Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Honourable senators, I will be brief, but I do want to put my comments on the record.

I support extending hybrid sittings to the end of April. Tomorrow is April 1. If we extend to the end of April, it will give people a chance to transition to regular sittings on May 1. I would support reverting to regular sittings on May 1 and that hybrid not be extended beyond the end of April.

I have to say that hybrid sittings are a benefit. I live in the easternmost part of the country. We don’t have direct flights. The best bet to get to Ottawa is the 5:20 a.m. flight, so you have to get up at 3 a.m. You don’t know when you’re going to get home again because flights are often delayed or cancelled. I’m very familiar with the Sheraton at the airport in Toronto and also the Marriott in Montreal, because cancellations are not something that is unknown to me.

It is horrendous to travel, so the hybrid sittings have been a benefit. However, when I look at the Senate and our work, I think that it has had a devastating impact on the Senate. It certainly has had a devastating impact on the Finance Committee. We just finished speaking about that when we discussed Bill C-15 and Bill C-16. We have one regular sitting a week now for the Finance Committee, and it is same for the Banking Committee.

We need more. How can we in the Finance Committee provide oversight of government spending when we are so limited in our meeting times? I think that we really do need to revert to our regular sittings.

The other issue that concerns me is sometimes I feel as if we are in a bubble in Ottawa. When you look at people in the private sector — I have family members and a lot of friends who work in the private sector — they are all returning to their regular work schedules. Employers are having welcome back events for their employees. The government is supporting opening the economy again. We’re not setting a very good example by continuing to look at extending our hybrid sittings.

That is the basis of my comments. I will support extending the hybrid sittings until the end of April, but I would prefer that we revert to regular sittings May 1 so that we can do our work as parliamentarians. Thank you.

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Thank you, Senator Patterson. I agree with you that there is a time problem and that the committee meetings are problematic as well. If I understood what you said, the cause of these problems is the service agreement the Senate has with the House of Commons, to which we have given priority for all business, whether in the House or its committees. We are disadvantaged because of this agreement. The problems we have in finding interpreters and finding time for committee meetings are due to this agreement, which does not benefit the Senate, rather than to the fact we are holding hybrid sittings. Did I understand you correctly?

[English]

Senator Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today to give voice to concerns that I know many senators in this chamber have. I have always said that the Senate does its best work in committee. However, our good work is being hampered by the continuation of the hybrid format.

This was the crux of my question to Senator Marwah last week. I’m sure that many a steering committee has also been frustrated by the lack of resources causing severe limitations on timing and committee schedules.

I have the privilege of sitting on two steering committees, and I know well that my steering committee colleagues share my frustration.

I know that this motion will pass today, but as the leaders of the various groups debate whether we will further extend it past April 30, I want to put some important points on the record that I hope will help with our deliberations.

Today alone, 13 committees are meeting in the other place, colleagues. The Senate had three committees meeting today.

While the other place has been able to add meetings and even create two new committees, we are lucky if we get one meeting each week. Why is there such a gap between the resources available in the House versus the Senate?

Well, the first issue we must confront is that some of the much-needed resources we use every day during our committee meetings are not Senate resources but resources from the other place, with whom we have a memorandum of understanding to borrow staff, such as TV booth operators, multimedia system operators and interpreters.

According to the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, CAPE, which is the union representing interpreters, we have 25% less translation capacity than we did pre-pandemic. The main reason for this is stress and illness.

Both CAPE and the International Association of Conference Interpreters have called for a return to in-person meetings in order to safeguard the safety of interpreters. Despite best efforts — and I think we’ve all experienced this — jarring jumps in volume for remote participants in meetings has led to hundreds of injuries since the start of the pandemic, with at least one interpreter suffering an auditory concussion. I have to admit that I had never heard of that particular injury before.

During a March 3, 2022, committee meeting of the House Board of Internal Economy, Translation Bureau Chief Executive Officer Lucie Séguin and House Chief Information Officer Stéphan Aubé both reaffirmed the negative impact that hybrid sittings have on translation staff. Mr. Aubé was clear that, “the more participants are in person, you’ll see a reduction of incidents.”

