Senator Cormier: Senator Bovey, could you share with us your thoughts about the link between this declaration, which is a great idea, and the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. I think you quoted that. How do you link both of those tools now?

Senator Bovey: That is another good question. Thank you. I happen to believe that artists or creators of whatever diversity work with essentially the same tools. Musicians work with instruments and music. Authors work with words, be it poetry or novels. Visual artists work with paint or drawings or whatever. Whether we are Indigenous or not Indigenous, whatever cultural diversity and whatever we have grown up with, the basic tools are essentially similar.

We have allowed them to be classified. I want to get rid of those classifications. That’s why I’m questioning the sense of excellence in grant-giving for artists. Who defines excellence? What does it mean? I believe the word excellence in Indigenous visual art, music, drama, or whatever, may be quite different than for those of us from a Caucasian background. I think we need to start opening up, and artists are challenging me to do that.

These sessions were rich. They were fun. They were hard. But my staff and I were being challenged, and rightly so. This is the result of those challenges. It’s possible if we open our minds. We have two ears and two eyes, right?

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mégie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Loffreda, for the second reading of Bill S-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance Day.

Senator Kutcher: If I understood Senator Housakos’s response to my question properly — and I want to acknowledge that Senator Housakos and I share an affiliation for the Montreal Canadiens, although this year it’s very difficult to do that. I’m not sure that I agree with what was just said.

I want to clarify it. What I heard you say is that the senator does not represent the views of the group when they are on the committee; they represent their view and their perspective. They’re not the mouthpiece for the group on a committee. If that’s the case, since they’re not a mouthpiece for the group, should they not be free to move from group to group because they are independent and represent their own perspective?

Therefore, proportionality — I’m trying to understand this — can be at play in the assigning of seats. And that makes complete sense to me. But once the seats are assigned for the duration of that session, if the senator is not a mouthpiece for the group on the committee, since they are sitting on the committee as a freely unbound senator, should the senator choose to move to a different group, should they not just move their seat to a different group? Because you can’t have it both ways. You’re can’t be on a committee as an independent senator speaking in an independent voice and be a mouthpiece for your group. It doesn’t work that way, as far as I can tell. So, thank you, senator.

Senator Housakos: Senator Kutcher, we agree on a lot of things, especially hockey, but on this part, I think we are a little bit not on the same page. When you work on your committee work, you certainly speak with your conscience and your mind. But when you also choose to affiliate with a group, like I said earlier in this long, protracted discussion we’ve had, you are choosing a group that reflects your values and who you are. So that in itself indicates that it’s very likely that the points you are articulating and the work you are doing on committee are somewhat compatible with those of the group you’re working with.

And I’ll just end with this. Everything we do here is an exercise in persuasion in order to get our policy through here. The reason we affiliate with groups is to start from a base and build the process of persuasion to getting bills passed and motions passed and so on and so forth. I think Senator Kutcher is in the Independent Senators Group. Is that correct? I don’t know how it works in the ISG, but in the Conservative caucus, those of us that work on committees, of course, we reflect our abilities and our views. But then we come to our committee, before we table reports in this chamber, and we consult. We persuade. Sometimes we are in agreement. I assume every group is the same. And then we come to the chamber here, and after we have persuaded the majority of our group, we try to persuade other groups through negotiation, debate, questions and answers and so on and so forth.

To answer your question, I don’t think it is black or white. I don’t think Senator Kutcher or Senator Housakos speak for ourselves exclusively. I think we bring an expertise, a knowledge and a point of view. We both, I know, have deep convictions on things, but then we go back to our groups; we consult. We don’t take marching orders. I think that’s where we have the discrepancy here. Even in the Conservative caucus, we don’t take marching orders. We have discussions. Even at national caucus, we have discussions. We are not given orders that, “This is what we want you to do.” Trust me — especially the Senate caucus — we are not very good at taking orders.

That’s where I think the discrepancy is here. I don’t think you exclusively speak only for yourself, and that’s the point I’m making. I think you speak for yourself, your conscience, but you also represent your group because you receive the privilege of serving on that committee by that group. That’s the point I’m trying to make, and I don’t think I’m doing a very good job given the fact that everyone is drilling me over here.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I will wrap up quickly. I spoke about this bill yesterday, and I will remind you that it is called the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act. Briefly, it would require major companies with headquarters located in Canada to report once a year on the risk that forced labour or child labour is used in their supply chain, in an attempt to ultimately reduce the risk, ensure greater transparency and give consumers more tools to make their decisions.

I was getting to the conclusion. In closing, I would say that Bill S-211 seeks to make a modest contribution to a much broader and longer-term objective, which is the alignment of our trade and economic activities with the imperatives of social and environmental sustainability.

