in respect of that proportionality.

Thank you, Senator McCallum. .

Will you take a question, Senator Housakos?

Absolutely.

First of all, I’m loving this discussion tonight. I’m also in awe of how you managed to deflect the questions with your erudite answers. However, I’m going to see if we can stay focused.

In some ways my question ties in with the reference that Senator Woo made. Under the current set of rules, if I were to be given a committee seat and then I was to change my affiliation or my non-affiliation, I would get to keep that seat for the session, correct?

With the Selection Committee report, if it’s voted on and accepted, anybody who changes affiliation or for any reason their group is in need of some corrections — shall we say — their position can be yanked from them under the proposed report. Is that correct? Thank you.

I’m just reminding Senator Housakos that it’s not Question Period. I would appreciate a short, direct answer.

Is there any way that we could form committees in a manner that would take into account all of the senators’ skills and talents and ensure our committees are representative? Is there some other method? Of course, I don’t want to do this on the floor of the chamber and micromanage the issue. Would Senator Housakos suggest, for example, that the Rules Committee study the subject?

It’s never a bad idea to have the Rules Committee study the subject matter. All I’m saying is that you’ll always have circumstances where caucuses make choices, and some people are satisfied with the choices and some are not. There’s no such thing as a perfect process. I recognize that.

However, by and large, I don’t recall a situation in this institution where we had chairs, deputy chairs or any senators on committees who weren’t doing valuable work and shouldn’t be there. I don’t. We can make an argument that somebody would be more or less suited, but in my experience I think every senator who has been chosen to do work does it with dignity and professionalism. That’s why the Senate is recognized in Parliament as having done some of the best committee work, and it’s not a new thing. It has been recognized by witnesses and stakeholders for decades.

That means the system hasn’t been that poorly managed.

If I understood Senator Housakos’s response to my question properly — and I want to acknowledge that Senator Housakos and I share an affiliation for the Montreal Canadiens, although this year it’s very difficult to do that. I’m not sure that I agree with what was just said.

I want to clarify it. What I heard you say is that the senator does not represent the views of the group when they are on the committee; they represent their view and their perspective. They’re not the mouthpiece for the group on a committee. If that’s the case, since they’re not a mouthpiece for the group, should they not be free to move from group to group because they are independent and represent their own perspective?

Therefore, proportionality — I’m trying to understand this — can be at play in the assigning of seats. And that makes complete sense to me. But once the seats are assigned for the duration of that session, if the senator is not a mouthpiece for the group on the committee, since they are sitting on the committee as a freely unbound senator, should the senator choose to move to a different group, should they not just move their seat to a different group? Because you can’t have it both ways. You’re can’t be on a committee as an independent senator speaking in an independent voice and be a mouthpiece for your group. It doesn’t work that way, as far as I can tell. So, thank you, senator.

Senator Kutcher, we agree on a lot of things, especially hockey, but on this part, I think we are a little bit not on the same page. When you work on your committee work, you certainly speak with your conscience and your mind. But when you also choose to affiliate with a group, like I said earlier in this long, protracted discussion we’ve had, you are choosing a group that reflects your values and who you are. So that in itself indicates that it’s very likely that the points you are articulating and the work you are doing on committee are somewhat compatible with those of the group you’re working with.

And I’ll just end with this. Everything we do here is an exercise in persuasion in order to get our policy through here. The reason we affiliate with groups is to start from a base and build the process of persuasion to getting bills passed and motions passed and so on and so forth. I think Senator Kutcher is in the Independent Senators Group. Is that correct? I don’t know how it works in the ISG, but in the Conservative caucus, those of us that work on committees, of course, we reflect our abilities and our views. But then we come to our committee, before we table reports in this chamber, and we consult. We persuade. Sometimes we are in agreement. I assume every group is the same. And then we come to the chamber here, and after we have persuaded the majority of our group, we try to persuade other groups through negotiation, debate, questions and answers and so on and so forth.

To answer your question, I don’t think it is black or white. I don’t think Senator Kutcher or Senator Housakos speak for ourselves exclusively. I think we bring an expertise, a knowledge and a point of view. We both, I know, have deep convictions on things, but then we go back to our groups; we consult. We don’t take marching orders. I think that’s where we have the discrepancy here. Even in the Conservative caucus, we don’t take marching orders. We have discussions. Even at national caucus, we have discussions. We are not given orders that, “This is what we want you to do.” Trust me — especially the Senate caucus — we are not very good at taking orders.