With the shortage of translators, Senate committees are placed lower in the priority list as, according to the MOU, preference must go to the House. This affects not only those translators who provide simultaneous translation, but also translators in our Translation Bureau. The result — and I think we are all familiar with this in our committee work — has been massive delays in our ability to translate transcripts and written submissions, which has the domino effect of delaying the ability of the Library of Parliament to deliver on briefing notes and reports. It has also forced committees to place word limitations on written submissions, which I think is patently unfair to witnesses who are now faced with condensing their submissions at the expense of important testimony for committee consideration.

The delay in translation of transcripts and written submissions is unacceptable. It either results in senators needing to wait an inordinate amount of time before receiving critical information, particularly when it relates to consideration of a bill, or it forces a situation where senators must first receive the submission in its original language in order to have it considered as part of the testimony. In some cases, the translated version is not received until days later. Colleagues, this is an infringement on every senator’s right to conduct business in their official language of choice.

Leaving aside translation troubles for a moment, when reviewing the Senate Committees Directorate Activities and Expenditures Annual Report 2020-21, I was shocked to learn about the savings that hybrid has provided for committees.

Where we once used to pay up to $5,000 for witnesses appearing by teleconference, which often requires renting a studio, we discovered Zoom as a way to have witnesses appear remotely for the cost of a $100 headset. Remote participation also saves us the need to pay for travel, lodging and per diems of witnesses. It is estimated that this has resulted in savings of at least $450,000 over the past year.

Why, then, honourable senators, are we not using that money to hire our own TV booth operators and multimedia operators? Why are we not putting that money towards more interpreters?

With the greatest of respect, I believe that the statement of the Chair of the Internal Economy Committee, the Honourable Senator Marwah, in answer to my question on this same issue last week — namely, that these vital services are, as he put it, in the purview of the other place — is not acceptable.

Let the Senate be the master of its own house. We must proactively seek ways to ensure that the important work of our committees is not hampered. We need to ensure that our committees are properly resourced. At the very least, I submit that we should be redirecting the money that we save on in‑person witnesses and senators’ travel to ensure that we have the necessary staff in‑house to hold meetings more than once a week. We need to eliminate the limitation that we can have only two committees sitting at a time.

Finally, colleagues, I want to talk about the impact that hybrid has on our privileges. Poor connectivity and strict time limitations have led to no time for senators to ask questions and to some witnesses needing to be cut short in both their presentations and answers to senators. Where we once could count on a potential second round, senators are lucky if they get a single question on the record.

When I moved an amendment in committee relating to Bill C-12, connectivity problems resulted in my not being able to complete the defence of my amendment within the limited time available to the committee. This cannot be allowed to continue.

If we do decide to extend hybrid beyond the end of April, I contend that we must only do so if we have worked and made progress to address the significant concerns I have identified here today. Thank you.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: I am pleased to add my two cents to the debate on this motion. I rise to share the reasons why I am opposed to this motion, whose primary objective is to extend the hybrid sittings of the Senate until the end of April. As I have heard in some speeches, I’m sure that the next step will be to extend the hybrid sittings until the end of June or maybe even until fall.

Throughout North America and in most Canadian provinces, reopening has begun and life is going back to normal. We are seeing the consequences of the federal government’s decisions to shut down the Canadian economy and even impose restrictions on society as a whole. On Parliament Hill, we are one of the last organizations to resist the return to normal life. There is no scientific or medical basis for this confinement.

We are even seeing contradictions that defeat all arguments for maintaining and extending the hybrid model for parliamentary work. For example, if your offices are in the Chambers building, you are not required to wear a mask. However, if you are in the Victoria building, wearing a mask is mandatory. Is there scientific evidence that supports this decision? I don’t see any.

Here’s another example of how little sense this makes: If you go to the Tim Hortons on Sparks Street, you don’t have to wear a mask to pick up your order. However, if you got to the cafeteria in the Wellington Building, you must wear a mask. Once again, where is the science in all this?