Canada has made many commitments internationally, but we have yet to include them in our domestic legislation. I will repeat that we are lagging behind.

Canada is a rich, free and modern society that respects the protection of human rights in principle. If we can’t act decisively to limit modern slavery practices in our supply chains, we run the risk of losing the moral authority that we cherish and being seen as hypocrites. That is not what I want.

That is not what some of our largest companies want either. One example would be Canadian Tire, a company that put robust systems in place to assess its foreign suppliers several years ago.

Other companies are setting an example, such as Canadian athletic wear company Lululemon, along with Adidas, Gap Inc. and others, according to a ranking by KnowTheChain.

Currently, responsible businesses like Canadian Tire and Lululemon are at a disadvantage compared with unscrupulous competitors who can sometimes pay less for products manufactured in inhumane conditions. Bill S-211 would help shed light on these practices and discourage them as much as possible, which would promote more honest competition that does not rely on slave labour. In doing so, we will stop punishing, through our own inaction, the many companies that want to do the right thing.

Canada would also catch up to its peers and would be in a position to act in accordance with its values.

Esteemed colleagues, I humbly suggest that Bill S-211 deserves to be studied in committee. I am obviously prepared to take questions, if you can remember the whole speech I gave 24 hours ago.

[English]

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Miville-Dechêne. You have been an effective advocate in preventing child labour, and I appreciate the distinction you made in the bill between child labour and forced labour. They are both beasts, but they are beasts of a different kind. My question is about child labour.

When we squeeze the supply chain so that consumers make the call on buying ethical products, the downward impact is on the children in other countries that have no other means of survival outside of working in these factories. I know that when that means of employment is removed, they will turn to drugs. They will turn to crime. They will turn to prostitution. They may even turn to selling their organs on the free market. I know this: I have seen it.

When this bill goes to committee, can we consider complementing this measure with other measures that speak to development assistance, so that when children are no longer able to work they can be guaranteed education and health?

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: That is an excellent question, Senator Omidvar. Of course, as I’ve said many times, this bill is only a first step. It is absolutely true that a child working in a factory or a manufacturing plant somewhere in developing countries can feed an entire family.

Secondly, there is something called “remediation measures,” which could perhaps be discussed at committee and explored further. Under these measures, once the problem is discovered, once a child is found to be working for them, companies are required to do more than just send the child away and say they don’t want them working there anymore. There are scholarship programs for such children so they can return to school full time, while earning a small income for the family to survive.

There are all sorts of remediation measures, and that’s clearly the key. When we start doing these investigations, the idea is not to ban companies from our supply chain the minute a problem is found. The idea is to give them a chance to make things right. We know that banning a company or removing it from the supply chain can result in thousands of adults and children losing their jobs. Yes, companies have to do more. We also need to make sure there’s a social safety net in place around these companies. Non-profits can help for sure, but the solution to forced labour and child labour is obviously for rich countries like Canada to provide more international aid. We need to focus on education because that is what can change lives in the medium term. This measure alone is sure to get that conversation started within companies. I don’t claim to know how to solve the enormous problem of child labour. We’re talking 150 million children who work and 73 million who work in dangerous and difficult conditions. Not all of these children are in forced labour situations like those who work in mines, but we are talking about a huge number of human beings.

[English]

Senator Wells: Senator Carignan, thank you for your speech and your interesting idea. You said this was important for all Canadians. Would you think it’s important for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who perhaps might have an excellent representative to be the Governor General who only speaks English but would be willing to learn French? Or an Albertan, or someone from Saskatchewan or anywhere else in Canada?

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: If you are talking about the Lieutenant-Governor position, I imagine so. Those high-level positions should be bilingual. I drafted my bill for the Governor General’s position. As you know, I introduced another bill about the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick, which is a bilingual province under the Constitution.

In a perfect world, those high-level positions should be bilingual.

Today I heard a speech by someone who participated in a ceremony at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts for the Riopelle celebration. This person, who was representing Canadian museums, spoke only English and delivered an English-only speech to celebrate a French painter in a francophone city, even though the event was attended by many francophones. That kind of thing always sends a negative message. We should be able to celebrate and promote our two official languages. All these high-level positions should be bilingual.

[English]

Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am joining you from the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people.

I rise today to speak briefly to Bill S-216. I feel a bit of déjà vu right now, as we have seen this exact bill before. I am pleased that Senator Omidvar has reintroduced it in the Senate. It is a very important tool that charities will be able to use to fulfill their goals of better communities and indeed a better world.

Colleagues, as I said the last time we saw this bill, the very fact we even need it is one proof of the outdated, complex and expensive rules and regulations charities face. As has been stated, the report from the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector pointed out this problem and many more. Why we continue to force charities to operate under outdated rules remains a mystery to me.

