It was moved by the Honourable Senator Seidman, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells:

That the motion in amendment be not now adopted, but that it be amended by:

1. adding, after point (b) in the amendment, a new point (c) as follows:

“(c)a letter from Dr. Theresa Tam, Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, outlining how the Senate sitting in person only would contravene guidelines issued by her office”; and

2.changing the designation of points (c) and (d) in the amendment to points (d) and (e).

On debate.

Honourable senators, I rise to add my voice to the debate on Senator Seidman’s subamendment and to make some more general comments on the direction of the debate so far.

First of all, I want to thank Senator Plett for his speech, delivered with passion and conviction as we would have expected and for his suggestion for moving forward, and also Senator Seidman for your suggestion to provide another level or layer of that.

All that said, as the Government Representative, I am going to be speaking against this subamendment.

Colleagues, I want to remind us that the process that led us to this place today — or yesterday when I tabled the motion that has now been amended and subamended — was a product of serious discussion preceded by consultations and was informed by both an understanding and a reference to public health input and information, some of which, to some degree, is publicly available. Senator Seidman quite properly pointed out that science is not an exact science, if I can use it in those terms. Witness, for example, the estimations we have to make based upon waste water because we no longer have the capacity to test.

It’s important that we understand what we do know and the limits of what we know. What was informed by the decision to propose the extension of hybrid to June 30 was to be cautious and careful out of consideration for the health and safety of senators, their families and staff. That remains — although we may disagree as to the level of risk. I think we all share that concern, as we should as responsible citizens and parliamentarians.

All groups consulted, negotiated and worked in good faith to reach a text to which I spoke today and which was moved today. I won’t repeat my speech, you can be assured. The text represented an attempt to balance the needs for increased Senate time, committee time and to maintain hybrid for the remaining weeks until June 30. It is a position that was supported and is supported by three of the four groups beyond the Government Representative Office.

I’m not being ideological about this. I’m trying to be practical and I’m trying to be respectful — and have been, as I will always try to be — of the Senate and its authority ultimately to decide how it wants to organize. But I really do think it makes sense at this juncture to consider the importance of not disenfranchising senators. That’s why I still believe that the motion that is put before you, which will take us until the end of June, is the best way to go.

Let us be clear, this is not government policy. The decision to introduce hybrid and to extend hybrid was a decision of the Senate. Indeed, our hybrid model was developed here in the Senate and by the Senate. The health and safety information upon which I relied to come to the conclusion was not provided by the PMO, it was provided by the Senate and the Senate Executive Committee.

If the Senate wants to return to in-person sittings, that’s for the Senate to decide. We’re not going to stand in the way of that. This is not our agenda item. This is what we collectively have decided up to now and I’m encouraging us to continue to do so until we rise at the end of June.

I’m going to vote against this amendment. We’ve spent a lot of time on this. I don’t mean today, but a lot of time. It’s time that we focus on what our job is whether in hybrid or not, whether in committee or in the chamber. We have work to do on legislation and on public policy issues, and I really think the time has come to do so.

Respectfully, to those who propose it, I’m going to be voting against this amendment, and I encourage others to do so as well.

Senator Housakos, a question or on debate?

Will Senator Gold take a question?

Of course.

Senator Gold, let me understand this clearly. The motion was not debated at the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. This committee did not bring witnesses in terms of senior administration or other health authorities to come to a debate or a conclusion on the motion. The motion did not trickle down from the committee after discussion to caucuses for their input. The motion you tabled is a government motion. Yet you tell us this has nothing to do with the government. How do you explain that?

No. What I said was that the decision to promote the idea of extending hybrid was made based upon health information that was provided to us by the Senate, not the PMO. Second, that it was a decision that was supported by the leadership of three out of the four groups, and indeed all four groups worked on the motion that was before you.

So what I’m saying to you is that this is clearly a government motion because I undertook, as I did in the past, to make sure that when there is a consensus in the Senate — as I thought there was when I tabled this motion yesterday — that I would facilitate its timely and effective debate and passage as only a government motion could do.