This sterile dome, as I call it, that we’ve erected over Parliament Hill is symptomatic of how the public sees us, because it gives ordinary people the sense that we are separate from their reality. A few kilometres from Parliament, the Canadian Tire Centre can accommodate over 20,000 people, none of whom are required to wear a mask, while here parliamentarians maintain social distancing criteria that are utterly out of touch with reality.

Worst of all, maintaining a hybrid Parliament has resulted in months of persistent inefficiency within the Senate and has prevented us from doing thorough work because we have so little time to pass important bills. Hybrid mode does nothing to counter the Canadian public’s cynicism about the purpose of the Senate and whether Canada even needs it.

Our hybrid sessions require twice the resources to manage in‑person and online attendance, and committee meetings are time‑limited, which makes us inefficient and contributes to the public’s sense that the Senate’s work is useless.

I am thinking of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which can only meet for two hours a week, when it used to have six hours for meetings. At the current rate of business and with that committee’s heavy workload, we will once again leave very important legislation to die on the Order Paper when the next election is called in three years’ time.

Some of these bills deal with matters of life and death. My bill on domestic violence comes to mind. While many countries are adopting measures to save the lives of abused women, here we are reflecting on how we are going to manage Senate business. We clearly have a poor definition of the word “priority.”

Senator Gold has not convinced me of the merits of maintaining our hybrid sessions. Rather, he has convinced me that he is a faithful messenger of this government, which, for several months, has been doing everything it can to prevent the democracy that forms the basis of our political system from returning to Parliament Hill, where it belongs, for the good of and out of respect for all Canadians.

The risk with this motion is that after April 30 we will find more excuses to keep this chamber in hybrid mode, and we will perpetuate the unacceptable work model of the past two years. This institution costs Canadian taxpayers nearly 100 million dollars a year. Many of these taxpayers find it difficult to make ends meet and are facing an alarming rate of inflation without being able to do anything about it.

Esteemed colleagues, we are more than privileged to be senators, and we had a lighter workload over the past two years because we were not required to meet in person. This situation must come to an end as soon as possible, and we must resume working at a pace that reflects our responsibilities so as to achieve the best results that Canadians expect from each one of us and from our institution.

Honourable senators, for two years I was always here in person. I never felt that my health was at risk, and I think the risk is even lower now, as deaths and hospitalizations have decreased. I know that some of you may have medical restrictions that would prevent you from being here in person. For that reason, I believe that absences must be the exception and authorized in advance, as they were before 2020.

I will be voting against this motion because Canadian taxpayers ask this of us and have every right to do so. I have a deep respect for them, and I have taken my duties very seriously since my appointment in 2010. I expect every senator to do the same.

I will conclude by stating that all of us want this chamber to gain credibility in the eyes of Canadians, and I know that you are doing everything in your power to that end. The next step is to return to the in-person model starting next week. Thank you.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the motion before us on hybrid sittings.

It will come as no surprise to you that I’m not a fan of hybrid sittings. It is my view and my experience that the weighty responsibilities that have been placed upon senators require us to actually assemble in this chamber and be present in the Parliamentary Precinct.

Being a parliamentarian is not a remote job. If it is being taken seriously, it requires networking, building relationships, fostering collegiality, developing trust and, of course, meeting stakeholders. It requires connecting with fellow parliamentarians, with staff and the public in both formal and informal settings.

I recognize that there are many jobs and occupations that can, perhaps, be done remotely, but I remain convinced that being a parliamentarian is not one of them. It’s not a role that can be properly carried out from one’s living room or home study.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge that these have been exceptional times that have, at times, required exceptional measures. But as more and more jurisdictions continue to lift the various measures put in place to deal with the pandemic, it is time for the Senate of Canada to follow suit.

It is very appropriate and, I would argue, incumbent upon us to lay out a plan for moving forward without the constraints the pandemic has placed upon us. This includes the need to discontinue hybrid sittings as quickly as possible.

The motion calls for the provisions of the order of November 25, 2021, concerning hybrid sittings of the Senate and committees, and other matters, to be extended to the end of the day on April 30, 2022.

I believe this is a compromise; however, I do question whether it is supported by science and the reality of the facts as we know them today.