This bill will provide a significant step forward in helping the charitable sector chart a new course in the delivery of its services.

Bill S-216 amends the Income Tax Act to:

. . . permit charities to provide their resources to a person who is not a qualified donee, provided that they take reasonable steps to ensure those resources are used exclusively for a charitable purpose.

I believe that this bill not only clarifies the rules around the use of resources, but also protects accountability and will surely enhance our trust in how charities will be able to operate under the changes proposed.

All of this being said, I believe you will find that this bill has our support and that we are now ready for the question.

Thank you, honourable senators.

Senator Petitclerc: Senator Carignan, Senator Lankin has already covered part of my question. I share her concerns about language skills and protections for official languages. Senator Lankin obviously spoke about this objective in the context of education and encouraging more people. My question is a bit more specific, but it is along the same lines. I am wondering if you’ve identified what we need to do, and at what stage of the process, so that people don’t end up in this kind of situation.

Sometimes there are highly competent people who have the experience to be able to represent Canada here and abroad. One would assume that they genuinely want to learn the two official languages, since they know that they could one day end up in a role or job that requires bilingualism.

I’m wondering if you have thought about this question and whether you have identified at what stage in an individual’s career path this issue could be dealt with.

Senator Carignan: I haven’t looked into that aspect as much. For now, I would say that we expect a modernization of the Official Languages Act soon. As soon as it is introduced, I plan to start looking into this issue.

For now, I believe that we need to treat the position of Governor General as a powerful symbol, to ensure that this position is filled in future by people who speak both official languages. To me, that is a powerful message we are sending to all Canadians. It is probably the most powerful symbolic message that could be sent.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask a question, if Senator Carignan will accept one.

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: Senator Carignan, thank you for your commitment to Canada’s official languages. I would like you to comment on certain associated aspects.

Would you agree that Canada’s Official Languages Act is not like any other legislation, and that it is about more than just defining the country’s two official languages?

Do you not believe that the official languages of Canada are an element that is supposed to identify us as Canadians?

Are the official languages not a tool that unites Canadians from coast to coast to coast? Would you agree that, no matter where we come from, both official languages are used every day, in Canada and in all areas of the world?

It is also a way to recognize the two founding peoples of this country, including the Acadians, who opened their doors and provided people like me, the son of immigrants, with the opportunity to settle here. My mother tongue was neither French nor English.

As an institution and as a country, we have always celebrated the fact that all Canadians are free to use their mother tongue.

More specifically, do you agree with me that the official languages are undeniably an element that represents the Canadian identity?

Senator Carignan: Indeed, senator, you painted a fine picture of our country’s characteristic identity, with its two founding peoples and its two official languages.

It is also the role of the Governor General to represent that Canadian identity, and that is why it is important to prioritize selection criteria requiring the person to be able to address Canadians in both official languages. That is also the message we want to send the world, that Canada is a bilingual country, with two official languages, English and French. When the Governor General addresses people outside the country, he or she shows the world that Canada is a country that has two official languages.

Promoting that identity requires knowledge and use of both languages.

I very much appreciated the quote by Mr. Dion, who I believe is a man who is greatly respected by everyone. I thought it was especially important when he said that if we want the body to be bilingual, then the head needs to be bilingual. If the head is unilingual, then the body will be unilingual too.

I think that we need to take every opportunity to promote both our official languages. I believe that when we appoint people to positions as high as that of head of state and commander-in-chief, that person should be able to address people in our two official languages.

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Carignan, first of all, I want to congratulate you for introducing this bill, and especially for having the idea when the appointment happened. Like you, I was disappointed and surprised by the new Governor General’s limited proficiency in French, although it in no way detracts from her other bilingualism or her culture. As Senator Lankin said, the symbolic significance of her appointment is, of course, extraordinary. I would say that, unfortunately, this is an extremely delicate debate for francophones who want to take a stand on this issue, because there seems to be a total lack of sympathy when we call for these kinds of official positions in Canada to be held by people who can speak our language. However, the reality shows that that is often not the case.

You talked about your efforts to learn English, but the reverse does not always happen. I know Senator Lankin talked about it too, but there are courses offered in the public service for anyone who wants to learn French. In the public service, we have all the tools at our disposal to learn French if we want to, so it’s a question of willingness.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if a person who spoke only French and an Indigenous language had been appointed to the position of Governor General, that would have caused quite an uproar in our primarily anglophone country. I would encourage my anglophone colleagues to ponder this: How would they have reacted if our new Governor General spoke only French and an Indigenous language? I think people would be a little upset about that.

