Senator Patterson: The CRTC may be independent, but the government does have the authority to issue policy direction.

I would like to turn your attention, Senator Gold, to the January 2020 report of the Broadcasting & Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel entitled Canada’s Communications Future: Time to Act. Included amongst the many excellent recommendations were several related to increasing the transparency of the CRTC and the commissioner appointment process.

I know that I myself have had a very difficult time trying to connect with the commissioner responsible for Nunavut, who is based in the Atlantic region. In fact, my request for a meeting has been flatly refused.

I also understand that there are ongoing concerns about the express bias of the chair and his meeting with senior executives from Bell Canada in the midst of challenges to the wholesale internet rates appeal.

Senator Gold, will your government be acting on the recommendation that would result in a more accountable and transparent commission? If so, when can we expect to see those changes instituted?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question, senator. The government is aware of the recommendations. I have been advised that no decision has yet been made in that regard.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I don’t know the answer to your question. I do know, however, that this government remains focused on the important question of affordability and the cost of living for Canadians. The government has reached its target of 1 million jobs. It has restored employment back to pre-pandemic levels. In addition, the work that is being done to reach agreements with provinces, to establish early learning and child care centres across the country; it’s a strong policy to improve affordability for families in all parts of the country.

I’m advised that the government is confident that the prudent plan it has put forward sets out a new fiscal anchor that is committed to reducing the federal debt as a share of the economy over the medium term, and unwinding the deficits that were created as a result of expenditures and investments in COVID-19. The government remains committed to assisting Canadians as we transition from this period to a better one going forward.

Senator Plett: That was a pretty long no.

Tuesday’s Speech from the Throne mentioned inflation only once. The Trudeau government’s total lack of interest in monetary policy has real consequences, leader, for Canadians. On average, families are paying almost $700 more for groceries this year compared to 2020. Year over year, home prices are more expensive all across Canada by as much as 30% in the Greater Toronto Area and in New Brunswick. I’m finding this myself; we’re building a new house.

Leader, the decision to keep the current inflation target should be an easy one for the Trudeau government to make, or is your government content to simply stand by while the cost of living gets more and more unaffordable for Canadians?

Senator Gold: The Government of Canada is not standing by. On the contrary, it’s assisting Canadians with the ability and the levers it has at its disposal, and the government is confident that its measures will make a real difference in the lives of Canadians, reducing the costs with regard to some of the programs I mentioned and that were announced earlier. Again, in the interest of brevity and giving as much time for other questions to be asked, I resist the temptation to expound upon the worldwide phenomenon of inflation caused, as most economists agree, by supply chain issues and the like, and that domestic responses in terms of monetary policy may not indeed be the most effective lever. That said, the government is considering all measures appropriate to assist Canadians through this difficult time.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) moved:

That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada:

To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:

We, Her Majesty’s most loyal and dutiful subjects, the Senate of Canada in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

(On motion of Senator Gagné, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:

1.as soon as practicable after the adoption of this order the Senate begin to hold hybrid sittings, with all senators able to participate in sittings either from the Senate Chamber or through an approved videoconference technology to be determined from time to time by the Speaker after consulting with the leaders and facilitators, with the provisions of this order applying until hybrid sittings cease, and during the time this order is in effect, the Senate Administration continue to implement a system to allow senators in the Senate Chamber to see, on screen, the senators participating by videoconference;

2.the Speaker, after consulting the leaders and facilitators, determine the date on which such hybrid sittings shall commence;

3.hybrid sittings of the Senate be considered, for all purposes, proceedings of the Senate, with senators participating in such sittings by videoconference from a designated office or designated residence within Canada being considered, for all purposes, including quorum, present at the sitting; the sitting being considered to take place in the parliamentary precinct; and times specified in the Rules or this or any other order being Ottawa times;

4.subject to variations that may be required by the circumstances, to participate in hybrid sittings of the Senate by videoconference senators must:

(a)use a desktop or laptop computer and headset with integrated microphone provided by the Senate for videoconferences;

(b)not use other devices such as personal tablets or smartphones;