If our rules were different, I quite suspect that the motion might have come forward from some other hands. But if it was a reasonable motion, as I believe the motion is that I put before you, I would support it.

I hope that answers your question.

Senator Gold, earlier today in your speech about hybrid sittings you were saying you really didn’t want a permanent hybrid sitting situation, yet I think you let the veil slip a little bit near the end of that speech when you said that you were talking about extending to at least the end of June. What is the real answer of when you want to actually extend hybrid sittings until because you definitely said at least until the end of June.

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. It struck me as I was reading it that that was not entirely what I intended.

There is no hidden agenda here. I made it clear — and I’m going to make it clear in response to your question — that the only thing that we are concerned about and should be concerned about is whether or not hybrid should be extended to June 30. It is not the position of the Government Representative Office nor is it the position of this government that this is a smokescreen for anything else.

The focus should be on whether or not, between now and when we expect to rise for the summer break, we can function in a safe and appropriate environment. That’s the position of the government and that’s my position. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that.

Also, in the remarks that you just gave, you were indicating that the health information that you provided was from the Senate and not from PMO or anything like that. Are you speaking about the health information just simply being the total number of people who have contracted COVID in the Senate and the Parliamentary Precinct over the last little while? Is that the health information you’re talking about?

Wouldn’t you agree, Senator Gold, that what Senator Plett and now Senator Seidman are requesting is actual health information about guidelines and opinions from the federal government about how to do in-person meetings safely? That’s the kind of information that we’re requesting. Senator Seidman is requesting a letter from Dr. Theresa Tam, the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, outlining how we can do these things. That’s the sort of health information we’re talking about.

Is the health information you were speaking about merely just totalling up who might have COVID and whether or not it was simply a positive test but really minimal symptoms ranging from people who are fairly sick with COVID?

Thank you for your question. Again, let me be clear: I was responding in the context of allegations or insinuations that somehow there was some sort of secret plan here — as Senator Housakos surmised or wondered out loud what meetings might have taken place. The answer is no.

The information on which I based my conclusion that it was appropriate to extend it — and presumably the information upon which the other senators and leaders who supported the prolongation to June — is a combination of things. It’s information from the Senate about the cases in the precinct. It’s evidence that is publicly available in terms of the situation not only in Ottawa or in Ontario, but in other provinces. It is information with regard to what we don’t know, as I said earlier in response to Senator Seidman, that we have to guess how bad the situation actually is based upon extrapolations from waste water data because we’re not testing.

It is the information that was available upon which to make a proper decision.

Senator Gold, if you are so concerned about getting proper health information and making a prudent decision here, why wouldn’t you consider the types of health information that both Senator Plett and Senator Seidman are requesting in their amendments to be exactly the kind of information you would want to see? Federal government public health guidelines and current federal government public health opinions about proper, safe ways to have in-person meetings. That should be something that you, as the government leader in the Senate, can very easily get for us.

As I said earlier in my remarks or in response to a question — and forgive me if I can’t recall in which context — we have spent a long time on this at the expense of focusing on the business that we were summoned here to do. I remain of the opinion that the information we have available to us is more than sufficient to justify the prolongation for a relatively brief time, for the two months set out in the motion. I think it would be a far higher and better use of our time to dispose of this issue and to prolong hybrid for the two months so that we don’t spend time next week and the following week still on this issue at the expense of the work we were summoned to do.

Senator Gold, would you agree with me that confusion has been brought to this debate with regard to the fact that Internal Economy has no say in the way the chamber will function, and that the chamber’s function is within the chamber’s purview?

Second, your main motion is clearly stating that the extension of hybrid sittings will go by the end of June — that is June 30, not “at least” June 30 — and also that there is a redundancy in Senator Seidman’s subamendment with regard to the fact that, on Senator Plett’s amendment, all opinions and guidelines from public health officials from the federal government would include, first and foremost, the advice of Dr. Theresa Tam?

