THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 3, 2020
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met by videoconference (or by teleconference) this day at 9:32 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-13 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Daniel Charbonneau, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair.
I am ready to receive a motion to that effect. Are there any nominations?
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: I move that Senator Petitclerc do take the chair of this committee.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Poirier moves that Senator Petitclerc do take the chair of this committee. Are there any other nominations?
[English]
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Charbonneau: I declare the motion carried.
[Translation]
I now invite the Honourable Senator Petitclerc to take the chair.
Honourable Chantal Petitclerc(Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Charbonneau. Thank you, everyone.
[English]
Thank you all for your renewed trust. It will be and is a pleasure and a privilege to be a member of this committee and to chair this committee in collaboration with each and all of you.
[Translation]
We will now proceed with the election of the two deputy chairs. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect; are there any nominations?
[English]
Senator R. Black: Honourable senators, I move that Senator Poirier and Senator Bovey be deputy chairs of this committee.
[Translation]
The Chair: The Honourable Senator R. Black moves that Senator Bovey and Senator Poirier be elected deputy chairs of the committee. Is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Senator Dasko, did you have something to add?
[English]
Senator Dasko: No, I was going to propose Senator Bovey. That’s already been done, so thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
We will now proceed with some routine motions that we must adopt. They are regular motions consistent with those adopted in the past.
First, let us proceed with Motion No. 3, which creates the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, better known as the steering committee.
For this session of the legislature, as you know, we agreed that all four parties and groups would have a representative on the steering committee. Does anyone wish to move Motion No. 3?
[English]
Senator Poirier: I so move, chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Poirier [technical difficulties] that the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings.
Senator Forest-Niesing, I see that your hand is raised.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I just want to let you know that we lost you for a few moments while you were reading out the motion. It’s no big deal, I imagine.
[English]
Senator R. Black: Madam Chair, we have no translation.
The Chair: We need to make sure we have translation. I understand that you lost me at some point? I do have to say that my connection is a little bit challenging this morning.
[Translation]
Mr. Charbonneau, are we able to continue?
Mr. Charbonneau: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Forest-Niesing, you may continue.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I would like to propose an amendment to the standard wording suggested to us for Motion No. 3.
I will read you the amendment I am proposing and give you my reasons for proposing it. The amendment reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by replacing the words “be empowered to make decisions on behalf of” with “responsible for considering and consulting with”.
This amendment would require the subcommittee to be responsible for considering and consulting with the committee about the agenda, witnesses to be invited and the meeting schedule.
I have the written version of the amendment, which can be sent to you and which has already been sent to the clerk in advance. I don’t know if you’d like me to read the amendment in English or if the translation is sufficient.
The Chair: Colleagues, is the translation sufficient?
Mr. Charbonneau, has the amendment been sent out by email?
Mr. Charbonneau: Yes, the amendment was sent to all members of the committee.
The Chair: I understand, then, that the amendment has been sent by email to all members of the committee.
[English]
Do we need translation? Do we have some members who would like Senator Forest-Niesing to say the proposed amendment in English to make sure, or are we okay with translation?
Does anyone want to ask questions or voice something on this proposed amendment? I understand, Senator Forest-Niesing, that this amendment has to do with bringing work plans back to the members of the committee, and not every single decision, but like we’ve done in the past, a little bit more spontaneously, I suppose. Am I correct, or do you want to add a little more?
I know Senator Poirier wants to speak on it but, Senator Forest-Niesing, do you have anything more to add to that?
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: Yes, I would just like to explain the motivation for the amendment. As you have indicated, it’s not a departure from the practice that is already widely established by the committees’ steering committees, which is to work in a consultative and collaborative manner, as has been the case for this committee in previous sessions.
However, this amendment will prevent any possible contradiction between the powers delegated to the subcommittee through this motion and the obligation to report to the committee that appointed it under section 12-12(6) of the Rules. This reinforces the principle that the steering committee only has the powers conferred on it by the main committee, and that all steering committee decisions can be reviewed by the main committee.