(c)be the only people visible on the videoconference from an active video feed, other than those in the Senate Chamber; and

(d)except while the bells are ringing for a vote:

(i)have their video on and broadcasting their image at all times; and

(ii)leave the videoconference if they leave their seat;

5.the Senate recognize that, except as provided in this order, there should generally be parity of treatment among all senators attending in person and those attending by videoconference during hybrid sittings of the Senate and that proceedings should follow usual procedures, subject to such variations required for technical reasons as may be directed by the Speaker, subject to appeal to the Senate if technically feasible;

6.senators participating in hybrid sittings of the Senate by videoconference need not stand;

7.without restricting the operation of rule 3-6 and the right of senators to move a motion to adjourn the Senate as allowed under the Rules, without affecting requirements in certain circumstances that the Senate continue sitting after receipt of a message from the Crown or the announcement that a message is anticipated, and except as otherwise provided in this order:

(a)when the Senate sits on a Monday, the provisions of rule 3-3(1) be suspended and the sitting:

(i)start at 6 p.m.; and

(ii)adjourn at the earlier of the end of Government Business or 9 p.m.;

(b)when the Senate sits on a Tuesday, the sitting:

(i)start at 2 p.m.; and

(ii)adjourn at the earlier of the end of business for the day or 9 p.m.;

(c)when the Senate sits on a Wednesday, the sitting:

(i)start at 2 p.m.; and

(ii)adjourn at the earlier of the end of Government Business or 4 p.m.;

(d)when the Senate sits on a Thursday, the sitting:

(i)start at 2 p.m.; and

(ii)adjourn at the earlier of the end of business for the day or 9 p.m.; and

(e)when the Senate sits on a Friday, the sitting:

(i)start at 10 a.m.; and

(ii)adjourn at the earlier of the end of Government Business or 4 p.m.;

8.the Speaker be authorized to suspend the sitting of the Senate as required for technical and other reasons, and the microphones of senators participating by videoconference shall be muted during any suspension;

9.the Speaker be authorized to direct that the sitting of the Senate be adjourned for technical reasons, provided that this direction be subject to appeal if technically feasible;

10.the times provided for adjournment of the sitting in paragraph 7 be considered the ordinary time of adjournment for the purposes of the Rules, and, for greater certainty, any provisions of the Rules permitting the continuation of the sitting beyond that time in certain circumstances continue to apply, provided that if the provisions of paragraph 9 are invoked when an item that would allow the Senate to continue beyond the ordinary time of adjournment is under consideration, that item of business shall, except in the case of an emergency debate and subject to the provisions of rule 4-13(3), be dealt with at the start of the Orders of the Day of the next following sitting;

11.on the first day of debate on a motion moved in relation to a case of privilege, debate may be adjourned, even if normally prohibited under rule 13-6(6);

12.the evening suspension provided for in rule 3-3(1) end at 7 p.m.;

13.when the Senate sits on a day other than a Friday, any provision of the Rules requiring that something take place at 8 p.m. be read as if the time therein were 7 p.m.;

14.the Senate recognize the importance of providing the Speaker with information necessary to allow him to assist with the orderly conduct of business in hybrid sittings, and therefore, subject to normal confidentiality practices, strongly encourage all senators:

(a)to advise their party or group representatives, or the Clerk of the Senate or his delegate, as far in advance as possible, if they intend to intervene during the sitting; and

(b)to provide the Clerk of the Senate or his delegate, as far in advance as possible with an electronic copy in English and French of any amendment, subamendment, notice of motion, notice of inquiry, committee report to be tabled or presented, bill to be introduced, or any other document required for the sitting as far in advance as possible;

15.a senator who has provided an advance copy of a document under subparagraph 14(b) be considered to have fulfilled any obligation to provide a signed copy of that document;

16.the following provisions have effect in relation to voting during hybrid sittings of the Senate:

(a)only senators present in the Senate Chamber shall participate in:

(i)the procedure for a voice vote; and

(ii)the determination as to whether leave is granted for bells of less than 60 minutes;

