THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 2, 2020
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met by videoconference this day at 8 p.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-13 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Adam Thompson, 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 now ready to receive motions to that effect.
Senator Duncan: I would like to nominate Senator Housakos as the chair of this committee.
Mr. Thompson: The Honourable Senator Duncan moved:
That the Honourable Senator Housakos do take the chair of this committee.
Are there any other nominations? Seeing no other nominations, I will put the question.
Senators, are there any objections to the motion? Hearing none, I declare the motion carried and invite Senator Housakos to take the chair.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues, for your support. This might be the only unanimous election I think I will ever win, but I nonetheless appreciate it and I look forward to trying to chair this committee with the honour, dignity and integrity that a committee of this nature requires, and to working with all of you.
Without any further ado, though, I am tempted to adjourn the meeting and go now, but I think it would be better that we continue with the rest of the steering committee. Let’s get right down to business and elect the three deputy chairs of this committee. I am ready to receive nominations from the members of the committee.
Senator Bellemare: I would propose Senator Pat Duncan.
The Chair: There are three deputy chairs, and if colleagues will agree, I suggest we take nominations and we’ll determine after that if an election is required.
The Honourable Senator Bellemare moved:
That the Honourable Senator Duncan be deputy chair of this committee.
Are there any other nominations?
Senator Massicotte: I nominate Senator Greene.
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Massicotte moved:
That the Honourable Senator Greene be deputy chair of this committee.
Senator Bovey: I nominate Senator Dalphond.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Bovey nominates Senator Dalphond.
[English]
Are there any other nominations? Accordingly, if there are no other nominations, the deputy chairs of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament are Senator Duncan, Senator Greene and Senator Dalphond. Congratulations. I’m looking forward to working with you, colleagues.
As is tradition, I will give the floor to Senator Duncan, if you would like to address the committee before we go further.
Senator Duncan: Thank you very much, Senator Housakos, and thank you to all members of the committee. I too am really looking forward to working with all of you on this very important committee. The Rules are near and dear to my heart in terms of my legislative background, having been in opposition, the lonely third party, then government and back to opposition. I must say that I have truly come to appreciate and respect the understanding of the Rules of the Senate. Many of my learned colleagues serve on this committee, including yourself, Mr. Chair, and I’m really looking forward to learning from your appreciation and understanding of the Rules, and working on this committee. Thank you very much for your support. I appreciate it.
Senator Greene: Thank you very much to everybody there in Ottawa or elsewhere for nominating me and confirming me as deputy chair. I will try to live up to your expectations or exceed them, probably, and I expect that we will do some very good work.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Dalphond, you have the floor if you wish to speak.
Senator Dalphond: First of all, congratulations on your hotly contested election, which you won hands down! To my colleagues, the new deputy chairs, I look forward to working with you. I think we have a committee that is made up of people who all want to seriously look at ways to make the Senate work better, more efficiently and in a more modern way. I’m pleased to join a committee that is so enthusiastic about the rules of procedure, a kind of committee that the public doesn’t always find exciting, but I know that all 4 of us will enjoy talking about it, and all 15 of us will enjoy talking about it as well. I look forward to working with all of you.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, we have some nuts-and-bolts logistical motions to run through before we launch off with the work of this committee. I will go to item 3 on the agenda, which is an agenda and procedure question.
Do I have anyone proposing that motion?
Senator McPhedran: I would like to invite us to just pause with the rapid process that we usually go through for the organizational meeting of committees and open up a bit of a discussion, hopefully, among us about the dynamic between the subcommittee and the larger committee. I was fortunate to be able to have a bit of a conversation with Senator Housakos earlier today, and, as always, I learned a bit more about the Rules than I knew going into the conversation. But I’d like us to consider the possibility that we would refine somewhat how we’re describing the dynamic between the subcommittee and the committee.
I’m not moving an amendment to the motion at this moment in time, because I think a discussion would be a good thing to have. But I would like to summarize roughly the direction that I hope we will go ultimately, and also to note that some other committees have been having this discussion. If I understand correctly, the Energy Committee actually did reach a decision after discussion to modify motion 3 somewhat. Let me raise this and open it up if I may, Mr. Chair.