I agree with every point. Thank you for putting it more elegantly than I could.

Honourable senators, I have a question. Senator Gold, would you also not agree that all leaders met on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week to develop the motion that you presented yesterday? All leaders took part in the development of the motion that you presented yesterday. Three of the four leaders, yourself excluded, supported this motion that was brought forward by you to the house yesterday. And all leaders, as I said earlier, participated in the drafting of the motion that was tabled by you on behalf of all of us.

That’s exactly the case; thank you for that. I am grateful for the collaboration that all the leaders showed and for their willingness to compromise in crafting a motion that I believed was appropriate. Although I had no illusions that it would be embraced by the opposition, nonetheless, I assumed that we could bring it to a proper and expeditious vote after a proper debate. It is still my hope that we could do that.

Also, when I was looking at the original motion and the second motion, I got the feeling of a make-work project. It is a rainy day and you are trying to find something for your kids to do, so you tell them to check the internet and get all this information. Would you not agree that all of this information requested is readily available on the internet?

Senator Gold, I also know that we’ve been talking mainly about numbers in Ontario and Quebec because we’re located in Ottawa, but I happened to look for the numbers for the week of April 11 to April 18 in my province of Nova Scotia, because we have to keep in mind that we are travelling. I’m not travelling from Ontario or Quebec. I’m travelling from Nova Scotia. Last week in Nova Scotia, there were 7,508 new cases. That’s an average of 1,073 new cases a day, 84 hospital admissions, 64 people in the hospital and 13 deaths in the small province of Nova Scotia last week. Would you not agree that we have to be aware of not just Ontario and Quebec, but we also have to be aware of situations in the rest of the country?

I certainly do agree. Thank you.

I was not going to ask questions, but when leaders start ganging up, then I at least will put something on the record.

Keep in mind, I can regale you all for another hour and a half here because I am unlimited even in speaking to this subamendment. I would rather choose to ask Senator Gold two questions.

Senator Gold, what is your definition of consensus? That is my first question; I do have a second.

Part of the tradition where I come from is to answer a question with a question, but I didn’t talk about consensus at all. I talked about consultation. Is that what you are asking me, senator?

I think if we listen to Hansard tomorrow, you will find that you clearly used the word “consensus” when you said you had consensus at the leadership table.

Yes, thank you for reminding me of that. We had consensus at the leadership table on the text of the motion, and that is what I was referring to. I went on to say, in response to a more recent question, that I didn’t expect that the motion would necessarily be positively embraced by the opposition. You made your opposition to hybrid very clear. I nonetheless believe that the appropriate thing to do for the Senate and for Canadians is to allow us to vote on the amendment that I proposed and to do so in the context of a hybrid sitting when all senators could participate.

Let me ask you this question: Is there anything — and I’m not going to talk about our personal conversations — that I said, at any point, where I said I will support this motion? Did I do anything — and if I did, I would like to know what it is. I was clear from the beginning, Senator Gold, that I do not support this.

The fact is that I tried to be congenial, tried to be a team player and worked on the text, realizing that we do not have a majority in this chamber anymore. I understand that. I understand that, probably, when these things come to a vote, I may not be on the winning end of these votes. As I said to you, hope springs eternal. But the bottom line is that I understood we probably will lose the vote. Then I collaborate with you and say, if I’m going to lose the vote, let’s at least have part of the text of the motion — you keep saying the text of the motion, and that’s unfair. Part of the text of the motion, I was very much a part of. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that the majority of those were suggestions I made. I’m happy about that. I am happy that, should we lose the vote on this motion, at least that will be in there, because that will at least allow committees to do a better job than they have been doing until now. Not as good as they should, but a better job than they have been doing until now.

Would you not agree, Senator Gold, that is in fact what I said to you from the get-go, and that it is unfair for you to paint in this chamber as though, when three out of four leaders say, “We agree with you,” that that should be the vote, we should not debate it in this chamber and we should not vote against it? Because that’s what you seem to be implying.