Senator Carignan: Well, that is kind of the point of the bill. I would have felt just as uncomfortable, understandably, if it were the other way around, because the idea is to represent Canadian identity, which is bilingual. That is exactly the purpose of this bill. I’m sure you understand that, if the bill is adopted, it will prevent the future appointment of a Governor General who speaks only French and one other language, but not English. I understand your question, and I share your opinion.

Senator Cormier: Senator Carignan, I sincerely thank you for introducing this bill that prompts us to have a more transparent discussion on a sensitive topic. I think that we all recognize that Ms. Simon is a highly competent and talented individual, but we also recognize that we are at a crucial point in our history in which reconciliation must be reflected in symbolic and important decisions. That said, and I’d like to hear your thoughts on this, I think that this appointment has created some profound uneasiness in Canadian society because it pits Indigenous languages against French, when they can be compatible in a certain context.

You talked about education, which is a provincial jurisdiction, as we all know. We also know that, as Senator Miville-Dechêne pointed out, the federal public service offers language training.

How is this reflected in this bill, and what are your thoughts on the challenges facing the public service, which must provide training and conduct evaluations to ensure that senior federal public servants are able to speak both official languages?

Senator Carignan: I do know that there is training that is provided and that is available. We must promote the importance of speaking both languages. I believe that we should perhaps consider creating additional incentives in the public service so that people learn both languages. My interest in this matter is growing. I am currently working on certain files concerning services in English and French in the public service, and there is a discrepancy in the deadlines, the quality of the services provided, and the response times for certain calls based on whether they are made in French or English.

There is still much work to be done. Once again, I will cite former minister Stéphane Dion, who said that if the head of an office is a unilingual anglophone or francophone, the body is in danger of being unilingual as well. That’s why it’s important that we work on all fronts, but especially on the people at the top.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable senators, the point at which I relieved you from your hunger pangs was when I was explaining the difference between my view of how we get our committee seats and the dissenters’ view. If you are puzzled about the dissenters’ view, it is the following: That whatever deal caucuses and groups may negotiate and, how that deal may be expressed in the Selection Committee report, it is the Senate that must give its blessing before the report and the deal can be effected.

The argument we heard on Tuesday night from a number of colleagues was, “No, no, no. The groups have nothing to do with giving you seats; it’s the Senate that gives you committee seats.”

But let me ask you this: Did the Senate as a whole come up with the deal? Did the Senate establish the criteria for prioritizing one senator over another for a given seat on a committee? Did the Senate as a whole establish the process by which conflicts over seats on a committee would be resolved? Of course not. All of the difficult work was left to the groups and caucuses. There is no escaping the fact that it is the groups that came up with the mechanism for allocating seats to members.

Indeed, that is why the Selection Committee exists: as a way to formally introduce agreements to the Senate that have been made by the groups and caucuses. To then say that one has no responsibility to the group because the Senate made the final decision is, at best, a dodge or, worse, a dereliction.

It’s a little bit like saying, “You don’t have to pay the real estate brokerage a commission on the house that they helped you negotiate a good price on because the ultimate decision to sell the house was in the hands of the previous owner.”

Now, if you still need convincing, let’s imagine a scenario where the Senate actually rejects a Selection Committee report on the formation of committees. In fact, think about what would have happened if last week’s first report of the Selection Committee had been rejected by the Senate. Do you think the Senate would then resolve into a Committee of the Whole to try and decide who sits on which committee? Of course not.

What would happen is that groups and caucuses would have to go back to the negotiating table to hammer out a fresh deal to assign seats to their members based on the new deal, and they would have to again bring it to the Selection Committee as a report to be tabled in the Senate.

There is no escaping the fact that committee seats are negotiated among groups, and the filling of those seats is a process that is internal to the group. It is in this sense that a committee seat belongs to the group rather than to the senator.

This is not a statement about favouring groups over individuals. It is a statement about the reality of how Senate committee seats are allocated.

Colleagues, I will grant that there is a way in which one could argue that portability is an issue of independence, as our Progressive Senate Group colleagues have argued, but it is in the narrow sense that senators insist on being liberated from any responsibility to the group from which the seat was obtained. In effect, these senators believe that they have an absolute right to that particular seat on the committee regardless of how the seat was obtained, never mind that other senators were deprived of that very seat because they too followed the agreed-upon protocol for seat assignment within the group.

In my opinion, though, this is not senatorial independence; it is senatorial libertarianism.

For most observers outside the Senate, this debate is arcane and seemingly trivial, but I think it gets at some important underlying questions about what it means to have a more independent Senate.

A good way to begin thinking about this question is to consider the phrase employed by Senator Mercer and Senator Cordy: that the group exists to serve senators, not the other way around. That sounds almost as good as a senator is a senator is a senator. But what does it mean?