That’s where I think the discrepancy is here. I don’t think you exclusively speak only for yourself, and that’s the point I’m making. I think you speak for yourself, your conscience, but you also represent your group because you receive the privilege of serving on that committee by that group. That’s the point I’m trying to make, and I don’t think I’m doing a very good job given the fact that everyone is drilling me over here.

Senator Kutcher, do you have another question?

I think Senator Housakos needs a break.

Honourable senators, in my short 15 minutes, I’ll try to remain focused as I try to respond to the leaders of the two largest groups, Senator Woo and Senator Housakos, and to answer the questions raised by Senator Tannas on Tuesday.

A week ago, the Senate adopted, without debate and with the unanimous agreement of all those attending, the First Report of the Committee of Selection, appointing senators to the various committees of the Senate. This was a critical step in organizing our committees, with many now up and running.

In doing so, we acted in compliance with Chapter 12 of our Rules, which states that the mandate of the Committee of Selection is to propose names of senators to populate committees, and that the Senate is the appointing authority.

This follows the practice of the House of Commons, both chambers of Westminster and the Australian Parliament. Moreover, all the authorities commenting on the Westminster model recognize that a chamber can amend the proposal of a selection committee. In other words, in the Westminster model, it is the chamber itself, and not the political parties or groups, that appoints members to various committees.

No doubt, groups are important in the pre-nomination phase leading to the report of our Selection Committee, to identify interest and expertise of senators and ensure a maximum of seats are filled on committees, including those that might be less sought after. But it should be up to the Selection Committee to make sure the ultimate result is a composition of each committee that is representative of Canadians and the society we live in.

These internal processes, which vary from one group to another, cannot be conflated with the Selection Committee’s function and its proposals and the subsequent decision of the Senate to appoint. This is obvious when we consider that non-affiliated senators, who are equal to any other senators, have the right to serve on committees, not just group members, as recognized in 2017 with the adoption of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Senate Modernization, a month before the ISG was recognized as a group.

Thus, to protect this right, non-affiliated senators are entitled, under rule 12-1, unanimously adopted in 2017, to one representative on the Selection Committee to ensure that its report will include the names of non-affiliated senators as of right. Unfortunately, this rule was not complied with recently, since both Senators Brazeau and McPhedran were not proposed to fill any of the 193 seats described in the First Report of the Committee of Selection. This hardly looks to me as a recognition that all senators are equal, including non-affiliated, in the appointing process. I hope this situation will be corrected soon, not by begging to existing groups to get some leftovers, but to be given as of right when they participate in the Selection Committee work, in order to allocate to even two non-affiliated senators. That represents 4 seats out of 193. We are far from that if we look at Senator Brazeau and Senator McPhedran.

Despite this flaw, the report was adopted last week by this chamber. Then, and only then, the committees were constituted.

The takeaway of the process is that the Senate itself, and not the groups, makes appointments to committees.

Moreover, in all Westminster parliaments, appointments to standing committees are made at least for the duration of a session when not for the duration of a Parliament. As we have heard earlier this week, the Senate has applied this principle since 1867 and incorporated it formally in its rules in 1969. But why is that so? The answer flows from the role of the committees summarized as follows in the preface of Senate Procedure in Practice:

Committees have always been a significant feature of the Senate. It is in committees that the talents and experience of senators are applied to great advantage. Their professional background and skills, together with the knowledge that senators acquire during their tenure in Parliament, provide a firm base for their engagement in committees. The solid work of committees is also enhanced through the stability and continuity of membership. Senators have an opportunity to gain an in depth understanding of complex issues studied over the years.

That is from the book written here in the Senate.

Now, some leaders are proposing that we accept, as we did without debate in March 2020 and again in a limited debate in October 2020, to dismiss this principle of continuity. This principle is even more important today than it was before, since it ensures greater individual independence in senators’ choice of affiliation in a chamber where there are now more groups and, thus, the possibility of greater mobility.

Seriously, colleagues, does anyone think that if a senator changes groups or becomes non-affiliated, he or she is no longer worthy of the trust of the Senate that has appointed him or her on a committee or that by changing a group a senator suddenly changes their views and perspectives on a matter?

We might then ask why is there an attempt to change this rule of continuity? Some say it is to preserve the proportional allocation of seats. Senator Bellemare and others have shown on Tuesday the flaws in this argument. The answer lies somewhere else.