[English]
Given that the Rules already provide that a subcommittee must report back to the full committee, and in light also that many committees, including this one, already work this way and it has proven to be a very effective way of conducting business within committees, adding tremendous value, I might suggest, in the result.
[Translation]
The current wording could be confusing and we could resolve that issue. That way, it would more clearly reflect and clarify the collaborative and consultative nature of the steering committee’s and the main committee’s work, without negating the subcommittee’s responsibility to consider agenda, and the procedural and other issues related to the committee’s work. That is the rationale.
[English]
Senator Poirier: I wish to add a few comments to Senator Forest-Niesing’s amendment that she wanted to bring to Motion No. 3.
From my understanding, what she’s asking for is already covered in the mandate as it is written already. I have been on the committee for a number of years at this point, and it has been our practice all along to consult with all the members of the committee on basically everything. Steering goes through different things but we go back to the committee. To the point, if I remember correctly, for our last report we even went back to the committee to do it line by line.
With steering having four members, all groups are represented in the steering committee. That’s already covered. There is really no necessity, from my understanding, to amend something that we are already doing and is already highlighted.
However, I would ask our clerk to explain rule 12-12(6) to make sure my understanding is correct and that this is already in our mandate, and that there’s no need to do anything further on this. Mr. Charbonneau, if you could please explain that rule clearly so that we understand it, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Charbonneau: In a nutshell, if you can permit me to make a comparison, I would say the relationship between the committee and the subcommittee is almost like a parent and child responsibility, where the parent delegates certain authorities and it’s up to the subcommittee to live and work within those authorities as it is worked out. Like a parent and child responsibility, the subcommittee must follow the directions that come from the main committee, so there is constant communication between the two. Essentially, whatever the motion would say, that responsibility back and forth has to stay in place because there is that parent and child responsibility.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau. Senator Poirier, did you want to add more? Senator Omidvar also wants to add to the conversation.
Senator Poirier: I want to restate, as I understood from our clerk, that the mandate of the steering committee is clear and we have been consulting. We’ve been working closely with all of our committee members, and those who have been there for a number of years, as some of us have, know that. It’s the way all the committees are working. Some may not have the same relationship we do in our committee, but I do know SOCI is excellent. We’ve always taken the committee members into consideration, always gone back to them on just about everything that we do in steering and the decisions we make. However, I agree with the clerk that it’s already covered there and I don’t think there’s a reason to go any further. Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: I will make three brief points. I must agree with Senator Poirier that our committee has actually worked really well, and I feel my voice has always been respected, even though I’m not a member of the steering committee. It’s a practice that we have, but a practice is not a rule. What Senator Forest-Niesing is trying to do is codify it into a rule for the rest of the session.
The second point I would make is that as much as I appreciate our clerk’s metaphor that the relationship between the committee members and steering committee members is that of a parent and child, I will submit that I am not a child. The steering committee doesn’t act with parental authority. I’m using that metaphor to paint out what I think is a simple measure to protect the interests of the committee.
The third point I would make is, yes, we have four excellent members on the steering committee and I have no doubt that they will be fair and respectful and they will come back to us, but the steering committee is not made up proportionally either. Therefore I would prefer to have it codified into the rule for this session, and for that reason I will be supporting Senator Forest-Niesing’s proposal.
Senator Poirier: I thank you for your comments, Senator Omidvar. I’m going back to our clerk, when I asked for an explanation of rule 12-12(6); it’s already in the mandate. What you’re asking us to do, from my understanding, is already there. There is really no need for this motion to be put in place because it’s already there. I just wanted to reinforce that.
The Chair: Mr. Charbonneau, it is quite important that we need to clarify whether it is specifically there, or is it an interpretation that it is there? If you can help us with that, just to continue that discussion.
Mr. Charbonneau: The committee itself is the ultimate authority over how the management of the subcommittee is done. It sets the parameters. It can say when it wants to meet, what it will decide, and also there is a reporting function. If the committee says, “We want you to provide regular reports,” that’s an obligation that the subcommittee will have to do. It is customary because there is that accountability function right now, that any time the committee wants to know information, the subcommittee is required to provide that information.