As I have stated, health officials across the country, including at the federal level, have started approving the removal of COVID mandates for some time already. In response, provinces have started lifting vaccination mandates, mask mandates, social‑distancing rules and COVID safety plans, including COVID passports, which are no longer required in most jurisdictions.

As of April 1, Canadians will be able to travel without having to provide tests. Mandates are being retained for our vulnerable populations, such as long-term care homes, retirement homes, shelters and so on but, other than that, they have been falling across the country.

Except, of course, right here in the Parliamentary Precinct. Here the rules are different. Apparently, compared to the Parliamentary Precinct, the COVID virus is less of a risk in privately or provincially owned buildings; but it is still a risk in federally owned buildings, such as the Senate of Canada. It seems that COVID is the most rampant and most dangerous in the Senate of Canada. For those working in a privately owned building where the Senate occupies accommodation, including 40 Elgin Street, 90 Sparks Street, 56 Sparks Street and 60 Queen Street, masks are now optional, and they are not required in common areas such as elevators, lobbies and parking garages.

However, this does not apply to Crown-owned accommodations, including East Block, the Victoria Building, the National Press Building, 1 Wellington Street and the Senate of Canada Building. For these buildings, health and safety guidance within Senate workplaces remain in effect, and masks are still required. Here in the Senate Chamber, we are required to wear our masks except when we speak, and yet up to 21,000 maskless fans were permitted to attend the game between the Montreal Canadiens and the Toronto Maple Leafs at the Bell Centre just this past weekend. I guess COVID doesn’t circulate well at a hockey game, thank God. In this country we play a lot of hockey.

The changes to public health rules in the provinces and municipalities appear to be driven by the best available science.

What is driving our policies and procedures here in the Senate? Why do they differ so significantly? Are we thinking that the Senate needs to mirror the guidelines of long-term care homes? If so, I don’t think that this is the image we want to portray to Canadians.

I am pleased that the motion includes a commitment to the:

 . . . consideration of a transition back to in-person sittings as soon as practicable in light of relevant factors, including public health guidelines, and the safety and well-being of all parliamentary personnel . . . .

However, I am puzzled why we are not already making decisions in light of these relevant factors.

We know, for example, that our translators have suffered greatly as a result of the hybrid sittings. Just last week this issue was raised in the chamber with Senator Marwah by Senator Patterson.

In addition, the hybrid format has severely limited the ability of committees to meet and work. Whereas we previously had two meetings a week, now we have one. That was addressed by Senator Patterson very effectively in his comments.

You have situations like that faced by the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance just last week. We were conducting an in camera review of their report on Supplementary Estimates (C). The committee needed more time than was allotted but was unable to continue their meeting because other committees required the resources. The only option was to place the final decisions in the hands of the steering committee because it was next to impossible to schedule an additional meeting.

That is negligence on our part when it comes to dealing with the estimates in this Parliament.

Under normal circumstances, the committee would have considered the option of just putting in some overtime and getting the job done, but this was not an option. The hybrid sitting format imposed a hard stop because of the limit of resources. This is a very inefficient way to conduct business on behalf of the people of Canada.

Colleagues, when hybrid sittings were first introduced, they were understood to be a temporary measure to address the public health crisis. As Senator Harder said on July 27, 2020, “The hybrid solution is the only solution that will meet the public health requirements of both chambers.” For that reason, we agreed to go forward with the hybrid sittings.

At this point, however, those public health requirements appear to no longer exist, and yet we seem to be clinging onto those hybrid sitting requirements, and I can’t figure out why for the life of me.

There is no question that COVID negatively impacted the ability of the Senate to conduct its business over the last two years and that hybrid sittings were a compromise for mitigating those limitations. But at this point, it is not COVID that is limiting our ability to do our work, but hybrid sittings. I see no solid rationale for failing to immediately lift the provisions allowing hybrid sittings, but I am prepared to compromise because this place functions on compromise.

The final paragraph of this motion notes that:

 . . . any further extension of this order be taken only after consultation with the leaders and facilitators of all recognized parties and parliamentary groups.

It is my hope that such consultations will be brief, and barring any unexpected future wave of COVID infections, we will unanimously concur that no extensions are necessary but that we all need to get back to work.