What I have in mind is something for the second paragraph of motion 3 is very similar along the lines of what the Energy Committee decided to do: That the subcommittee be responsible for considering and consulting with the committee with respect to its agenda, the invitation of witnesses and the schedule of hearings.
Did everyone get that okay in French? I can do it in French as well, unless you’ve already received it.
Senator Lankin: Senator McPhedran, I’m looking at motion 3 and I’m assuming that if you did move that motion — you’re giving us the intent and direction of it — that is for the second paragraph of motion 3. The first paragraph is the composition of the committee being the chairs and the deputy chairs.
Senator McPhedran: Yes, thank you.
Senator Lankin: Were you going to talk for a moment about the “why” behind this to kick off the discussion?
Senator McPhedran: I think I’d like to just open up the discussion. For me, what I’ve just read clarifies in some ways how an ideal committee would operate. But I just want to offer that for broader discussion.
Senator Greene: I guess what I’m a little puzzled over is trying to come to grips with what problem this proposed amendment is trying to fix. I’ve been a senator for 11 years now, and it’s never been a problem that I’m aware of between the way that the steering committee operates and the whole committee operates. One is naturally a creature of the other, and there is no member on a steering committee who is not a member of the whole committee. There is consultation taking place all the time anyway. I just don’t feel that we need to have this codified.
Senator McPhedran: All I would say to that, Senator Greene, is that I haven’t had the same experience that you’ve had. In thinking about how to have a clear description of an optimal dynamic between the subcommittee and the committee, I agree that this probably doesn’t change any of the procedural aspects of the Rules Committee. It speaks more to what I would hope would be a clear description of an optimal working environment.
The Chair: If I may share my views on this, I had a discussion earlier with Senator McPhedran. I’ll share my perspective with colleagues, and I think it’s a timely moment to share my perspective, especially after yesterday in the chamber, when I got this sense that a number of senators sometimes misconstrue or misunderstand some of the rules, procedures and privileges of senators and, more importantly, precedents in terms of how we’ve been operating in the place.
For example, I’ve heard over the last few days of debate from experienced senators who have been here for a long time, for example, that standing committees of the Senate are masters of their own destiny; they’re masters of their own rule, which is the furthest thing from the truth.
I’ll give you my perspective, of course, as chair and we’ll debate that, I’m sure, over the course of time. But the supreme authority of any parliamentary body is the chamber itself. In the Westminster system, the House of Commons is independent and has full authority over everything that falls under the House of Commons, and the Senate of Canada is the ultimate and only authority who speaks for the Senate of Canada. That’s why, for example, committees are constituted by the Senate of the whole. They are populated by the Selection Committee and approved by the Senate of the whole. Our sitting times are determined by the Senate of the whole, and if you want to sit outside of those times, you need approval, especially when the Senate is sitting.
Budgets, for example, are tabled in the Senate of the whole, and they need their approval or else committees don’t have the authority to spend money or travel; orders of reference cannot, of course, proceed without the approval of the chamber; a report cannot be published under the authorization of any standing committee without the approval of the Senate. Of course, the only exception is the Internal Economy Committee and that steering committee, which has intersessional authority, as we all know, and the Senate can be not sitting or we can be prorogued, or for a variety of reasons it would be impossible for steering to bring decisions to Internal Economy. They can take those decisions on their behalf.
The way our parliamentary system works, every steering committee — and I’ve been chair now of four standing committees in the Senate in my 12 years here — is accountable to the standing committee, just as the standing committee is accountable to the chamber. The motion reads, “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,” but I can tell you from my experience — and those of you who have worked with me as a chair will know why — I concur with Senator Greene. I have never had any other experience with chairs where a steering committee would even try to impose their will on the majority of a standing committee. You are the authority over the steering committee.
I can tell you that I work in the most consultative basis, and as far as I’m concerned, I had that perspective when I was Speaker, when I was Speaker pro tempore and when I chaired every single committee. We work in the Senate on the basis of consensus and, particularly those of you who have experience on the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, you know that it’s very much a consensus-driven committee.
I’m open to any suggestions, Senator McPhedran, in order to build goodwill. I particularly don’t have any problem. I thought about it after our meeting, and if members of this committee want to go as far as to give the ultimate authority where steering work is done at large with the committee, where we do the actual triaging of subjects that are proposed, study propositions, bill propositions, and the development of witnesses, if the committee wants to do that work as a whole standing committee instead of in a vacuum and giving the authority to do that work to the steering committee, I’m open to do that as well if that is the wish of the committee. I’m willing to hear any other suggestions on this.