Is it that senators join a group solely for the purpose of extracting benefits that are distributed by the Senate via that group? Is the purpose of being a member of the Conservatives or a member of the Independent Senators Group or the Canadian Senators Group or the PSG principally to get a committee seat? Is it to get on the executive of a parliamentary association; to be considered for overseas travel; to access prime office space in the East Block or Victoria building? Is that what you mean by “the group is there to serve the senator”?

Colleagues, is it not conceivable, even desirable, that a senator should think about his or her membership in the group as one which includes serving the purposes of the group? Have we become so atomistic and self-absorbed that we see our role only as freewheeling independent senators with no responsibility to a larger collective?

Is the future of the Senate one in which groups are purely platforms to assist members in carrying out transactions? That would seem to me to be a very shallow view of Senate reform, and a self-centred one too.

Perhaps I’m betraying my cultural roots, but I believe in the importance and value of a collective and of the responsibility that comes with belonging to a group. I joined a group not just because of what the group could do for me but for how it gave me the opportunity to become a better senator by working with like-minded colleagues.

Now, this is the point in my speech where some of you may be thinking, “Senator Woo wants to take us back to the bad old days of caucuses.” Since I’m the outgoing facilitator of the ISG, what I say has little bearing on the future direction of my group. But in any case, the bogeyman argument that stronger groups translate into abusive caucus behaviour is yet another red herring.

I understand some senators are still recovering from the PTSD of abusive caucus behaviour. But it is entirely possible for senators to exercise independent decision making on bills and motions while belonging to a group that values working together and has rules to foster collaboration based on fairness, respect and decency. That is in fact how I would define the ISG. Fairness, respect, collegiality and democratic practices, even in the context of a highly structured group, are not antithetical to an independent Senate.

In this context, I was troubled to hear in Senator Cordy’s speech her insinuation of some sinister motivation behind the Selection Committee report that is before us. She suggests that in supporting this report, the ISG is trying to prevent senators from being more independent. I reject this insinuation categorically. In what universe does fair play have to conflict with independence? Are senators who respect and abide with fairness of procedure not exercising a form of independence that includes the responsibility that comes with it?

Some of you probably feel that portability is a necessary condition for a more modern and independent Senate, and you are inclined to vote against the report because of that sentiment. You know, the very term “portability” has a nice ring to it. It has positive connotations, and it seems to go with the concept of independence. I can in fact think of situations where portability would be the desired model for committee seat assignment. But that does not mean portability is right for all models of committee seat assignment and certainly not for the current model that we employ.

The fact is when portability clashes with fairness, I think fairness should prevail. Another way of putting it is as follows: Does your right to stay on the committee of your choice trump your responsibility to the group from which you derive your seat? How you answer this question will depend on your relative weighting of individual versus group rights. This is an ancient problem in philosophy. I accept that some of you prioritize your individual rights, and that is fair enough, but I do not accept that this report undermines the independence of the Senate or the equality of senators.

Let me move to the next red herring. What should we make of the fact that the current rules allow for portability? Previous speakers have pointed out that portability is a decades-old practice of the Senate, and they are right. But defending portability on the grounds that it is tradition is very different from defending portability on the grounds that it makes sense. With due respect, I have heard a lot from senators about the importance of adherence to a traditional practice, but they have said very little about why the practice makes sense in the current context of how we actually assign seats to senators. It would seem that they are arguing in favour of tradition for tradition’s sake, which is a curious position for pro-modernization senators to take.

At best, the argument in favour of portability based on the fact that it’s currently in the rules isn’t really an argument. It’s simply a restatement of the status quo. If you are for modernization, then you have to be open to the idea that some of our rules are not fit for purpose. Rule 12-2(3) on portability is one such rule that is ripe for reconsideration.

It is even more curious that the proponents of this rule 12-2(3) are generally silent on rule 12-5. Allow me to get a little technical here. Rule 12-5 allows the leadership of a caucus or group to replace a senator on the committee with the stroke of a pen, regardless of whether that senator is leaving the caucus or group. In the hierarchy of draconian actions, rule 12-5 surely trumps 12-2(3). But it is in the rules, and it has been in the rules for at least as long as rule 12-2(3). In fact, portability would be useless to a senator who was stripped of his or her seat before that senator had a chance to leave the group.

I’m not advocating for or defending rule 12-5 as such, but I’m pointing out the inconsistency in an argument that is dogmatic in its defence of the portability rule but silent on the potentially more insidious twin rule that is 12-5. In fact, Senator Cordy has previously argued that 12-5 is an acceptable exception to the portability rule 12-2(3), which is tantamount to saying, if we’re really worried about senators who may be thinking of leaving with their seats, let’s take those seats away before they do.