The Chair: Thank you for this clarification.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I wanted to support Senator Omidvar’s comments, because, often, in certain situations, we are told, “That is the rule, that is the practice.” So the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology always has very good practices and everything goes well, but you never know. It would be better if it was all in the Rules. That way, you don’t have to think about it.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Colleagues, interpretations can depend. I am reading the wording of the original motion. I’m an English teacher by profession, and I look at the power of words. It says that the steering committee be “empowered to make decisions on behalf of.” It doesn’t require the steering committee to come back to us. It says “empowered to make decisions on behalf of.” And Senator Forest-Niesing’s motion is, if I’m reading this correctly, “is responsible for considering and consulting on decisions with.” There is a very subtle but very important difference.
Senator Poirier: I just wanted to add a final line before a decision is made. From my understanding, steering was not made for the majority to crush the minority. That’s never what it was. It was made to be fair for all parties, and out of fairness for all senators, regardless of their party’s standing. That’s how steering has always worked, and I just wanted to put that on the record.
I feel it’s covered there. I feel we have a good working relationship. I don’t see the need for this. If there was a past practice where we, as steering, were doing things that were upsetting the committee members, and not coming back, then I could see that there would maybe be reasons to go further, but from my understanding, I still stand by my point that it’s covered. I think steering has been doing their job of respecting the committee members, going to the committee members, bringing it back. We’ve been very fair to work with them. There is nothing that has come to us that we have never taken into sincere consideration of what they’re asking. I feel as a committee we have that already.
I just don’t want to bog us down with everything. If every little dot and circle have to come back to the committee, I think we’re going to maybe have everything bogged down, and not moving forward and doing the great work that we need to do and want to do.
The Chair: Senator Forest-Niesing briefly, and then I think we need to move.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I just want to come back to agree with all those who have commented — and I also included in my initial comments the recognition that this steering committee, in its prior iteration, worked very effectively, very collaboratively and very well, and for that I’m extremely grateful. The intent of this amendment is not in anticipation of any problems or for any negative purpose except to — and the main objective is to avoid any possible misunderstanding or misinterpretation. We have a rule that requires the subcommittee to report back to the committee. Then we have language in a motion that is a standard form that is proposed and in practice has been accepted pro forma without too much discussion.
As I was reading it, it occurred to me that there was a potential conflict and contradiction, because what appears to happen, with the existing language of the standard motion, is the powers are conferred, delegated completely with there being no specified requirement to report back. That is, in every instance when I was asking for clarification on the interpretation of the rule, I was being told, “Well, no, the committee reserves the ultimate power over its agenda and procedure.”
But I do see — and perhaps it’s my legal brain — some contradiction in this language. And it occurred to me that it would be appropriate for the language to be modified slightly in order for the established practice — that we’ve all acknowledged and that we all appreciate — to be reflected in the language and that any possible misinterpretation of the rule can be avoided. So that is truly the intent.
The Chair: I think we’ve heard all positions. What I also hear is that everybody is agreeing that this committee is collaborating very well, has done in the past, but we have a proposition to make it more explicit in a motion in section 3.
Mr. Charbonneau, you will need to enlighten me, because it has been a while since we have adopted and voted. My understanding is that we will deal now with the amendment proposed by Senator Forest-Niesing first, and then we will deal with the motion. Am I correct about that?
Mr. Charbonneau: Yes.
The Chair: Is the amendment proposed by Senator Forest-Niesing carried?
Senator Omidvar: How do we do this?
The Chair: Exactly. Mr. Charbonneau, do we need blue hands, real hands?
Mr. Charbonneau: I would suggest a roll-call vote.
The Chair: Let’s do that.
Senator Bovey: Before we do, I have had my hand up.
The Chair: I apologize. I did not see the hands.
Senator Bovey: I really appreciate all the views and with all due respect agree with all the views. I do think in my knowledge of this committee — and I know I’ve never been on it before and I’m delighted to be on it, and it’s an honour to be deputy chair, but I have sat in on it and participated with this committee many times in the years I’ve been in the Senate. I think what we’re looking at is trying to clarify the rules and procedures of the committee.