(b)to be one of the senators requesting a standing vote, a senator participating by videoconference must clearly indicate this request, but need not stand;

(c)rule 9-7(1)(c) shall be read as follows:

“(c) then:

(i) ask the “yeas” in the Senate Chamber to rise for their names to be called;

(ii) ask the “yeas” participating by videoconference to hold up the established card for voting “yea” for their names to be called;

(iii) ask the “nays” in the Senate Chamber to rise for their names to be called;

(iv) ask the “nays” participating by videoconference to hold up the established card for voting “nay” for their names to be called;

(v) ask those who are abstaining in the Senate Chamber to rise for their names to be called; and

(vi) ask those who are abstaining and participating by videoconference to hold up the established card for abstaining for their names to be called.”;

(d)when a standing vote is underway, senators participating by videoconference must have their camera on for the duration of the vote and each senator must be seen on camera when voting;

(e)except as provided in subparagraph (h), if a vote is deferred pursuant to rule 9-10, it shall be held at 3:30 p.m. on the next day the Senate sits, after a 15-minute bell, interrupting any proceedings then underway, except another vote or the bells for a vote;

(f)except as provided in subparagraph (h), if a vote is deferred pursuant to rule 4-6(1), it shall be held at 3:30 p.m. on the same day, after a 15‑minute bell, interrupting any proceedings then underway, except another vote or the bells for a vote;

(g)except as provided in subparagraph (h), in the case of votes deferred pursuant to other provisions of the Rules, the usual processes for such votes shall hold, with the sitting being suspended, if necessary, at the end of the time otherwise provided for the end of the sitting pursuant to this order; and

(h)if a deferred vote is to be held on a Monday, it shall be held at the end of Question Period, after a 15-minute bell;

17.for greater certainty, leave be considered granted during hybrid sittings of the Senate when requested, unless the Speaker, after a sufficient period of time, hears an objection from a senator, either in the Senate Chamber or participating by videoconference;

18.from the time of the adoption of this order:

(a)any return, report or other paper deposited with the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to rule 14-1(6), may be deposited electronically;

(b)the government be authorized to deposit electronically with the Clerk of the Senate any documents relating to its administrative responsibilities, following the process of rule 14-1(6);

(c)written replies to oral questions and to written questions may be deposited with the Clerk of the Senate electronically following the process of rule 14-1(6), provided that written replies to oral questions be published as an appendix to the Debates of the Senate of the day on which the tabling is recorded in the Journals of the Senate; and

(d)written replies to oral questions deposited electronically with the Clerk of the Senate shall be distributed to all senators;

19.from the time of the adoption of this order, Senate committees have the power to hold hybrid meetings;

20.for greater certainty, and without limiting the general authority granted by this order, when a committee holds a hybrid meeting:

(a)members of the committee participating count towards quorum;

(b)such meetings be considered to be occurring in the parliamentary precinct, irrespective of where participants may be; and

(c)the committee be directed to approach in camera meetings with the utmost caution and all necessary precautions, taking account of the risks to the confidentiality of in camera proceedings inherent in such technologies;

21.subject to variations that may be required by the circumstances, to participate in a committee meeting by videoconference senators must:

(a)participate from a designated office or designated residence within Canada;

(b)use a desktop or laptop computer and a headset with integrated microphone provided by the Senate for videoconferences;

(c)not use other devices, such as personal tablets or smartphones;

(d)be the only people visible on the videoconference;

(e)have their video on and broadcasting their image at all times; and

(f)leave the videoconference if they leave their seat;

22.if a committee holds a hybrid meeting in public, the provisions of rule 14-7(2) be applied so as to allow recording or broadcasting through any facilities arranged by the Clerk of the Senate, and, if such a meeting cannot be broadcast live, the committee be considered to have fulfilled any obligations under the Rules relating to public meetings by making any available recording publicly available as soon as possible thereafter; and

23.the terms of this order cease to have effect, and hybrid sittings of the Senate and hybrid meetings of Senate committees cease, at the end of the day on March 31, 2022.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today as well to add my voice to the debate on the government’s notice of motion regarding hybrid sittings.