Honourable senators, at the end of the day, our Parliament has an obligation to show leadership. Over the last two years, Canada has faced the most severe existential crisis of our time, COVID. More than 33,000 Canadians have lost their lives. We had to take drastic steps, but it’s in those moments of leadership and those moments of crisis that this institution had to stand up and probably work harder than ever before and represent Canadians’ concerns more than ever before.

However, the truth of the matter is we didn’t do what firefighters have been doing. We haven’t been doing what nurses and doctors and health care providers have been doing for the last two years. We haven’t been doing what truck drivers in this country, Uber drivers and taxi drivers have been doing, grocery store workers or people who stack shelves in pharmacies. You know what they’ve been doing during this existential crisis? Many of them have been showing up to work, and they don’t show up to work Tuesday through Thursday. Shockingly, most of them show up to work Monday through Friday. Most of them put in overtime, especially some of these professions, because there was an existential need to step up during this time of crisis.

Do you know what the leaders of this country did in the Parliament of Canada? We shut down. We went hybrid. We went virtual. The truth of the matter is that the biggest crisis facing our country, economically, over the last number of years, even before COVID, is our productivity. And yet, during this existential crisis, the upper chamber of Parliament and the other place of Parliament met less than ever before. We did output of legislation, motions and worked less than ever before. We rubber stamped hundreds of billions of dollars more than ever before with less scrutiny than ever before. And you know what I say? I say we lost an opportunity, as an institution, to show Canadians in a valid way what leadership is all about.

This place is always questioned because of a lack of accountability, transparency and the fact that we’re not an elected institution. Yet, in the words of Serge Joyal, we missed in this moment of crisis an opportunity to show that the Senate is more relevant in terms of oversight, governance and leadership than ever before, and we dropped the ball.

The truth of the matter is that we are privileged. We are the most privileged Canadians. We are in the most exclusive club in this country, and we have an obligation to show Canadians that we take that privilege seriously. What Canadians have seen, though, is a lack of equality. They see their Prime Minister climbing a plane ladder a few days ago in Ottawa leaving the country and coming down in the same plane over in Europe at a summit without a mask.

So a mask climbing the stairs going into his plane in Ottawa was necessary, but coming down and going to a summit over in Europe, the mask was left on the plane. I can go on, colleagues. When Canadians are looking at the work of our parliamentarians at the House of Commons and they’re all masked up, yet they follow committee work and the masks are off, or a camera flies quickly by an open door at a government caucus meeting where there are 160 parliamentarians and none of them have a mask on, it’s that level of hypocrisy and inconsistency that drives Canadians nuts.

I went a couple of weeks ago to a place called Jack Victor in Montreal. They make clothing and have 800 employees. None of them have taken a day off, none of them had the option to virtually, none of them had the option to go to Finance and order a comfortable chair and a comfortable desk and do their work from home, from their living room.

They show up every day, and these are the people who fill the Treasury Board with taxes so we can have the privilege to come here and do work on their behalf. That’s who I feel I represent, to be honest. Even though I’m not an elected parliamentarian, when I walk through a factory and I meet those 800 employees, I take the time to listen to their concerns. Let me tell you, they have a lot of them, and they don’t think COVID is the biggest concern.

This motion believes that the biggest crisis that Canada and the Senate are facing is COVID and we need to extend our virtual sittings until the end of June. Of course we want to extend them until the end of June. Who wouldn’t want to work from the comforts of their home? We have that privilege and opportunity to do so, but I think we also have a privilege to show Canadians leadership, that we’re willing to do what they’re asked to do.

Why are we not willing to do the things we ask these individuals to do? That’s the question they asked themselves. I’m telling you, colleagues — I have said it before in this place and I conclude — COVID is just the first step of a bigger crisis around the corner. Go to your grocery stores. Try to speak to citizens and listen to them about paying their rent, about single mothers trying to feed their children, trying to pay four times what it costs to buy a roast today than it did a month ago or two months ago. There is a crisis brewing in the country. There is unrest and discomfort amongst middle-class and poor Canadians, and this institution has to start speaking for them, has to start looking out for them. That’s why I believe more than ever before — we’re all double and triple vaccinated, the science indicated that if we get double and triple vaccinated that we can return back to some normalcy.