Senator Lankin: Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. My experience in previous lives in the legislature was that committees operated on the basis that Senator McPhedran is talking about, and that you and Senator Greene are suggesting it is done in most committees. I think most people know that there were some issues in committees over the past year and a half, or however long a period of time, that gave rise to this particular issue or concern.
As I understand the wording that Senator McPhedran read out, as you were saying, one possibility is to move it all to committee, but that’s not my understanding of what’s being suggested. It’s just prompting a more collaborative approach.
Am I right in understanding that the actual Rules of the Senate are that the subcommittee must report to the full committee, and that number 3 in this organizational motion that’s set up here actually circumscribes that by giving the full delegation to the steering committee? Again, I don’t have it right in front of me, but from what I listened to, I don’t think that Senator McPhedran’s motion takes away from the responsibilities that this gives to the steering committee to operate on behalf of the committee, but that it stresses the collaborative and consultative approach.
It may not be something that other senators have experienced a need for, but I don’t think that it does damage, and I think it sets out clearly our expectations as a group working collaboratively.
So other than our never having to have done it before, and if there are other arguments about why this would hamper — I don’t think it would jam up decision making about witness lists and changing witness lists and managing, but if people think there are other reasons to object to it, I’d really like to hear those so that the discussion is a little more fulsome before we bring it to a close.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Thanks for giving me the floor. Since I have been a member of the Senate, little time has been spent on organizational motions at committee meetings. This year, as I have them in front of me and can read them, I do not find the current wording to be truly consistent with the intent of the rules of the subcommittee that consults. The idea is to have a debate or a discussion to ensure the collaboration of everyone on this committee, which is very important. It is particularly important if we think about the agenda we want to set for ourselves. So I think there’s something here that doesn’t take away from that, but it makes the collaborative process we want to respect more specific. In this sense, I think it’s good to question previous practices that are adopted too quickly. Perhaps it is time to further clarify the collaborative nature of committee work, because we all want to work in this way. So I find Senator McPhedran’s proposal interesting.
[English]
Senator Massicotte: Mr. Chair, you expressed an openness, which I appreciate, of what should be delegated and what should not be delegated. But my two cents is I feel quite strongly, contrary to what you suggested, that the subcommittee should have the authority to basically invite people and to schedule people.
I have been on the steering committee many years. A lot of things happen there, and there are a lot of moving parts. I think it’s quite important that we maintain the authority of the steering committee to basically organize the meetings. Otherwise it becomes too bureaucratic and cumbersome. I feel strongly about that.
One could argue, though I’m not sure it’s necessary, but I have no difficulty putting in writing that, yes, the steering committee will have this authority, but it will consult and seek advice from the committee. That’s what we do anyway. I’ve never seen otherwise. I have no problem with that addition if you want to be clear about it, but I feel strongly that the starting point is that the subcommittee should be authorized to do so. I have no problem with consult and report, but I think there’s a right balance.
The Chair: Colleagues, I want to reiterate the fact that standing committees fall under the same procedural rules, more or less, of the chamber itself. Senators are free to move motions and they’re free to amend motions. They give the guidance and have the final word.
A good chair of any standing committee recognizes you have to acquiesce to the authority of your committee. So in this particular instance we have representation from every single caucus group in the chamber. That’s already a starting point. But like I said at the outset, I am open and flexible to take any guidance. I’m willing to go, like I said, Senator Massicotte, as far as acquiescing and having the steering work done at large with the full standing committee. Again, I’m waiting for guidance.
So far I’ve heard loud and clear from Senator Lankin, Senator Massicotte, Senator McPhedran and Senator Bellemare. Is anyone going to break the tie right now on this perspective?
Senator Wells: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m in general agreement with Senator Massicotte. This system has worked well. I’ve been on steering committees, Senator Housakos, with you as chair, and I know you have a collaborative approach in any of the steering committees I’ve been on. Of course, the steering committee is a subcommittee of the committee, and the subcommittee always reports to the committee. It can be overruled at any time by a majority vote.