Before I begin my remarks, indulge me, please, if you would, colleagues. Sometimes when one doesn’t give quite enough information, then information is assumed and people start thinking certain things and that information is spread around. Pretty soon you’re receiving all kinds of good wishes and so on and so forth, and expressions of hope that you will be back again. I’m not sure how serious some of those are, but I appreciate them. I now know how to garner sympathy from my colleagues. I appreciate all the good wishes I have received, but I want to assure this chamber that the minor medical issue that I have will be entirely alleviated by being away from all of you for a while.

If I can go and put my feet up, I will be back — maybe before Christmas, but certainly in the new year — to continue to be a pain in your sides and so on. As I may be gone until the new year, I’ll take this opportunity to wish all of you a wonderful and safe holiday, happy New Year and Merry Christmas, and I plan to see all of you at least in the new year.

With that, let me just simply say at the outset that I acknowledge the imperative of taking adequate measures to ensure the safety of all senators, their staff and the administration of the Senate. This, colleagues, is not up for debate. What is up for debate, however, is whether hybrid sittings are necessary in order to achieve that. I would argue that they are not.

In fact, not only are hybrid sittings unnecessary, in my opinion, but they are inconsistent with current public health guidelines and make it more difficult for us to complete our work and to complete it in a timely manner. Allow me to elaborate.

It would appear that almost everywhere across the city of Ottawa we are moving out of the pandemic, except, colleagues, in the Parliamentary Precinct.

On October 9, the Ontario government lifted capacity limits to allow 100% capacity at concert venues, theatres, cinemas, meeting and event spaces, spectator areas of sports facilities, horse racing tracks, car racing tracks and television productions with studio audiences.

That means that, as of October 9, 18,652 people who are fully vaccinated and wearing a face mask are permitted to be in attendance to watch the Ottawa Senators play at the Canadian Tire Centre in Ottawa. They flood into the concourse. They stand in line to buy beer, hot dogs, hamburgers, coffee and whatever else is available at the concessions. And then when they get to their seats they are permitted to remove these masks so they can enjoy their purchases.

But at a different senators’ venue in Ottawa, called the Senate of Canada Building, we find ourselves debating whether we can have 105 senators in an expansive 309-square-metre room with a 10-metre ceiling.

A couple of weeks later, on October 28, the City of Ottawa dropped all COVID capacity limits and announced a return to 100% capacity levels for recreation and cultural drop-in activities, including halls, pool and arena rentals. If dancing is permitted, then capacity limits would remain at 25%.

But colleagues, other than the occasional celebratory dance moves after the swearing-in ceremonies here in the chamber, we do not usually have dancing in this chamber. This means that, according to public health guidelines, there is no reason we should not have 100% capacity. So why would we not insist upon it?

Perhaps if governing the country and providing accountability and oversight to the spending of public money were not an essential activity, then a compelling argument could be made for the Senate to sit in a hybrid format. However, the last time I checked, Canadians still want their parliamentarians to show up for work.

It seems unconscionable to me that we expect doctors, nurses, school teachers and Costco cashiers to show up for work, and yet we want to give ourselves the option of staying at home.

Just two weeks ago, Canadians watched as 300 Canadian participants showed up at a UN climate change conference in Glasgow, along with thousands of other attendees. This twenty-sixth session of the Conference of the Parties was originally scheduled to take place in November 2020 but was postponed because of the pandemic. This year, COP26 went ahead as planned with thousands of activists and 25,000 delegates from nearly 200 countries in attendance, including approximately 120 heads of state.

We all saw the media coverage of people congregating, often without social distancing and sometimes without masks. Just prior to showing up in Glasgow, our very own Prime Minister was in The Hague where he managed to find time to party it up at a local bar without a mask and with no social distancing. Yet here we are today debating whether senators should show up for work or not.