Let’s lead the way. Let’s make a commitment that we’re not going to go past April 30, government leader. Let’s make a commitment that this institution is going to start meeting as long as we need to meet, work as many days a week as we need to work in order to make sure that we give the best governance to citizens. Let me say something else. We have spent the last couple of days — and I’ll conclude — talking about how we need to change the rules and we have to go to the Rules Committee and study about making the rules more flexible so we can get more work done.

How about finding the political will to just show up here more often, work longer than ever before, sit longer than ever before, and deal with all the motions, a lot of the private members’ bills that are here before this place, that are here and asked to be heard by stakeholders in this country that want to be heard. That’s what we need to do.

So I hope, colleagues, we will all accept this compromise but as of April 30 accept that it’s time we step up and be the best that we can possibly be.

Senator Housakos: Thank you for the question, Senator Carignan.

My opinion on this issue does not matter, but the opinion of the Canadian public does, and I have a perfect example. When I talk with workers back home in Montreal about the government’s actions, they ask me why the Prime Minister wears a mask when he boards his plane to go to a summit in Europe, but takes the mask off when he gets there.

It was not just a meeting with the Queen. Afterward, he went to different restaurants to meet socially with other parliamentarians and international leaders, all without wearing a mask.

People wonder what is happening. Is this a situation where there is one set of rules for the elite and another set for everyone else?

That is why we are seeing this frustration in society today, because of the behaviour of our Prime Minister and parliamentary leaders in general.

Senator Housakos: I agree completely.

You’re worried about the length of the bell, but when senators are here, they often work in committee, meet with stakeholders in their offices and have many diplomatic meetings.

Once again, the main problem is not the 60- or 30-minute bell that gives all senators the opportunity to come and vote. The biggest problem right now is that we have a government that doesn’t want to sit longer. It always wants to sit less, and that’s the first thing that needs to be fixed.

[English]

Senator Housakos: Absolutely.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Would Senator Housakos take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Housakos, would you take another question?

Senator Housakos: Where I do disagree with you, senator, is your claim that there’s evidence that people that are older in age have a higher propensity of catching COVID. That I disagree with. There is a case that the dangers increase with people of a certain age. That I totally agree with.

Having said that, we have seen now that with people who are fully vaccinated, it has completely mitigated the risk factor of getting sick to a huge extent. We see it in our hospitals.

Furthermore, you can take a bunch of steps that we have taken in this institution to protect individuals as they do in every other place of work.

All I’m simply saying is that there is an inherent danger with COVID. Every single profession faces it — police officers; ambulance workers; doctors, on a daily basis; respiratory therapists, of which my wife is one. So if these people have been taking the steps in their professions to mitigate the risks but still show up to work, I think it’s incumbent on us to do the same thing, to take the mitigating steps to make sure that we can do our job in an effective fashion.

But it’s inexcusable that our committees are operating at a third of the output that they’re supposed to be operating at. It’s inexcusable that we’re sitting fewer days over the last two years as this country faces a huge crisis. And what we’ve done is, during that crisis — some legitimate, some illegitimate — is set world record spending with the least amount of oversight. So, yes, there has to be a balance.

But currently, the general view is — and this is my view — we have completely put all the emphasis on making sure we’re safe and not enough of an emphasis on making sure that we can do our jobs while being safe.

Senator Gold: So you will forgive me, as there may be a bit of a preamble.

First, I appreciate your comments and those of all of our honourable senators in this debate, and in previous debates, because one theme that seems to recur is the importance — to which I entirely subscribe — of us having the time and the resources to do the job for which we were summoned. I appreciated especially, Senator Housakos, your comments about taking more time to do the work. You’re 100% right. We are privileged and can work harder, particularly in the context of the important work that our committees do and with the clear constraints that the hybrid setting has put on the ability of our committees to meet as regularly, frequently or intensively as we would otherwise want.

Would you commit to the opposition approving all requests for committees to sit during break weeks when there are more resources available, when the House is not sitting and, therefore, translation and other resources could be used to our full advantage?