However, at some point in the planning process, which is calling witnesses, setting times and all of the things that are laid out in motion 3, which you’ve put on the table, there has to be a person or a group of people — in this case, as you said, we have all caucuses or groups in the Senate represented — and someone has to make a decision to move forward, and I think that’s a system that in my experience has worked well.
Senator Martin: Congratulations to you, Mr. Chair, and to the deputy chairs who will be forming the steering committee.
I agree with what a lot of people have said. I probably align myself most closely to Senator Greene. I’ve seen how the committees have always worked very well, but I think Senator McPhedran has allowed us to have this discussion on a matter that has been routine in the past, and that’s been important. That’s the first point.
Second, for practical reasons, I think the steering committee should be able to quickly meet rather than have the entire group give whatever approval, because, in essence, the steering committee is the subcommittee of the whole committee, more than an authority, I think, of the subcommittee as having added responsibility to take us forward. I think that what we have in place is good. It has worked well. But this conversation has been really important. Thank you to Senator McPhedran for raising it and allowing us to have this conversation.
Senator R. Black: If we’re following true parliamentary procedure, we should have had a motion on the floor before we discussed this. I might suggest that we get something on the floor — either the one that’s there or an amendment — and then let’s move on.
The Chair: I allowed some latitude to Senator McPhedran on this issue because she said initially she had a motion, but she didn’t want to table it until discussion.
Senator R. Black: Understood.
The Chair: And I gave some latitude to members of the committee to have the discussion. Sometimes it’s helpful instead of rushing to judgment. I will give everyone a say.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I have not seen the amendment that will be introduced, but I understand that a sessional order was passed by the Senate a few weeks ago stating that we will have management committees made up of representatives from each group to ensure that all groups are consulted. I also understood that the committee would be composed of an odd number of members and that two deputy chairs could call a meeting of the entire committee at any time.
In this context, I question the necessity of the proposed amendment. However, it is more a question than a position.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: I’m really grateful for this conversation. The first thing I would like for us to at least think about is that the Rules of the Senate, which the Rules Committee have put in place, do say that a subcommittee reports to the entire committee. That’s a rule that this committee has put in place and was agreed to by the entire Senate.
I also like the fact that we have three deputy chairs from every group. I see this as a sign of progress and as a sign of collaboration. It also provides for more inclusiveness. In all the arguments that I’m putting forth, if you consider them arguments, change for the sake of change is not adequate. But changing to have more inclusive discussion and to make sure that people who are not on steering but on the committee and who are attending committees, hearing witnesses and studying issues are being consulted. I don’t see any harm in that. I only see positive, inclusive conversation.
We say that we’re a modern Senate and we are also the Rules Committee. At the end of the day, the actual wording of motion 3 is not according to the Rules, because every subcommittee has the responsibility to table the report to the full committee for its adoption.
This is kind of a medium-ground situation that I think we’re looking to be more inclusive. It’s time that we find a place for this conversation. If people want to have more conversations on this issue, I don’t feel there is an urgency tonight to adopt a particular motion. There’s certainly nothing on our work agenda right now. If people want to reflect a little bit on it, we could put this motion aside and we could talk about it at the next meeting.
But all that said, I think we shouldn’t be restricted to the ways of the past. If there are some ways that people around the table can feel that they have the ability to make a greater contribution, I say that’s good. Thank you.
Senator Bovey: Congratulations, Mr. Chair, and congratulations to the deputy chairs. I agree with what Senator Ringuette has just said. I think this is a very healthy discussion and I think it’s an important discussion. If we’re looking at how we can improve and tool the Rules of the Senate, as Senator Ringuette said, to make it more inclusive and make sure we are listening, what you might want to do is consider clause 2 of this motion be that the subcommittee be empowered to consult and make decisions on behalf of the committee. Get the word “consult” in there — though that’s not the right order for it — and it ties back to the Senate rule and has a participatory process.
The Chair: Thank you for that point. I’m flexible on this. The only thing we have to keep in mind is that on this order of reference, I know from the clerk’s perspective, they need to have some clarity because once we take the word away from the motion, we change the words from “empower to make decisions on behalf of the committee” to “empower them to consult the committee.” It goes back to what I’m proposing, which is that the actual decision will be taken by the whole committee, and while I underline I have no problems with that, it can create something of a bottleneck. Again, I do highlight that I believe highly in consultation and consensus, and I’m open to go that way. Senator Bovey, if we make the change in the wording, the committee will not be able to send out agendas. The committee will have to take the decision collectively and then agendas will be sent out.
