QUESTION PERIOD — Question of Privilege
Speaker’s Ruling Reserved
May 1, 2020
Thank you, Your Honour.
I’m rising on a question of privilege from this morning, Your Honour. This morning the Committee of Selection held a meeting. I submit that the notice of the meeting and the discussions that were held breached the privilege of some senators.
A few of the things that I have issues with include the committee sitting during the adjournment of the Senate, the absence of consent and ability of the vice-chair of a committee to attend, and indeed notifying the chair. Senator Stewart Olsen is the vice-chair of the Committee of Selection. When she was informed of Senator Woo’s unilateral decision to call today’s meeting, she protested. There was no urgency to have this meeting, she said. To allow this meeting to proceed when the vice-chair did not agree to it and cannot be here because of travel restrictions, and the short notice, are breaches of Senator Stewart Olsen’s privilege.
The absence of Senator Seidman, committee member. One of our committee members, Senator Seidman, did not, did not, Your Honour, receive a notice of this meeting. She is clearly a member of this committee as per the membership posted on the website, yet notice was not sent out to her of this meeting. That in itself should have warranted the meeting of the committee to be adjourned until such a time as proper notice can be given to all members of the committee.
The chair decided to hold a meeting knowing full well that Senator Seidman had not been properly notified. This is a blatant breach of Senator Seidman’s privilege.
Third, an incorrect notice of meeting. Your Honour, my third point is that the notice of the meeting did not correctly refer to what would be debated. The notice of meeting sent out on Wednesday, April 29, at 9:08 p.m., stated that the agenda consisted of consideration of a draft agenda and future business. In fact, even after the meeting started, the Senate website still referred to the object of this meeting to be as “Consideration of a draft agenda (future business)”. It made no mention of the selection of a Speaker pro tempore or the population of various standing committees.
The Chair decided to impose a new agenda on the committee. It then went on to name a Speaker pro tempore and appoint members on committees. That is not fair to members of committee and all senators. Given we are currently in the midst of a pandemic, I would imagine that most senators would base their decision to attend a meeting on the basis of the notice of meeting and the business being conducted.
Discussing future business is not the same, Your Honour and honourable senators, as the selection of a Speaker pro tempore or the population of committees. I raised that point with the chair, and he did not even bother to acknowledge that the notice was incorrect, and he decided to move ahead and proceed with his agenda.
I would imagine that senators would make more of an effort to attend a meeting if they knew there was important business, like the population of committees or the election of a Speaker pro tempore, than they would if there is just simply future business going to be discussed, Your Honour. I submit that is a breach of privileges of members of committee and, indeed, all senators to know in advance what will be debated and voted on during the committee.
So I raise that as a question of privilege, Your Honour, and leave it in your hands.
Did you want to enter debate on the question of privilege, senator?
I have a question for Senator Plett.
Senator Plett, would you take a question?
Certainly.
Senator Plett, you said that Senator Seidman, who is present in the chamber today, did not receive a proper notice. Was she notified on April 29 or was she not?
I think I was pretty clear on that, Senator Dalphond, both in my comments now as well as in the meeting earlier; no she was not. She was not notified. I am not sure whether she has received the notice now this morning at — and I have the notes here somewhere. I won’t quote the time. But this morning at around 10 o’clock, we got a notice, that I believe came from the clerk’s office, letting us know they had removed my name — which should never have been there and isn’t on the website — from the list of senators who are on the committee. They had named me as ex officio — which I rightfully am, and that’s under the conditions I was there this morning — and had added Senator Seidman’s name to the committee list. That was maybe at 10:08 this morning. I have the email here and I can check the exact time, but it was this morning, senator, that we received that notice. Senator Seidman did not get that notice of the meeting.
Honourable senators, this point of privilege is unfounded, both in the rules and in the practices of the Senate. I would note that it is a point of privilege, but it is a little unclear from Senator Plett exactly as to whose privilege has been violated. He has mentioned a few different names and he has mentioned the committee as a whole. He seems to be focusing particularly on the privilege of Senator Seidman, who we are told was not informed about this meeting.
I would draw your attention, Your Honour, to the fact that the requirement for notice of meeting is the public notice that is posted, and that was indeed done. Senator Dalphond alluded to it being posted on April 29, barely a few hours after you had recalled the Senate.
That is the only requirement — I should say that is the only requirement in terms of the public notice. Of course, the Senate also has to make sure that other provisions are made for the meeting to be conducted according to our rules, such as the presence of a suitable room and interpretation and so on. All of these requirements, colleagues, were met when the public notice of the meeting went out. That is the narrow technicality of the rule, and that should be sufficient to do away with this frivolous point of privilege.
Let me just go further, because Senator Plett has raised some extraneous issues into this question of privilege.
Colleagues, what the committee did today and which you all heard in my notice of motion — I should say the tabling of the report of the Committee of Selection — is to simply put into effect the allocation of committee seats among various senators across the chamber based on negotiations and based on an agreement that had been reached at least six weeks ago.
It is also based on a signed letter of agreement by all of the leaders and facilitators of recognized groups specifically outlining the distribution of seats, as we see in the report today. And today’s Selection Committee report was also validated in some senses by a motion that this very chamber adopted pursuant to the letter of agreement among the leaders and facilitators of recognized groups in this chamber.
The meeting agenda was well-known to all members of the committee, and particularly to the members of the Selection Committee, through a series of emails that I sent to both of my colleagues on the steering committee over a period of about six weeks. For example, at the end of the previous Committee of Selection meeting, but also through emails stating my intention to call a meeting of Selection the next time we sit for the purpose of dealing with committee memberships and the nomination of the Speaker pro tempore.
We constituted this meeting today according to the rules. We gave proper notice through the public announcement of the meeting. Senators were informed through the usual process. There is no breach of privilege. I ask, therefore, Your Honour, that you dispense with this frivolous point of privilege. Thank you.
Do any other senators wish to comment on the question of privilege? If not, honourable senators, I will take the matter under advisement.