The rule change seems to preserve, or even increase, the power of groups and their leaders. It was said clearly tonight that seats belong to groups. This runs counter to various attempts to enhance the individual freedom of MPs and members of upper houses in the Westminster model.

A 2009 report of the United Kingdom House of Commons Reform Committee recommended continuing appointments for the duration of Parliament and added “the desirability of removing the influence of party whips from the process . . .” in selecting members of committees. That report also explored options to further democratize the process of committee appointments with greater transparency.

The proposal before us is even more unfortunate in this place since it runs against the whole concept of a more independent Senate made up of senators free to determine their opinion on issues and bills, free to vote accordingly and free to affiliate, or not, without fear of reprisals.

In fact, this new concept of portability and the group owning the seats appears to have arisen after Senator Richards became a non-affiliated senator in 2018. Senator Richards then retained his seat on the National Security and Defence Committee, where close votes were expected in connection with Bill C-71. If the principle of appointment for the whole session then had been discarded, as is now proposed, dynamics would have been different on that committee.

In other words, substantive committee outcomes may be the factor in this initiative to discard the principle of appointment for the duration of the session.

In a question to Senator Cordy on Tuesday night, Senator Tannas touched directly on that point. Referring to rule 12-5 to which Senator Woo referred abundantly tonight, on replacement on committees, he said:

But nobody has mentioned rule 12-5, which basically says that the leaders, on a signature, can remove any member of any committee and appoint somebody else. So what we’re really talking about is, up until one minute before the person resigns, the leader could remove their seat. It is only in the moment after they have resigned that they can keep their seat or that the leader can’t take it back. The group can’t take it back.

As said in reply by Senator Cordy, if rule 12-5 can be read as meaning that, the time has come to ask the Rules Committee, not Selection, to review this matter.

I also have difficulty with the suggestions that the rules protecting seats for the session are not important because of a broadly drafted rule on replacements. In my view, a proper interpretation is to the contrary. The rule on the duration of appointments is the principle and the rule on replacement is the exception.

That rule on replacement has been in place since 1983. Its proper purpose is to make temporary substitutions, as Speaker Noël A. Kinsella explained in 2007:

Allowing changes in membership during the course of a session provides a convenient way to co-ordinate caucus work. If, for example, a senator is obliged to be away from a meeting for other responsibilities or if a senator who is not a regular member of a committee has particular expertise in a matter under consideration, rule [12-5] provides a way to accommodate these circumstances.

In 2009, a Rules Committee report confirmed that, in practice, today’s rule 12-5 is used for temporary replacements in the following manner:

The senator who is unable to attend the business of a committee for a meeting or period of time is replaced by another senator. Then, when the original committee member is able to resume attendance at meetings, he or she replaces that replacing senator — thus restoring the original membership of the committee.

On this point, in the other place, the House of Commons, permanent changes to standing committees can only be carried out by decision of the House of Commons as was shown when MP Leona Alleslev crossed the floor from the Liberals to become a Conservative. Motions from the equivalent of our Selection Committee have to be passed in the House of Commons, and a motion is needed by the House of Commons to adopt that report.

This is also the case in the Australian Senate and the U.K. House of Commons. As for the Standing Orders of the House of Lords, they are silent on the removal of committee. A replacement must be the subject of a motion adopted by the House of Lords.

Perhaps it is no surprise then when we previously voted on suspending rule 12-2(3) on October 28 last year, our former Speaker, Senator Housakos, voted to uphold the Westminster practice of duration of appointments.

No doubt, the broad rule 12-5 has been used for party discipline in the past. However, it is strange to see this aspect of the rule invoked in the current Senate, at least in groups that state that their members are free to vote as they wish, that the group will not take action to direct certain results and when there is no longer a whip. In other words, one could expect that the leadership of these groups will not use rule 12-5 for forced reassignment of senators, especially to ensure a result such as no amendment in committee.

Today’s decision is an important one for the direction of Senate reform because, honourable colleagues, it proposes regressive changes.

Last year, our former colleague, Murray Sinclair, reminded us of his aspirational vision of this chamber as “Canada’s council of elders.” He said:

We can move towards a culture and institutional structure that we can envision more as a circle of independent individuals, and away from hierarchical factions . . . .

In conclusion, I believe that to adopt the report will be a disservice to individual independence, to the committees, to the Senate and to the reform that we are striving to achieve for those that believe in this reform.

I respectfully urge you, senators, to vote against this report.

Thank you, meegwetch.