Senator Bovey: If I may, Mr. Chair, as I said, I put the word in the wrong place. I do think the steering committee has to be empowered to make the final decisions because we have to move forward. But it could be based on consultation or inclusivity. Senator Ringuette said maybe we don’t have to do this tonight and maybe we need to reflect on it. I certainly need a bit of reflection on this. I see the purpose, and I also see that we don’t want to hold up the work of the committee. So it’s a balance that I think we need to strike and take a look at what the words are, and maybe we don’t have to solve this tonight.
Senator McPhedran: Mr. Chair, if I may, I would like to share with everyone that I did type into the chat — very badly — both the English and the French versions of the proposal that’s under discussion. Also, I want to clarify that it’s certainly not my intention in the wording to take away the decision-making power of the subcommittee. I fully appreciate the points about the need to be able to make decisions and be effective.
Senator Frum: Senator McPhedran, as a fellow non-subcommittee member, what you have written out in this amendment is everything that I would expect to happen as a regular committee member. I’ve also been on this committee for five years and that has been the practice and the reality of what’s gone on here. So I don’t know that it needs to be spelled out so explicitly. I just would commit to you that if we don’t do this, what you have written here as your expectation is also my expectation as a committee member, and I think the system works fine. I think there is a proper structure to this; when we delegate certain work to the subcommittee, it is almost always that they fulfill the wishes of the committee. It’s a practical matter more than anything else.
The Chair: Colleagues, maybe I can suggest my sense of things. My recommendation, based on what I heard from everyone, is we go forward with the recommendation as it is. Of course, we’re all honourable members around this table, and I think it’s incumbent on the members of steering to respect the wishes of the committee and consult the committee to make sure that witnesses and agendas are done at all times within the satisfaction of the committee.
Senator Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak as I haven’t entered into the debate as yet on this discussion.
I fully agree with what Senator Frum has said in that the discussion Senator McPhedran has put forward really sets out the expectations for a steering committee member. As a steering committee member, I fully intend to live up to that.
I appreciate that other senators on this committee have not had the experience where steering committees have not lived up to this, but there are members of the Senate who have — not on this committee, but they have had this experience.
So if these are, in fact, the expectations of us as steering committee members and, as committee members, if this is our expectation of the steering committee, I see no difficulty in putting that out. We all know in performance evaluations that when your expectations are laid out, then it’s very clear. We can always go back to refer to them.
If members are perhaps wanting more time to give this some more thought, as Senator Bovey has suggested, perhaps we could table it for discussion and, at our next Rules Committee meeting, have the agenda item of a decision point on the discussion. I would like to suggest that, if I might, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Senator Duncan, I’m fine with that as well as a suggestion.
Senator Lankin: I wasn’t at the Energy Committee meeting, but I heard about the discussion that took place. The actual wording that Senator McPhedran has sent to us is the wording that that committee agreed to. I think, at the beginning, the same kinds of questions or concerns were being raised, but when they talked it through, this is the wording they came up with. But I fully appreciate that understanding and reading those words has just happened right now. I think it would be worthwhile to see, over the course of a week, whether people can come behind that wording as a way to reflect the intent and what people say they’ve often experienced. I would say if that’s the case, then what’s the problem with putting it in there?
I agree with what Senator Massicotte and others have said about not crippling our ability to organize our work. I do think the collaborative approach that’s being suggested is an important one.
Actually, I just realized Senator Massicotte may be able to speak to what happened at Energy. Irrespective of that, I just wanted to say, Mr. Chair, that if we are going to take a week to talk amongst our colleagues and with each other and see if there’s wording that we can agree to — either this wording or something else that captures the spirit — then I would hope that you wouldn’t proceed with voting on motion 3 as it is and that we would table that and bring it back. I just think that would be a cleaner approach.
I also agree with you that it shouldn’t be delayed for long. I would hope that we would deal with it next week at the latest because I think we need the clarity so that, if we want to begin scheduling work, we’re in a position to do that.