Senator Housakos: As you know, government leader, those requests often have been accepted in extenuating circumstances.

First of all, to answer your question, you won’t solve much, because if you allow committees to meet while we’re not sitting, most senators won’t be here. That would be a breach of their privilege. The easiest way to have those committees sit is to call the Senate back during the weeks we’re not sitting to do their work. That’s the way to resolve the issue. Are you willing to do that? Are you willing, in those non-sitting weeks, to call the Senate back to allow us to do the extra work required? Nobody can stop committees from meeting if we’re sitting in this place.

Furthermore, if we don’t have virtual or hybrid sittings anymore, even if we grant that exception for senators and committees to meet while we don’t sit, they would still have to be here. Why wouldn’t you have senators be here while the committees meet and conduct the business of this chamber?

Hon. Marty Deacon: Thank you, Senator Housakos, and everyone else who has spoken to this issue today. It brings out, as someone said, a number of themes that have emerged this week.

I’m going to take the word “COVID-19” out of the sentence. I would like your thoughts on this. I met last week with Waterloo business partnerships, 60 companies that all work together in the Waterloo region, and we talked about the workplace, what that meant moving forward, and what they were experiencing as presidents and CEOs. Someone commented, “Of course, you folks in the Senate are going to carry on in a hybrid format. I assume you would, because of the investment you’ve made and the environmental footprint.” They had four or five different reasons that paralleled their experiences and why they were going to carry on in this format.

I wonder, from a business perspective, and the folks you’re speaking to, if you’ve had that experience in your conversations also.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dalphond, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bovey, for the second reading of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures).

Senator Housakos: Thank you, Senator Deacon. That’s a very good question. I’ve had that discussion recently with my colleague Senator Seidman.

If you all remember during the early stages of COVID-19, many management consultants came to the conclusion that real‑life, on-site work environments would start seeing a decrease because law firms and companies were seeing the convenience and the time saved in terms of transporting people to and from work, as well as the reduction of overhead costs and unnecessary office space. As it turns out, two years into it, a lot of CEOs and corporate consultants, particularly in the United States, after a review, have found that productivity is starting to sink to such a degree that companies are starting to — even though they had originally planned to only bring back employees to work from their workplace in a reduced structure — come to the conclusion that it’s not cost-effective because productivity levels have shrunk drastically.

Of course, a case in point is right here in the Senate. Our productivity levels in terms of studies, committee work, output and oversight have completely diminished, but the savings have been marginal by comparison.

Senator M. Deacon: It will be interesting to monitor, in the months ahead, our various tables, particularly as they relate to — as you said — the efficiency of being in the Senate in person compared to being in the Senate virtually. Those are the pieces that we’re going to have to continue to wrangle. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: Absolutely. I imagine everyone takes this oath very seriously. It is our first obligation. As senators, being present is part of our rights and responsibilities. As I mentioned in my speech, the problem at the moment is that the general public thinks we are too privileged.

[English]

Parliamentary privilege is important. All of us who respect the British Westminster parliamentary system know that without parliamentary privilege we lose a fundamental right. However, parliamentary privilege and senators’ privileges are not what the public thinks they are. The public thinks that we have benefits and comforts that 85% of Canadian citizens would never dream of.

[Translation]

As soon as people perceive Parliament as a place of privilege, in other words, they think people in this chamber don’t have to follow the same rules as everyone else, we risk losing the people’s trust. Yet the public plays an important and fundamental role in a democracy.

[English]

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, I’d like to thank you for taking this debate seriously and spending some time exploring the issue.

I want to reach well beyond COVID-19. The debate has been focused enormously on COVID, and I’m struck by the fact that in Nova Scotia, our doctors have started taking appointments by telephone. They have started renewing prescriptions by telephone. There have been cost savings, time savings and the enhancement of patient care. Yes, there are times when they say, “No, you have to come in for an appointment,” but a lot of the work can be done remotely through a telephone consultation.

That was something that had been discussed in this province for 20 years. All of a sudden when COVID-19 came along, it was implemented, and the benefits were so significant that it has now been extended permanently. COVID has actually provided us with an opportunity to innovate, change and improve how we do things. I think that’s worth looking at significantly.