Thank you, senator, but that’s not what I was implying. On the contrary, I was simply reporting that what I brought forward was the fruit of discussions among all the groups. I will also respect the confidentiality of our conversations, but I don’t believe that I suggested in this chamber that I assumed you would support this. If Hansard reveals otherwise, let me apologize in advance, but I don’t believe I said that.

I simply believe, as I’ve said — now I am repeating myself rather unnecessarily — we need appropriate debate. We are in the middle of the debate — and I welcome the debate — and that we should be able to reach a vote, such that this gets resolved and we can focus on the work for which we were summoned.

Honourable senators, again, I’m a little bit perturbed by the debate amongst the leadership here in this chamber, on this floor. You were very quick, Senator Gold, to agree with my friend Senator Saint-Germain about how the chamber here has authority over the Internal Economy Committee and all committees. Of course, senators pick and choose whenever the chamber has the authority to drive and guide committees.

As I said earlier in my speech, the Committee of Internal Economy is the administrative body of this chamber. I still, government leader, find it disturbing that on such an important issue that falls within their purview, they did not deal with it transparently, actively and openly, before it came up the pike here to this chamber. Ultimately, this chamber is the final authority.

The question to you, government leader, is: Why did you rush to put this motion to the Senate floor without it being appropriately debated and reviewed by the Committee of Internal Economy? Will you also agree that before the government takes any measure to reduce the capacity of this chamber to operate at 100%, its maximum capability, that you would consult the Committee of Internal Economy, the members of the Committee of Internal Economy and everyone else involved, before you move a government motion like this?

Thank you for your question. It is my understanding that it is not the Committee of Internal Economy’s responsibility, and therefore the Committee of Internal Economy was not consulted. In that regard, I stand by what I have said: I believe that the motion I brought forward was the product of appropriate consultation as set out in the motion to which we were bound and that it is appropriate for the Senate.

To your question about rushing, we just came off a two-week break or recess, such that we had only this sitting week to be able to resolve the issue of whether or not hybrid sittings would be prolonged. Believing, as I did and other leaders did, that it was appropriate to prolong it, I brought it forward almost at the earliest moment. In fact, I didn’t give notice of it because the leadership was engaged in discussions to try to improve the motion. Out of respect and gratitude for that process, I waited a day to give notice and then gave notice of a text to which three leaders agreed with completely, and one, according to Senator Plett, agreed with only partially.

Again, with all due respect, government leader, the Committee of Internal Economy can meet at any time, as you know. If this issue was as important as it is, why would you wait until the last moment to get this done? Again, with all due respect, on decisions of this nature — which are very important decisions — I, for one, do not believe they should be taken in a vacuum by a bunch of leaders on this floor. These are decisions that impact this institution and should respect the protocol in terms of administrative protocol. The Committee of Internal Economy had authority to meet even while we were on a break, had the authority review this in an appropriate fashion and report to this chamber with a course of action that we could have dealt with accordingly.

I think I have answered the question. I really have nothing else to add to the answer I have provided.

I have a couple of different points that I want to raise questions on. May I start with understanding in terms of what I’ve heard around the process?

There are some elements of the motion that you moved that actually contain the beginning of a plan for transition, in terms of increasing hours of Senate committees. I’ve heard that Senator Plett contributed to that thinking and I want to say I appreciate that. I think setting out some kind of transition and helping us understand and boosting our opportunity to do really important work, as we see the Budget Implementation Act and other things coming through, is important.

Is that, in fact, the only area of discussion that there was either agreement by some and opposition by the other? Or was there, in fact, also agreement which usually happens in leaders’ meetings to the process that will follow that this would be tabled, it would be called at a certain point in time, that there would be a vote, maybe standing, maybe on division? I do not understand. Normally these agreements are accompanied by a process agreement as well.

Again, in an attempt to respect the confidentiality of the agreement — thank you for your question — no, we brought this forward. I tabled the motion without any agreement as such for exactly how the debate would be structured or what people would say in debate. I had no knowledge of amendments or tactics.