The Chair: Colleagues, just for the benefit of time and that we’re not here until midnight tonight, I get the consensus we’ll put motion 3 of this agenda item off until next week. We’ll allow members of the committee to reflect, consult and speak amongst ourselves and come back at the next meeting with words that are palatable and comfortable for everyone.
Are there any objections on this element?
Senator McPhedran: No objection. I just have a question, Mr. Chair. Would you like me to put it in the form of a motion, or shall we just leave it as a point of discussion?
The Chair: I suggest we take a few days to reflect. My suggestion is that those of you who finish that reflection and feel you’ve come to a consensus after consulting your colleagues, send a proposed drafting of a text to our clerk. That way, in advance of the next meeting, as those suggestions come in, the clerk can share them with members of the committee. I assume we’re going to have those discussions amongst ourselves anyway between now and next week. Next week we can have a more fulsome debate. Hopefully we can come to a consensus even before the meeting happens next week.
Senator Duncan: I’m just concerned, Mr. Chair, following up on Senator McPhedran’s comments, that we’ll get bogged down in wordsmithing, which can take a long time.
The Chair: I can tell you there are two elements of rules and procedures. They’re complicated at times. When we follow the rule of consultation and consensus, it can be arduous, but that’s the nature of our democracy, I guess. Like I said, you’ll find I’m a very flexible chair and I’m just articulating what I’ve been hearing from members of this committee today.
Senator Duncan: I just wondered if it was appropriate to have something to work with, though.
The Chair: I suggest then, the only person who has taken an initiative to put an actual proposal on paper is the one we saw tonight from Senator McPhedran. Maybe our clerk can send that out as a starting point, and we can make contributions, and it can be the catalyst for starting the discussion. I don’t find anything subversive or difficult to accept about her proposal, personally.
Senator Massicotte: I would highly recommend that the steering committee as defined — the four of you — talk to each other and try to come back with a resolution that is agreeable to all. I’m sure we can. We’re arguing whether to include a clause that makes no difference, yes or no. I think you guys should talk together, figure it out, and come back to us with —
The Chair: Senator Massicotte, that’s one thing I won’t do. I won’t direct the committee on such an important clause. Clearly, there’s a discomfort. I would leave it to any individual member who wants to lead this and drive this debate. I don’t want just the four steering members to be the driving force of putting the words on paper. We want them to be comfortable with it. I want people to put a motion on paper here that they’re comfortable with, and I will ascribe to it. If the other three members would like to meet and draft something and propose it, they’re free to do so. I as the chair will acquiesce to the wish of the committee on this.
Senator Massicotte: I think we largely agree.
The Chair: Nothing precludes anyone, like I said, from working on the actual proposition that is coming from Senator McPhedran.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Chair, that’s what I was about to say. The easiest way is probably for Senator McPhedran, through the clerk, to send the wording to each and every one of us for reflection. The word “expectation” is good but, from my perspective, if it is our expectation, then we should say so in a motion.
The Chair: Colleagues, we’ll proceed on that basis. Now we’ll go to what’s left of the agenda. motion 4 is that the committee publish its proceedings. Do I have someone moving that?
The Honourable Senator R. Black moved:
That the committee publish its proceedings.
Is the motion carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: No opposition. Thank you, colleagues. The motion in item 5 deals with the financial report. As per rule 12-26(2), each committee has to table a report on the expenses incurred during the previous session. A copy of the draft report prepared by the clerk was distributed at the beginning of the meeting.
The Honourable Senator Dalphond moved:
That the committee adopt the draft first report, prepared in accordance with rule 12-26(2).
Is the motion carried? Is there any opposition?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is carried.
Next is a motion relating to research staff. Do I have a proposer for motion 6?
Senator Batters: I will move that motion.
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Batters 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.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: No opposition? If there isn’t any, it is carried.
I would like to invite the analysts, Isabelle Brideau and Erin Virgint, to turn on their cameras, so they can present themselves to the committee. Isabelle and Erin, welcome.
Isabelle Brideau, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Thank you.
Erin Virgint, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Good evening. Thank you.
The Chair: These are people of few words. Thank you. You possess a lot of knowledge, and we’re going to be counting on working with you over the next few months.
Motion 7 deals with the authority to commit funds and certify accounts. Do I have a proposer for this motion?