Watching the ceremonial activities around the Speech from the Throne on Tuesday, I was struck by the contrast of the two images. On the one hand, the Usher of the Black Rod of the Senate, our very own Mr. Greg Peters, could be seen risking his life by walking into an almost full-capacity House of Commons to deliver a message to that house. On the other hand, his trip to this chamber was starkly different with attendance here in the Senate sparse and distanced. I am indeed pleased that Mr. Peters survived his visit to the other place, considering that it was a full house.

Colleagues, let me be clear. Although I am using a bit of humour, I am not advocating for carelessness or having a cavalier attitude towards the virus or the pandemic. I am suggesting that because health guidelines currently permit us to meet in person, there is no compelling reason for us not to do so.

As my colleague, the Honourable Candice Bergen, pointed out yesterday, our prime minister has a pretty good reason to want to stay in a hybrid format. She said:

The reason why Justin Trudeau is putting forward a motion on hybrid Parliament is clear — he wants to avoid accountability. Justin Trudeau is making sure a hybrid Parliament is in place so he will be able to avoid tough questions from Conservative MPs on rising inflation, his contentious scandals, and plans to censor the internet.

Colleagues, on the other hand, we have no reason to be shirking accountability. All of us are the ones to be holding the government to account, not the other way around. We can do that best if we are present in this chamber.

Our appointment to the Senate and our responsibility to the nation compels us to hold ourselves to a higher standard, not a lower one. A failure to do so amplifies the concerns of some Canadians that the decisions being taken are too often based on fear and convenience rather than on science.

It has not helped that the public health guidelines have been constantly shifting over the last two years as our understanding of the virus has changed. The use of face masks is just one example. At the beginning of the pandemic, we were told no face masks were necessary. Later, we were told we should consider wearing one. Eventually, they became mandatory.

People have been generous in their willingness to adapt and comply with the ever-changing landscape. But fatigue and cynicism sets in when the rules are not only changing but are also confusing and inconsistent.

Let me give you a few examples.

This summer, my son was at a school volleyball game where his son was playing. Everyone in the stands had to wear masks. Even the umpire was required to wear a mask sitting high up on a chair. Because the umpire could not properly blow his whistle with the mask on, he was permitted to cut a slit in his mask through which he could blow his whistle. I am very unclear on the science that speaks to moistly spreading COVID, and so therefore you should wear a mask, but blowing a whistle loudly at an indoor sports event does not spread COVID.

We spent a good part of our summer on a property that we lease on a lake in Manitoba where we have a fairly large deck. Manitoba health guidelines permitted five people to be on our deck, which was supposedly on private property, however, our deck touches public property.

The rules were completely different as soon as we got off our deck, where people could set up patio chairs and gather without limitations because it was public property. I could barbeque the hamburgers on my deck and hand them off my deck. These kinds of stories go on and on.

I realize that our understanding of science is evolving, but the inconsistencies drive people crazy, especially when they are criticized simply because they point out these discrepancies and question what the real science is.

Consider the fact that we have governments which one day are threatening to suspend people without pay because they are not fully vaccinated, but when they realize that they are going to be left with a significant hole in their workforce, they do an about-face and change their policy. What are people to conclude from this? Were those decisions based on science, convenience or popular opinion?

We now have a vaccine for children. I think that’s wonderful for those who want to see their children vaccinated. How long will it be until we begin to erode the rights of parents to raise their children by mandating that they must be vaccinated to attend school? I question why we are mandating vaccines at all.

I went and got my vaccine, colleagues, as soon as I was eligible. Nobody had to coerce me or mandate me. I did it because I felt that it was the best thing for my safety, and that of people around me. Not everybody has my opinion, and they have the right to theirs.

I question why we are mandating vaccines at all, not because I question the value of being vaccinated. I encourage everyone who is able to get vaccinated to do so.

If someone is unable, is fearful or believes that the risk is higher for them to be vaccinated than to remain unvaccinated, why would we not adopt a policy which is more reflective than on the autocratic dictatorship that we have now in a democracy, which believes in personal rights and freedoms? This kind of approach is a danger to our society because it fosters fear and paranoia, and erodes the public trust which is essential to the health of our society.