Even if you take Senator Cordy’s more evolved position that she articulated on Thursday, in which she says she’s open to revisiting rule 12-5, one has to question how she can defend 12-2(3) on the grounds of tradition while challenging 12-5, which is no less steeped in that tradition.

I want to clarify that I’m not against the concept of portability. In fact, I can think of a scenario where portability of committees is justified because it does not violate procedural integrity and fairness among senators. That scenario is where senators are assigned their seats through an all-Senate process, rather than through group negotiations. In that situation, one could make the case that seats belong to individual senators for the duration of the session. But that is not how we assign committee seats currently.

Portability, you see, is an attractive concept. I would say it’s even a seductive concept, but it has to be fit for purpose. Perhaps we can move towards a selection process that is more fit for portability, but that is some ways off. In the meantime, we should design rules that fit the actual circumstances of our practice rather than an idealized version of what that practice could be.

To sum up, much as some would like to make this report about Senate independence and senatorial autonomy, the less glamorous reality is that committee seat assignment is a routine scarcity problem that has to be solved through negotiations. Negotiations only work if the parties subject themselves to the rules of the negotiated agreement and respect both the outcomes and the procedures that led to those outcomes.

If there is a principle at stake in this motion, this report, this debate, it is the principle of procedural fairness. Senators do not have a divine right to a given committee seat. They receive that seat on a particular committee by willingly participating in a group process that resulted in a favourable outcome for them but at the expense of other senators. If they leave that group, the seat should not go with them. That is the intent of the Selection Committee report we have been asked to vote on, and that is why I support it. Thank you.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Senator Woo’s speech was very convincing. He has a way with words, but I would like to ask him a question about the following problem. It would seem that the entire issue stems from the fact there is excess demand for certain committee seats, so when a senator leaves a group, they breach the privilege of another one of their colleagues by taking the seat with them when they go.

In economics, the problem of excess demand is usually resolved by addressing supply. Supply is increased. The problem that we are having with excess demand has nothing to do with the solution proposed by Senator Woo, which is to restrict senators’ mobility to resolve the problem of excess demand.

Would you agree with me, Senator Woo, that another rule does exist for a committee or group that feels aggrieved by the departure of a senator? Rule 12-2(4) stipulates that it is the Senate that allocates committee seats and can take a seat away from a senator. Rule 12-2(5), which you cited, seeks to change the composition of committees when the senators in the group all agree. When a senator must be absent for a day, he or she must have a replacement. That rule is purely administrative. Why not use rule 12-2(4) when there is an issue related to movement, that is, if a senator leaves a group and there are any concerns about the group being harmed?

[English]

Senator Cormier: I have a follow-up question. Your bill refers to the Language Skills Act. You also talked about the Official Languages Act. Parts V and VI of the Official Languages Act, and Part IV also, deal with language of work and Canadians’ right to work in their language. Do you agree, Senator Carignan, that for this new version of the Official Languages Act that is coming down the pike, it will be extremely important for everyone to take into account any possible changes in these parts of the legislation?

Senator Carignan: Thank you for your question. I don’t want to start a debate on the future legislation, but we definitely need to make improvements to major parts of this legislation and also give the Commissioner of Official Languages more enforcement powers. There is important work to be done on this file.

(On motion of Senator White, for Senator Dagenais, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Griffin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Black, for the second reading of Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).

Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Honourable senators, I would like to acknowledge that I’m joining you from the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people.

I rise today to speak to Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood). By my count, this is the sixth iteration of this bill. As I said before, I feel a sense of déjà vu. I applaud Senator Griffin for her determination in trying to get this bill passed.

Forestry in Canada is a big deal. According to the 2020 annual report from Natural Resources Canada entitled, Canada’s forests: Adapting to change, with 347 million hectares of forest, Canada is the third-most forested country in the world. Canada has 9% of the world’s forests.

In 2018, the forest sector directly employed 204,555 people. That’s a lot of folks.

In 2019, Canada’s forest sector contributed $23.7 billion to Canada’s nominal GDP.

This bill makes a lot of sense just in those practical terms. We have the supply. We have the plan for sustainability. We have the people. What is most important about the forestry sector is its sustainability and environmental benefit.

According to the same report, 200 million hectares of forest in Canada have a long-term forestry management plan. That’s according to the numbers in 2016.

Canada has 168 million hectares of forest certified to third-party standards of sustainable forest management — that’s according to the numbers in 2019 — and 77% of Canada’s managed Crown forest land is certified to third-party standards of sustainable forest management. This is important to the long-term viability of the industry. By protecting the sustainability of our forests, product can and will be available, however we want to use it.