If I may, I know a number of other committees are having exactly this same discussion, and it’s been passed by some committees and others are deferring a vote on it, taking a look at the language to make sure the language of the motion really does balance the rules and what we’re trying to do, and will be bringing it forward as the first item of business on their next agenda so that the discussion can carry on and so that everybody can be very comfortable with what they’re doing.
In light of having been involved in a couple of these discussions, is this not something — and forgive me, I’m perhaps putting a red herring in here — that should be discussed on the floor of the chamber and should be looked at for all committees, to make sure our rules and processes are properly melded and intersecting?
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Bovey, for your comments and for signalling that, yes, it is happening in other committees as well. It is an interesting proposition that you are putting before us, but my understanding is that for now we will deal with this motion that we have in this committee, as it’s been done in other committees. Senators, of course, or groups are allowed and welcome to bring this conversation onto the floor of the Senate; they are good points.
Senator Poirier: I don’t think there is the necessity to have a recorded vote.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Poirier: I like the idea, if we want to look at it further, to make sure that we have the rules as Senator Bovey was saying. We can delay it and when we come back as a committee it can be the first item of business. But we are a committee that has worked so much on consensus and the majority usually rules. I’ve put my points up there. I still don’t feel there is a necessity for it, but let’s go back. Senator Bovey, I’m open to going back and look at the rules again when we have time to deal with this when we come back. However, I don’t think there is a necessity to have a roll-call vote. We’ve never really worked like that and I think we’ve worked on a consensus pretty well all the time.
I wanted to put that on the record.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Poirier. I appreciate that.
Senator Manning: I wish to follow up on Senator Bovey’s remarks. I chair the Fisheries Committee, as an example, and this was not a discussion. We get along very well. I’m very concerned that we’ll have some committees with a certain rule and other committees that don’t necessarily have that rule, and we all serve on several committees. I’m concerned that it won’t be across the board and everybody will understand that it’s a rule for all committees.
Maybe we should take a breath and have a second look to see what transpires in the next few days in regard to conversations, and we can deal with it. I’m open to anything and everything to make our committee more cohesive and cooperative. It will be difficult to do that because we are cohesive and cooperative at the present time.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Manning.
Senator Omidvar: Senator Cordy pointed out to us in the Senate recently that every committee is the master of its own work. So, yes, if we want a standardized rule, then it should come from the Rules Committee, and then come from the Senate, or be referred to the Rules Committee by the Senate as a whole. But in the meantime, our committee can proceed the way we think fit.
Senator R. Black: I will point out that the Rules Committee put a pause on this discussion and we will be bringing it forward at the next meeting as agenda item 1. That’s just FYI.
The Chair: Thank you for this.
Senator Forest-Niesing, are you leaving that motion before us right now?
Senator Forest-Niesing: I don’t want to complicate this process more than it needs to be. I suspected that my motion would attract some comment, but I didn’t see it as a revolutionary proposal. What I’m hearing from my colleagues is an acknowledgment that we’ve worked well, that we have this established practice. I’m hearing you all agree that the proposed language isn’t contradictory to that.
My preference would be that we adopt that amendment for the purposes of our business going forward, and if as a result of a separate initiative we’re called upon to reconsider different wording at another time, nothing precludes us from doing that. I just prefer to have very clear language that is not contradictory and not subject to misinterpretation. That is truly the intent of this, and to genuinely and expressly, in black and white, reflect the consultative practice that has been established in this committee and in so many others.
Senator Moodie: I wish to ask how we will resolve the situation. Now we have a motion before us and I think that calls for a response. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Poirier, for not requesting a roll-call vote.
My suggestion is that we vote on that motion, and may I suggest that we agree “on division,” but I don’t want to put anything that is not the will of the committee.
Is the amendment carried? I see “yes.”
Senator Omidvar: I’m raising my hand to say yes. I don’t know how we vote here.
The Chair: That’s a good point. I saw nods, so let’s raise the real hands.
Is the motion, as amended, carried?