I’ll go to what has been Canada’s largest company, the fastest company in the world to reach a billion dollars in revenue since inception, and that’s Shopify, which has chosen to be a remote‑first company. Looking at their employment pages that are advertising new positions, whether it’s in Asia, Africa, Europe, South America or North America, they are remote positions for highly technical sales and product development jobs. They have embraced this, and, according to their CEO, their productivity continues to increase.

We need to look at this from a broader standpoint and ask: What are the opportunities that could come from using hybrid in a properly resourced manner? I take to heart Senator Patterson’s concerns about the fact that we have not properly resourced hybrid because we have been going month to month. We have been taking a short-term approach rather than a strategic long‑term approach to our decision making here.

As we revisit this from a sober-second-thought perspective and look at it as something that could be an opportunity, I would like us to think about what benefit could be brought to bear for those who have far more difficult travel challenges than Senator Cordy and I do from Halifax, where you’re not just losing half a day but you’re losing a day in each direction. That commuting time is significant for us, but it’s also significant for other people we might want to be able to work with.

I’ve been struck by the tremendous meetings that I have been able to get. We get to know each other and start to work together quite effectively using virtual communications rather than in‑person communications, and it has provided us with some tremendous opportunities to have witnesses speak to us formally and informally. As you know, I did a session a couple of weeks ago with a Toronto company that, through their Australian operations, is helping to transform the Australian government’s use of blockchain in the collection of taxes, which has benefits for consumers, retailers, producers and the tax office. We got that great interview with one person in Adelaide, one person in Sydney and a group in Toronto all at the same time with a group of senators right across the country.

We have the ability to work with people that we wouldn’t otherwise be able to work with. If we start to constrain that benefit, I think it’s to our detriment.

The first year I was here, you would often ask senators if you would see them the next week, and they would say, “No, I have a medical appointment,” and as you well know, in many provinces, we can’t choose when our medical appointments are. That would cause them to be out of the chamber for a whole week if their medical appointment was mid-week.

There are a whole lot of benefits for us to continue some form of this work that is not related to COVID. I found that a huge amount of the debate was focused purely on COVID.

I look at this in terms of the employment opportunities for us with staff that are not located in Ottawa, people who wouldn’t or couldn’t move to Ottawa that we could have working for us in our offices. It’s a tremendous opportunity. I have benefitted from that personally in having folks for whom there wasn’t the budget to have them move in their own lives, because we can’t pay for our staff to move. But all of a sudden we’re working incredibly effectively at distance.

When I consider this issue, it goes well beyond the question of COVID, and it focuses on the benefits that we may be able to realize in a strategic way as an employer. I want us to be able to be as inclusive and competitive an employer as possible moving forward. I want to see senators apply for this job who maybe have issues with dependents, be they old or young, and can’t travel each week the Senate is sitting, but they still want to put in the hours and the work.

Certainly, I found rather troubling a few of the comments that were made, such as those suggesting that work isn’t being done if you’re not physically present in the chamber. That, to me, is an archaic way of managing in the 21st century. There are not very many employers who would get very far with employees if they start to view their employees in that manner and are not viewing people that they work with from the standpoint of productivity and evaluating that productivity based on its merit versus based on somebody’s physical presence. It worries me that that sort of attitude may limit whom we get to have work with us in the future.

There are all of those social and inclusive benefits, the travel benefits and the ability to have witnesses who are from very different locations than we have in the past.

We also have to start considering our carbon footprint. I am very proud of the fact that the chamber has committed to dealing with that aggressively, and what we will learn in doing that will help us do our job far better because we’ll have first-hand experience, and an ability to say, “Don’t just do as we say, but do as we are doing,” will help us to hold government to account on an issue that no government in Canada has lived up to in terms of commitments.

I want us to look at this debate as an issue that goes well beyond COVID. I think there is a tremendous opportunity as a parliamentary leader to show that there are ways to use new tools to become a more innovative employer and very much improve our productivity as an organization. To look at this purely through the lens of COVID is missing a great opportunity.

Thank you, Your Honour and colleagues.