Trees also have the added benefit of cleaning our air. Ensuring a sustainable forest sector is vital to our fight against climate change. The environmental impact of using wood as opposed to steel and concrete is clear.

As my honourable colleague noted in her speech, and it bears repeating, one cubic metre of wood emits 60 kilograms of carbon, compared to 345 kilograms for the same volume of concrete and 252 kilograms for steel. As we navigate our way through mitigating the effects of climate change, it is important that we weigh these factors when deciding what material to build with.

This bill would require that in developing requirements with respect to the construction, maintenance and repair of public works, federal real property and federal immovables, the minister must consider any potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits, and may allow the use of wood or any other thing — including a material, product or sustainable resource — that achieves such benefits.

I think it is an idea worth exploring further. I look forward to hearing further information when we get this bill to committee.

Thank you, honourable senators.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable senators, let me start my speech and continue after the break.

Honourable senators, last week we adopted the Selection Committee report that results in the formation of Senate standing committees. The first report of SELE named senators to the various standing committees according to the proportions that each group constitutes in the Senate.

The ISG received roughly 48% of the seats on each committee, the CPC received about 20%, the PSG 17% and the CSG 14%. Non-affiliated senators who wanted to be on committees were offered seats from the allocations that were assigned to the various groups.

Every senator who wanted to sit on a committee was offered one or more seats. No one was excluded. But how did a senator get the particular seat on the committee that he or she was assigned? Did that senator have a special claim to the seat?

Does any senator have a special right to a seat on a given committee? The answer is obviously no. We know this because all of us went through a process in the last two weeks of selecting committees that we wanted to sit on, and working through the inevitable conflicts that arise when there are more senators wanting to be on a committee than there are seats available on that committee.

Different groups use different protocols for allocating seats to their members. But I am sure every group had to deal with some overlapping interests among members, with the result that most senators did not get all the committees they wanted to be on. That is certainly true of the ISG.

While every ISG member got their first choice of committee, few also got their second and third choices.

Which brings us to the subject of the second Selection report that we are currently debating.

Let’s be clear, firstly, that this is a report of the Selection Committee, duly adopted by a majority of the members on that committee, consisting of members from all groups including nonaffiliated senators.

The reason Selection issued a standalone report on this issue as opposed to incorporating the issue into the first SELE report is because the PSG insisted on separating the issue of portability from the issue of committee formation.

The leaders of the other three groups — the Conservatives, the CSG, and the ISG — agreed with nonportability of seats, as they had for sessional orders in the previous parliament.

Listening to the polemics on Tuesday night, you might have come away with the impression that the suspension of portability is an ISG plot, masterminded by power-hungry facilitators at the helm of this group. In fact, three of the four groups in the Senate have supported some version of this report in previous sessions, and the Senate has voted in favour of non-portability each and every time it has come up in this chamber.

Honourable senators, the committee seat you obtained last week came through a negotiated process within your group that very likely deprived another member of the same group from having that seat. To put it in reverse, the seat you really wanted but did not get is because of the selection process your group established and that you willingly participated in. As they say, “You win some; you lose some.” However, that was the process you agreed to. It therefore follows, I believe, that if you choose to leave the group, you should, as a matter of fairness, return the seat to the group so that, if needed, the seat can be allocated to a member who is waiting in the queue.

This is why, honourable senators, the issue we are debating today is not about the independence of the Senate or the equality of senators. It is about the much more mundane — but foundational — concept of fair play and procedural integrity. Every time we have to reconstitute committees, as we are doing at the start of the Forty-fourth Parliament, we have to solve the problem of scarcity — scarcity of committee seats in the face of excess demand from senators. You can tell I’m an economist.

As it turns out, we have decided to solve this problem by allocating the seats by proportionality to recognized groups in the Senate and then leaving the groups to work out how they divvy up the seats they were assigned. This is about boring math, not some high-minded principle as the dissenters to the Selection Committee report have asserted.

On the subject of math, let me offer a rebuttal to Senators Mercer, Cordy and Bellemare who have made claims based on math without actually doing the math. They state correctly that any movement of senators from one group to another will change the proportionality of groups in the Senate, and they use that as a point to argue for portability. If you actually do the math, however, you will find that the movement of one or two senators does very little to change the actual allocation of seats on our committees. I have done the math, and I can confirm that the Independent Senators Group, or ISG, would have exactly the same number of members on committees of 9, 12 and 15 if one or even two members were to leave our group. This is akin to the retirement or passing of a senator, which does not precipitate an immediate change in the distribution of seats on a committee.

If a large number of senators were to leave a group, the proportionality numbers would be materially impacted and a change in seat distribution would be warranted. However, this is not unlike the appointment of new senators, which also affects proportionality calculations.