Senator Martin: So moved.
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Martin 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 chairs and the clerk of the committee; and
That, notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases related to consultants and personal services, the authority to commit funds and certify accounts be conferred jointly on the chair and deputy chairs.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: It’s just that motion 7, in the first paragraph, talks about one deputy chair, but here in this committee we have three.
The Chair: That’s why I referred to deputy chairs.
[English]
It says “chair,” but I did say on the record “deputy chairs,” so I hope that has been inscribed by the secretary of the committee.
Senator Lankin: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. We’re getting French on the English channel, so I did not catch what your response to Senator Dupuis was.
The Chair: I was saying to Senator Dupuis that when I read the text, she is right, it only says “deputy chair,” but I did read it out as “deputy chairs,” and I was hoping that was inscribed by the secretary.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to add some clarification that in the motion adopted in the Senate that allowed some committees to have more than one deputy chair, there was some clarifying language as to how certain things were to be handled when there are items such as, in this motion, where there is more than one chair. That motion does outline that certain things are allowed to be conferred on each individual deputy chair, so that one of them can act alone, and with other items — I believe it’s in the third paragraph — it would be all deputy chairs acting together.
So the enabling motion from the Senate Chamber did give some direction to the committee as to how that shared authority is to be managed.
The Chair: Again, colleagues, I highlight on all of these sections that, in my experience, when budgets and expenses of this nature occur in reports and come before any steering committee, going forward, approval would be sought from the standing committee. I can assure you all of that.
Furthermore, we ourselves don’t even have the authority to dispense some of these funds without the approval, again, of the Senate Chamber.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: It’s simply because, when documents are sent to us, we read them.
[English]
The Chair: Do I have a mover for this motion? So moved by Senator Massicotte.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Without any opposition, the motion is carried. Do I have a proposer for motion 8?
The Honourable Senator Ringuette 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.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Any opposition? No, so it is carried.
Motion 9 is designation of members travelling on committee business.
The Honourable Senator Bovey 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.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: If there’s no opposition, the motion carries.
Motion 10 relates to travelling and living expenses of witnesses.
The Honourable Senator Duncan 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.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: If there’s no opposition, the motion carries.
Motion 11 is about communications. Before I go forward, I’d like to ask the clerk, on this particular one — I did read the document earlier — are we granting authority to the Communications Directorate to promote and put out material that the committee would not see in advance? Mr. Thompson, how broad is this section?
Mr. Thompson: No, it’s not authorizing the Communications Directorate to act on our behalf. It’s authorizing the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to give direction to the communications officers and to us.
The Chair: So section 2 says here:
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.
What does that mean exactly?
Mr. Thompson: That would be related to broadcasting, the televising.
Senator Massicotte: Mr. Chair, are you proposing an amendment?
The Chair: No, I just wanted to be clear on the language, to be honest with you. When I read it, it was a little bit ambiguous, and I did not want to give complete carte blanche. I guess when we decided years ago to broadcast, it means we’re out for public display. Do I have a mover for motion 11?
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Yes, I so move.
The Chair: The motion has been moved by Senator Dupuis. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
[English]
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is there any other business, colleagues? If there isn’t any other business, we will adjourn. We will be meeting next week to discuss the motion under agenda item 3. The clerk will be sending out the proposed amendment. Like I said, feel free to exercise whatever changes and propositions you want to make.
Senator Lankin: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I wonder if you would address what the expectations are for regular meeting times for the committee, if there are to be regular times. I know there’s lots of competition for the resources that are scarce in order to support committees, but would we be reverting to Tuesday and/or Wednesday morning meetings? Is there any discussion we will be having about that as a group?
The Chair: We will have that discussion next week as a group because that would have been item 1 on the steering agenda. Meeting times will be one of the items we’ll discuss next week, along with item 3.
Traditionally, our meeting times have been, as you know, Tuesday mornings. The committee usually meets once a week when we’re sitting. Now we obviously have more flexibility because of the hybrid system.
There was a second day allotted for the Rules and Procedures Committee on a Wednesday evening, but it was rarely used. It was used in extenuating circumstances when there was an overloaded agenda.