I am also interested, Your Honour, in the question of transition. Because I don’t think it is just about getting more committees going. For example, one of the things that could be considered — in speaking with someone from the House of Commons, indicating that their particular caucus was returning to in-person sittings, with the exception of people who had health challenges; for example, someone who had a compromised immune system because they had been receiving treatment for cancer, let’s say. It would be recognized that there is a wise public health protection provision to allow them to continue to work and be productive and increase productivity or continue productivity, but to allow them to work remotely.

In a transition, when you come forward after June, you would have to — have there been discussions or would you undertake to lead discussions with the other leaders about provisions such as that? Under what circumstances could some individuals continue — where it is warranted — to work remotely and therefore not be docked in terms of attendance and participation or criticized because they are working from their home but nonetheless working?

Thank you for the question. I know that there is an interest in many quarters for having a discussion about the future beyond the end of June, and I respect that. But that has not been the focus of these discussions. It wasn’t the focus of the consultations or the negotiations. It was very much focused on how we can address the health and safety and working needs of the Senate between now and when we expect to rise by the end of June. Colleagues, even the less experienced of us in this chamber know how intense the months of May and June can be.

It was always the view of many groups to extend until June. We extended only to the end of March as a compromise with those groups who were diffident about it, but it remains the case that we have and we will have important work to do for which we need the full participation of all senators. We recognize this will also require active and serious participation by committees.

It was in that spirit, focused really only on getting through this period that we were focused on. I would welcome anyone, any senator or group of senators, taking the lead in the conversation. We’d be happy to participate in that. We would be happy, if the Senate so wishes, to seek advice from the Committee of Internal Economy in that regard, but we are here to be the servants of the Senate. I say that humbly but sincerely. Our focus has been very narrow, perhaps too narrow for some, but we thought appropriately narrow to simply get us through what we expect to be a challenging, intensive and, I hope, productive legislative session.

Thank you. I will make this my last question, Senator Gold. I have to say that I was very attentively listening to the arguments that were made. I actually feel it was so refreshing compared to the speeches that I heard at the end of March on this same kind of motion, a much more serious tone, much less just taking shots and digs and whatever.

I listened and it is a reasonable approach that is being suggested. It would have been nice had it been suggested and discussed before we were here in the Senate Chamber so that we could look at what other kinds of options might be needed.

Specifically, I want to ask you about your reference to hybrid in the future. You know that there are senators who think that for reasons of innovation, technology or carbon footprint, there is a debate. I agree with you that that is not the debate today.

But I want to make sure that you are not precluding that with anything we decide today, one way or the other, on the motion that is the amended motion or this, that that’s in the future.

Second, I want to say that if we are looking at transition plans, I want to see a transition plan — which can’t be accomplished by the motions today, unfortunately — that takes into account those senators over the course of the next two months who are not in a position to be able to return yet, but who are able to contribute and to continue working.

While I thought I was actually going to support Senator Plett’s amendment, and I have no objection following on that with Senator Seidman, I find that it falls short in terms of addressing those particular colleagues, and not just senators.

I know of people in the staff who would benefit from having clarity about how they continue to work and not put themselves at risk when they have, themselves, an immune-compromised situation. Had that been done, I think you would have kept me with you on your side. But maybe that’s something, between now until the end of June, that we could work on.

I understood the question.

As the government representative, we are always open to working with other senators — leadership and senators — to advance the ability of the Senate to do its work in an effective way, and in a way that is mindful of the challenges that people face when unable, for health reasons, to be here. So we would be open to participating in that. It is not ours to lead. But we would work happily with those individuals at the appropriate time, if that’s the will of the Senate.

My door is open. My mind is open. But my mind is convinced that this subamendment is not necessary and, in fact, I’m going to vote against it.

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

If you are opposed to the motion, please say “no.”

Those in favour of the motion and who are in the Senate Chamber will please say “yea.”

Those opposed to the motion and who are in the Senate Chamber will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

The vote will occur at the next sitting.