The point is that we don’t recalculate proportionality every time there is a shift in numbers — not even, I would say, when the shifts are quite large as was the case during the last Parliament when the ISG grew by nearly 20% even as our allocation of seats on committees remained static.

So much for math. Let me now return to the high-minded arguments that my honourable colleagues made on Tuesday night about the independence and equality of senators.

We heard from Senator Mercer that “a senator is a senator is a senator.” As tautologies go, this is especially seductive, but what does it mean? More to the point, how is it relevant to the debate at hand?

Senator Mercer would presumably argue that a senator deprived of his or her particular committee seat is less equal compared to other senators. But from what dispensation did the senator derive the right to have that committee seat in the first place? Did the Governor General grant it to him? Is it written in her summons? Do we have a rule that makes that claim? Of course not. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, I don’t believe there is even a rule that says senators must sit on committees.

To be clear, I believe that all senators have a right to sit on committees, but I do not believe that any senator has a right to sit on a particular committee.

We heard again on Tuesday night the mistaken assertion that this report deprives senators of the right to sit on a committee. It does not. All senators have the right to sit on a committee, including senators who are not part of a group or caucus if they want to sit on a committee. There is no violation of the equality principle.

The dissenters would have you believe that equality extends to a senator’s right to a particular committee seat. However, why should that be the case? More importantly, how can that possibly be the case when there are more senators desirous of committee membership than there are seats on that committee?

The underlying point here, colleagues, is that while senators may have a right to sit on committees, they do not have an entitlement to any particular committee seat. Seats on particular committees can only be assigned through what is essentially a process of negotiation. For a senator to then assert his or her unalienable right to that seat is a contravention of the negotiated agreement, a fallacy of logic and an abuse of procedural fairness.

I would go even further to say that this conception of portability actually violates the equality principle and undermines Senator Mercer’s mantra that “a senator is a senator is a senator.”

The dissenters also argue that this report is about the independence of senators. This is another red herring. Insofar as I am concerned, senators lose their committee seats when they leave a group not because of their views, but because of the agreement they signed up for when they joined a group. To put it differently, the seat is retrieved from a senator because it wasn’t theirs to start with.

This is not to say that seats will be taken away each time a senator leaves a group. If there is no pent-up demand for the seat from within the group, there is no need to retrieve the seat. The departing senator can continue to serve on it. Retrieving seats is not about vengeance or punishment. It is about respecting a process and working on a case-by-case basis.

I would add that the same applies when a senator joins a group after committee seats have already been assigned as will be the case when the new appointments to the Senate — which we are likely to see in the weeks ahead — take place.

If any of the new members join the ISG, I know the new leadership will make all efforts to find seats for them that correspond to their interests. That, too, is a process of internal negotiation that requires an equal measure of a clearly defined process and senatorial collegiality.

You will recall from Tuesday night’s debate that a number of senators dispute my view that we get our seats through our groups by way of a negotiation process. They claim that committee seats don’t come from groups; rather, they come from the Senate. Ergo, there is no need to return the seat to the group if a senator should choose to leave that group. I expect that some of our newer colleagues are puzzled by this argument, so I will explain it. However, that may have to wait until after the dinner break because I’m looking for the Speaker to now rise and invite us to see the clock.

Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Bellemare.

Those of us who are unilingual heard that the interpreter had some difficulty with the translation, but I think I got the question. I will repeat the question as I understand it.

Senator Bellemare is asking whether there’s another way to solve — let’s call it — the procedural fairness problem that I’ve articulated, whereby if a senator leaves a group and there’s excess demand in the group, rather than stopping portability why don’t we get the Senate to use its powers through rule 12-2 to basically reappoint some senator to redress whatever imbalance resulted from the movement of that said senator. I hope, Senator Bellemare, I have accurately summarized your question.

The answer to that question is that you are, in effect, proposing renegotiation. That’s what it boils down to. If you are saying that every time a member from one group leaves that group and takes a seat with another and that the remedy for the imbalance in the group that used to have the senator’s membership is for the Senate to then make a fix, writ large, then we are essentially talking about the Senate as a whole trying to find the solution to filling one or more seats in the absence of a comprehensive solution. Where that will lead, I am sure, is essentially a wholesale renegotiation of Senate seats.

There may be special circumstances where the Senate can agree, for some extenuating circumstances when someone has to vacate a seat, they will unanimously agree to appoint somebody else into that seat. But in the event that it cannot be done, it essentially boils down to the problem I articulated before which is that you will force the Senate as a whole to try and solve a problem that is best solved by groups and within groups.

That’s why, Senator Bellemare, I don’t think rule 12-2 is the solution to the portability problem.