Colleagues, when we are insisting that others must show up for work while we should be able to stay home, and we have no real scientific basis to support the claim that it is more dangerous to assemble in this chamber than it is to shop at Walmart, we strengthen the narrative that feeds the conspiracy theories and empowers those who want to ignore public health directives.

I would argue that gathering in person to do our work as senators is not only permitted and safe under current public health guidelines, but it is necessary for the proper execution of our responsibilities as senators.

Just two days ago, colleagues, we witnessed the summoning of eight new senators to this chamber. Like every senator, their appointment to the Senate of Canada was made by a summons from the Governor General. Part of that summons reads as follows:

AND WE do command you, that all difficulties and excuses whatsoever laying aside, you be and appear for the purposes aforesaid, in the Senate of Canada at all times whensoever and wheresoever Our Parliament may be in Canada convoked and holden, and this you are in no wise to omit.

Sometimes I wonder if disproportionate anxiety about COVID-19 falls under the category of difficulties or excuses. Either way, we are admonished to lay aside such challenges and appear in the Senate of Canada at all times whensoever and wheresoever our Parliament may be in Canada convoked and holden.

I am quite concerned that almost two years into the pandemic — when we are fully vaccinated, understand the value of face masks and have public health approval to meet in person — we are still insisting that we need to defy the summons which brought us to this place in the first place.

Colleagues, our prior experience with hybrid sittings demonstrated quite clearly that they are a less efficient use of our time and impede our ability to do our work. Senator Patterson pointed that out just a few minutes ago with some internet problems that they have up north.

First, because of the technological limitations, there were bandwidth and connectivity issues. Concurrent committee meetings had to be scaled back because of limited resources. Furthermore, it has been reported that some 70% of our interpreters suffered some form of acoustic or cognitive injuries as a result of either technological limitations or the failure of parliamentarians to use the equipment properly.

I would argue that, in addition to the technological challenges, fulfilling the role of a senator simply cannot be done properly without a face-to-face meeting. Much of our work takes place outside of this chamber in smaller meetings, conversations in hallways, and through building relationships and trust with each other. One cannot underestimate the value of trust, understanding and camaraderie, which are very difficult to build and maintain when you are meeting virtually.

Holding in-person meetings, both in this chamber and outside of it, maximizes our effectiveness and ensures that we are serving Canadians to the very best of our ability. Colleagues, I understand this is not a vote that we in all likelihood would win if we decided on a standing vote. For that reason, we’re not going to insist on it. I, for one, will allow this to pass on division. There may be others that think otherwise. But I am very concerned that we are minimizing the true cost of hybrid sittings, both in terms of public confidence in this institution and in terms of our ability to do our work effectively. If I could be assured that these were temporary changes, my concerns would be somewhat alleviated. However, I think it is time to come to terms with the fact that COVID is not temporary. All signs are that it will become endemic and will continue to extract its toll on society on an annual basis far into the future. Vaccinations will minimize that impact, but not eliminate it.

Our objective must not be to avoid all risk, but to determine how we can effectively do our work in this place in as safe a manner as possible. If we fail to do this, colleagues, then I see no sunset on the demands for hybrid sittings, which means we are in danger of ratcheting down the effectiveness of this institution on a permanent basis. In my view, it is imperative that we avoid such an outcome.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Plett. Let me start by wishing you a speedy recovery and a return to this chamber. We wish you all the best. I’m sure your absence will be noted.

I would like to ask you whether your comparisons of the Senate community here are actually valid — for a simple reason. The collective age of this chamber is not the collective age of the population at large as you have described them — people who go to a hockey game; people who shop at Walmart. We are much older than that population. Many of us may well have underlying conditions, and we’ve been reminded most brutally what underlying conditions and age can do to a sick person in COVID with the passing of our colleague. Do you not believe that given the particular situation in this chamber and because of our age and the pandemic — endemic — that an abundance of caution is required and should be exercised in such a way that we can be both safe and do our job?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Patterson, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

[Translation]