Let me also ask the clerk to answer that question more thoroughly, because the context has obviously changed with technology.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You’re absolutely correct. The context has changed significantly given our current circumstances with virtual and hybrid meetings. There was a motion adopted by the Senate on November 17 that authorized committees to meet in a hybrid or, in certain circumstances, in an all-virtual forum such as this. However, the traditional schedule that we’re all used to seeing and working under is no longer in effect, given the resource limitations caused by hybrid and virtual meetings. Fewer committees are able to meet simultaneously.
As such, any meetings will functionally need to be approved by the whips and facilitators of the various parties and groups. That motion did outline a priority that would be given to various committees in the cases of conflicts where there would be priority for government business, Internal Economy and Ethics and Conflict of Interest, et cetera. But ultimately the assignment of those resources will need to be resolved in cases of conflict.
We will need to have some informal consultations about when this committee would like to meet and we can put in that request to the appropriate authorities and move forward on that basis.
The Chair: Thank you, clerk. The good news is all three of my deputy chairs have a significant degree of influence with their whips and their caucus. I have considerably less with mine. Hopefully we will be able to squeeze ourselves in at some particular point. But I guess from your answer, Mr. Thompson, it’s not going to be as evident as it was before, if I understand.
Mr. Thompson: That would be correct, senator.
Senator McPhedran: This is an exploratory question to just understand a bit better. In the new context that Mr. Thompson has just explained to us, it’s a reasonable probability that the Rules Committee will be specified, as it was previously by the Subcommittee on Human Resources of CIBA, to study the proposed new harassment policy when it is brought back to the chamber. I think it is also a reasonable probability that we’ll be given quite a tight timeline and be asked to do it in a very tight timeline.
My question is really geared to the kinds of working groups in the past when this kind of time-pressured task is given to us by the entire Senate. Facing the kinds of logistical challenges that Mr. Thompson has outlined for us, I’m raising this to see whether we need to be doing some thinking, maybe outside of the box, that we’ve typically been in pre-COVID, and just tossing it out there for consideration.
The Chair: I totally agree. What I suggest, colleagues, is we ask our clerk to prepare an agenda for the next meeting where the outstanding item number 3 from this current agenda is item number 1 for discussion. If the clerk can come back to us, I’m sure he’s already done some of the preliminary research of what outstanding issues this committee has to deal with from the previous Parliament.
Regarding the third item on the list, can you come back to us with a more in-depth report on the potential time slots we can count on and work with on a weekly basis? I think if we start with those three points next meeting, we’ll have enough to get going next week. I think they’re the three most critical and important issues.
Senator Ringuette: Maybe Mr. Thompson can clarify this. In our previous meeting agenda of all committees, senators made sure the different committees they were on were not meeting at the same time. I guess my question is: When you’re looking into putting forth those Zoom meetings, is there consideration of the previous set agenda so that we’re not caught in two Zoom meetings happening at the same time?
Mr. Thompson: Senator, I’ll certainly do my best to keep your other committee obligations in mind when I’m having those consultations and discussions. One of the limitations we face is the number of committees that are able to meet simultaneously. I know that will certainly help to minimize conflicts, but it will do that by there being fewer committees meeting, and that can present its own challenges as far as when we might be able to meet.
The Chair: Also, Mr. Thompson, as I mentioned earlier, can you please distribute to all members of this committee the updated procedures and rule book of the Senate? I can tell you that during the first few years I was here, I learned by flying by the seat of my pants. It’s not exactly the most thrilling read, but it’s an important read and I think once you’re in this place for a period of time and you participate in the scroll and debates, taking the time to read the actual procedural rule book gives you a pretty good sense of how the place currently is supposed to work. Anyway, he will distribute that information to us. I think there’s an updated book that’s coming out or being printed, if I’m not mistaken, clerk.
Mr. Thompson: Yes, Mr. Chair. I’ll verify the status of that. If it isn’t already available, I might wait a few days to have the most current version. I will certainly distribute that. I’ll also distribute a document we produced called the “Introduction to the Committee,” which gives a historical overview of the work done by the committee in the last 20 years or so.
The Chair: That would be very helpful as well. So you cannot confirm for us the date and time of the next meeting next week, correct?
Mr. Thompson: I cannot, senator.
The Chair: Okay.
If there isn’t any other business, colleagues, we’ll be waiting for a date to be confirmed for next week.
(The committee adjourned.)