Senator Manning: Excuse me, Madam Chair, are we voting on the amendment or the motion as amended?
The Chair: We just voted on the amendment, and now we are voting — sorry. Is the motion, as amended, carried?
You’re not hearing me?
Senator Manning: I didn’t hear when we voted on the amendment.
The Chair: My apologies. So “is the amendment carried” was the first question that I asked, and I saw an agreement that it was carried. So now I am continuing with asking is the motion, as amended, carried? It will be helpful if you raise your hand, if you agree, of course.
So then I declare the motion, as amended, carried.
Senator Poirier: Chair, I had said that if the majority wanted it, it was fine. There’s no reason for a roll-call vote.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Poirier.
The motion is adopted. [Technical difficulties]
[Translation]
The Chair: Let’s proceed with Motion No. 4. Does anyone wish to move Motion No. 4?
Senator Forest-Niesing moved:
That the committee publish its proceedings.
Is the motion carried? The motion is carried.
Motion No. 5: Financial report.
In accordance with section 12-26(2) of the Rules, each committee must table a report on the expenses incurred during the previous session. The clerk has prepared a copy of the draft of this report, which has been distributed by email.
Would someone move the motion?
Senator Manning: I move the motion.
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Manning moved:
That the committee adopt the draft first report, prepared in accordance with rule 12-26(2).
Shall the motion carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 6: Research staff.
The Honourable Senator R. Black moved:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee;
That the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee’s examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills, and estimates as are referred to it;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries, and draft reports.
Shall the motion carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. I would like to welcome our analysts, Laura Munn-Rivard and Sonya Norris, and I also thank them in advance.
[English]
The Chair: It is always a pleasure working with you.
[Translation]
Motion No 7: Authority to commit funds and certify accounts.
The Honourable Senator Poirier moved:
That, pursuant to section 7, chapter 3:05 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chairs, and the clerk of the committee;
That, pursuant to section 8, chapter 3:05 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee; and
That, notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases related to consultants and personnel services, the authority to commit funds and certify accounts be conferred jointly on the chair and deputy chair.
Shall the motion carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 8: Travel.
The Honourable Senator Bovey moved:
That the committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
Shall the motion carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 9: Designation of members travelling on committee business.
The Honourable Senator Moodie moved:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to:
1) determine whether any member of the committee is on “official business” for the purposes of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and
2) consider any member of the committee to be on “official business” if that member is (a) attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the committee; and
That the subcommittee report at the earliest opportunity any decisions taken with respect to the designation of members of the committee travelling on committee business.
Shall the motion carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 10: Travelling and living expenses of witnesses.
The Honourable Senator Omidvar moved:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses of one witness per organization upon application, but that the chair be authorized to approve expenses of a second witness from the same organization should there be exceptional circumstances.
Shall the motion carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 11: Communications.
The Honourable Senator Mégie moved:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to direct communications officer(s) assigned to the committee in the development of communications plans and products where appropriate and to request the services of the Senate Communications Directorate for the purposes of the promotion of their work; and
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow coverage by electronic media of the committee’s public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its proceedings, at its discretion.
ShalI the motion carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Other business, Senators’ staff.
The Honourable Senator Dasko moved:
That each committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings, unless otherwise agreed to by the committee.
Shall the motion carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
That concludes the list of motions that we had to adopt today. We are off to a good start. Thank you to each and everyone of you for your help.
[English]
Thank you very much to each and all of us for your collaboration. I am looking forward to working with you. Thank you to the steering members in advance for the work that we are going to embark on soon.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, if there is no other business, and as I see no other hand raised, I will adjourn the meeting.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I just wanted to thank my colleagues on the committee for how they handled the amendment I proposed, but I realize that I neglected to congratulate our chair and deputy chairs of the committee, whom I’m very pleased to see elected today. I look forward to continuing the work. Congratulations to everyone.
The Chair: Thank you all very much. I am very much looking forward, and I think I speak for the steering committee when I say that we’re all very much looking forward, to working together. With that, I declare this first meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)