The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: You have four and a half minutes remaining in your time. Would you take another question from Senator Boisvenu?

Hon. René Cormier: Senator Bovey, thank you so much for your engagement in arts and culture and all the work that you are doing. I think this is a very interesting bill; it is very broad with a lot of objectives, and I appreciate that. I saw that the minister will have to consult with a lot of different components, ministries and provinces, and I always get a little nervous when I see such a list when we see that one of the main problems in Canada in terms of cultural policy is the fact that we work in silos. Consultation is good, but it might not be enough. I wonder if you could reflect on what might be the mechanism that could be created so the minister would have a real tool to consult and work with partners.

Senator Bovey: That is a very true and good observation. Indeed, it’s a challenge. Senator Cormier, I believe — and I think you and others do too — that there is not one sector of society that is not touched by artists and arts.

I developed an octopus a number of years ago with the eight tentacles representing the eight key issues that every level of government needs to resolve. They include crime prevention, economy, jobs, health, education, tourism, and on it went for eight of them. My research for over 20 years was looking at anecdotal and empirical data that fed into each of those. I believe that not one of those problems in society can be solved without the inclusion of the arts. The arts will resolve some of them and will provide questions for others. The challenge is to have us, as parliamentarians, work across sectors, across disciplines and across political lines — if we have political lines — and have those discussions about what it means. The list of ministries is really articulating where some of that help can come from.

I can assure you, of the more than 600 people I spoke to, many of them are working with this in those sectors and with their politicians at every level. Some of you will know that I have prattled on about this for a number of years, and I will keep doing so.

Hon. Marty Klyne: I’m sitting here with the strong sense that we’ve lost the plot concerning the issue. The issue is about the portability of these seats.

From my perspective, which is not as deeply entrenched and long held as yours, the seats are being used as a bargaining chip, as golden handcuffs, as a retention tool. Senator McCallum was on the cusp of that idea when she asked about someone not feeling like they’re a good fit within a group but they’re staying there because they’re on that committee. I’m putting words in her mouth, but is she hanging on to that committee because she finds it’s the place she needs to be?

To go back to the wise words of the former senator Robert Peterson, committees are where some fundamental critical work is done. I’ve heard many other senators say that. I hang on to that sentiment. That’s where we actually do a lot of good work. We study bills, and we look at topics of national interest that nobody else is looking at.

Now I’m starting to lose the plot, but what I think we need to address here is portability. I know I’ve seen someone leave a group and keep their seat, much to the chagrin of the group they left. When the senator left, the group was relying on the rule that seats weren’t portable, and the senator shouldn’t have left with that seat. The other group, the one on the receiving end, would say, “Oh, no. They get to keep their seat.” There’s a little bit of hypocrisy going on.

What I would like to know is why a seat cannot be portable. Again, from my perspective, it is a bargaining chip, a retention tool and golden handcuffs.

Senator Housakos: Thank you, Senator McCallum. .

Senator Housakos: It’s never a bad idea to have the Rules Committee study the subject matter. All I’m saying is that you’ll always have circumstances where caucuses make choices, and some people are satisfied with the choices and some are not. There’s no such thing as a perfect process. I recognize that.

However, by and large, I don’t recall a situation in this institution where we had chairs, deputy chairs or any senators on committees who weren’t doing valuable work and shouldn’t be there. I don’t. We can make an argument that somebody would be more or less suited, but in my experience I think every senator who has been chosen to do work does it with dignity and professionalism. That’s why the Senate is recognized in Parliament as having done some of the best committee work, and it’s not a new thing. It has been recognized by witnesses and stakeholders for decades.

That means the system hasn’t been that poorly managed.

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.

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. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, following Senator Mobina Jaffer’s example, I think I have a two-and-a-half-minute speech.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-214, An Act to establish International Mother Language Day. Bill S-214 is a legislative proposal to designate February 21 as international mother language day. I would like to thank Senator Jaffer for reintroducing this and giving me the opportunity to speak again on the importance of proliferating mother languages.

As a country with multilingualism at its core, we need to recognize and understand the importance of preserving all mother languages. Professor Wade Davis put it more eloquently than I could when he said in the Canadian Geographic:

A language, of course, is not just a set of grammatical rules or a vocabulary; it’s a flash of the human spirit, the vehicle by which the soul of a particular culture comes into the material world. Every language is an old-growth forest of the mind, a watershed of thought, an ecosystem of social, spiritual and psychological possibilities. Each is a window into a universe, a monument to the specific culture that gave it birth and whose spirit it expresses.

I know first-hand the correlation between my mother tongue and my identity. Speaking Pukhto, or Pashto, is more than a means to communicate; it connects me to my ancestors; it allows me to understand the literature, art and poetry of my homeland.

It was for those reasons that I made it a priority to teach my mother language to my two daughters, Anushka and Shaanzeh. By doing so, I was able to share a part of my identity, history and culture with them. My daughters’ lives and my life have been positively impacted in numerous ways because of our ability to communicate in our mother tongue. That is worth celebrating every year on February 21.

Of course, we cannot speak about the importance of preserving mother languages in Canada without considering our Indigenous population, many of whom were forcibly stripped of their mother tongues. Honourable senators, the importance of mother tongues cannot be undervalued because we know that once a language dies, the knowledge and heritage it contains dies with it, forever diminishing our society as a whole.

As parliamentarians, we must encourage Canadians to celebrate and preserve our linguistic diversity. Bill S-214 fulfills these aspirations by raising awareness and promoting education of mother languages.

In closing, I would ask, honourable senators, that we consider the questions posed by Professor Wade Davis:

. . . But what of the poetry, songs and knowledge encoded in the other voices, those cultures that are the guardians and custodians of 98.8 per cent of the world’s linguistic diversity? Is the wisdom of an elder any less important simply because he or she communicates to an audience of one? . . .

Senator Jaffer, thank you for your tireless work on this bill or, as we say in my mother tongue, manana. Thank you, honourable senators.

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.