Senator Lankin: 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?

Hon. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, I have a point of order.

Senator Lankin: You said that with a question mark at the end, a note of surprise, Your Honour.

Honourable senators, in anticipation of the possibility or probability that we will be returning in person next week, I want to raise the question that relates to our rules about where people must be seated and where they must be in their seats or in their space if they are going to be speaking at all.

In preparation for how we would handle sittings during COVID — and we ended up with the hybrid model — there was consideration of how we maintained physical distancing, and that included suggestions of having senators seated in the galleries. I know that the Speaker can open up the galleries to the public or close them to the public and that could be accommodated, but our rules stand in the way of that potentially happening.

I mentioned earlier in a question about our colleagues who, for example, may be extremely immunocompromised, having undergone treatment for cancer, for instance, or who have a family member who comes down with COVID and they must also isolate themselves for a period of time.

I come to this with my experience from an Ontario jurisdiction with women’s legislation and right to know about dangers. I’m wondering how those colleagues will feel about coming back if they must sit shoulder to shoulder.

I have to admit that I am one of these people. I’m here and I participate in Ottawa, but I have a husband who is extremely immunocompromised. If I have space and I take all of the precautions that I do in all aspects of my life, I can be comfortable. If not, I can’t.

Those people who are perhaps in a situation more serious and significant than mine will be denied the opportunity to participate in the business of this chamber if they feel that they can’t be corralled into a space where there’s no physical distancing. I’m concerned about that, and I realize that in order to accommodate that it will involve some order of this chamber because it involves the actual rules about being at your seat when you’re speaking.

I raise this as a point of order knowing that, Your Honour, this is something that would normally be discussed with the Speaker. Maybe in saying this the leadership group will hear it, but I believe it’s a significant problem and it’s a significant challenge for senators to exercise their privilege and right of being here and participating if we don’t have those kinds of measures in place.

While you may not be able to rule on a mandatory process and we have to come back to this chamber to deal with — I leave that with you for consideration and for the consideration by my colleagues in this chamber.

Senator Lankin: 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.

(1720)

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.

Hon. Frances Lankin: 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.