THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, March 21, 2022
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 11 a.m. [ET] to consider business of the Committee; and pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), for the consideration of possible amendments to the Rules; and pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(c), consideration of the orders and practices of the Senate and the privileges of Parliament.
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: We are here today on March 21. Spring started yesterday.
[Translation]
This is our second public meeting.
I want to start by welcoming everyone participating today, whom I will list in alphabetical order for the benefit of those watching today’s proceedings.
Currently from the steering committee, we have Senator Lankin from Ontario, who is a deputy chair. We also have Senator Batters from Saskatchewan; Senator Black from Ontario; Senator Busson from British Columbia; Senator Clement from Ontario; Senator Cordy from Nova Scotia; Senator Duncan from Yukon; Senator Manning from Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Petitclerc from Quebec; Senator Ringuette from New Brunswick; and Senator Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador.
I want to point out that the committee’s meetings are open to all senators. Senator McCallum from Manitoba will be appearing during the second half of the meeting.
We will now get started. We have three items on today’s agenda. The first is the election of the deputy chair. We have a motion from Senator Lankin.
[English]
Senator Lankin: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and as for the discussions with the leaders, I would like to put forward the name of Senator Denise Batters for deputy chair. Thank you.
The Chair: You are welcome.
[Translation]
We will now proceed with the vote. Shall the motion carry? I declare the motion carried.
Joining the steering committee is Senator Batters from Saskatchewan, who is replacing Senator Carignan. Welcome, Senator Batters.
That brings us to the second item on the agenda, amendments to the Rules, specifically rules 2-4 and 12-2, regarding the nomination of the Speaker pro tempore.
By way of introduction, as you know, it has repeatedly been suggested, as part of the process to modernize the Senate, in particular, that the Speaker pro tempore be elected. This time around, we proceeded with that election. We tried it and everything went smoothly.
We will now proceed with the amendments to the Rules. We have a motion to amend the Rules, so I will turn the floor over to Adam Thompson, who will explain the proposal to amend the Rules to include the process we adopted throughout our Rules.
Over to you, Mr. Thompson.
[English]
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and senators. I will give a very brief history of this issue. You will recall that in 2020 there had been a motion put before the Senate to have the Speaker pro tempore named by an election. That motion was referred to the Selection Committee, which under our rules has the responsibility for naming the Speaker pro tempore. Ultimately in early 2021 that committee reported back with a recommendation that the Speaker pro tempore do be filled by an election with the process to be set by the Speaker after consultation with the leaders and facilitators of all recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups. We have done that process now twice, although there has only been one election. The first time it was used, it was handled by acclamation. The second time there was an election, and that position is presently held by Senator Ringuette.
I have drafted an amendment to the rules to import that process into our rules in an enduring manner. I will just run through the changes which removes the selection of the Speaker pro tempore from rule 12 under the Selection Committee, which I mentioned presently has that responsibility, and inserts it into rule 2-4, which deals more with the Speaker and the authorities of the chair.
The proposed new rule 2-4(1) provides that at the beginning of the first session of a Parliament, and at any time a vacancy arises in that position, that we would follow what had previously been recommended by the Selection Committee. The Speaker would set a process after consultation with the leaders. I framed it in this way to allow some flexibility. We’re certainly in a period of transition right now given the ongoing pandemic and with hybrid, in-person. Rather than locking in a process that may need to be changed in the future, it maintains flexibility so that the Senate can address it given current circumstances and current technology.
That carries through into rule 2-4(2), and so the only framework is that it must be a secret ballot election and that if there are more than two candidates it would be by a ranked ballot.
Rules 2-4(3) and 2-4(4) I will draw to your attention because those rules concern the term of the position, where under our rules it is only for the duration of a session. I know there have been some thoughts as to whether or not it should be named for the duration of a Parliament. As it is a position that is filled by order of the Senate, it can only last for the duration of a session, otherwise amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act would be required to allow it to exceed the prorogation.
However, what I have included in rule 2-4(4) is a provision that at the beginning of each new session, the person who held it in the previous session would be deemed reappointed.
Again, that is for your consideration. Nothing in this is written in stone. There is no advocacy for any particular approach. It is just to assist you in your consideration of the issue and to help frame your discussions.
The remainder of the changes, as I mentioned, are just renumbering the existing rule 2-4 and removal of the requirement for the Selection Committee for rule 12-2 to name the Speaker pro tempore, and the relevant renumbering.
I would be happy to answer any technical questions that you may have and look forward to your discussion on the subject.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson.
Are there any comments or questions on the presentation?
For those physically present in the Senate, if you want to speak, please address me because I do not see any hands. I see that Senator Greene has arrived.
Senator Batters: I have a few comments on this particular issue.
On the secret ballot that is set forth in the new clause that is to be discussed here, I just want to make sure that it is actually a secret ballot, because that was not the case this past time. If you voted remotely, you had to let the clerk know who you were voting for. I believe the same thing also happened for those voting in person.
It also needs to be better communicated for those of us who were there in person. I recognize that there are the issues of hybrid meetings currently and that may not be the case later, but those of us who were there in person this past time, it was not well communicated that we had an in-person voting option. It seemed as if the only option was to vote remotely by the system that was set up online.
Even if it is online, there should be the ability to vote by secret ballot remotely. I actually saw examples of ways that that could be handled with a secret ballot system both in my Saskatchewan Conservative caucus and the national Conservative caucus this year. They were able to have secret ballot votes.
That is something that should be able to be done whether or not it is in person or remotely. I think that is something that needs to be improved.
The Chair: Mr. Thompson, would you like to comment on the issue of the secret ballot?
Mr. Thompson: Senators, I do not think that I have anything to comment other than I take note of those comments. If the amendment to the rules were to be adopted as is, those are certainly conversations that we would continue so that we would be ready to implement a system in the future.
The Chair: It is written in the rule as shown —
[Translation]
It is indeed a secret ballot, so the rule requires that we have the ability to hold a secret ballot election.
[English]
Senator Cordy: Senator Batters is correct. The Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association and the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group had votes, and we voted on the screen and it was a secret ballot. I’m not sure if that is just happening in the House. If it is happening in the House, it should be very simple. I’m not sure that we should have to change the rule, but I think that we would all have to ensure that it is, in fact, a secret ballot, the next time that we do it.
The Chair: Any other question or comments? If not, then I will say that we will add a report on this change of the rule that will be provided at the next meeting where we propose the changes in the rules and where it will be said that the vote has to be secret. That will be our first report that we will bring to the Senate as a whole in the week of March 28. If everything is fine, then we’ll proceed that way.
We will now go to the next item on our agenda, which is the item regarding cultural and religious items that are in the Senate.
For this part of our meeting, we will hear from Senator McCallum, who wrote to the steering committee and asked us to proceed with the letter that the Speaker wrote to Senator Housakos last year when he chaired the Rules Committee.
As you read, the letter of the Speaker provided us with questions on big issues relating to cultural and religious adaptation of our rules. As you know, there is no specific rule on those issues. It is a practice, a protocol. The idea here is to look at our actual practices and to modernize them in light of the issue that we have in the 21st century.
The Speaker asked us to reflect. In his letter, he says:
[Translation]
The language of our Rules must be modernized, and our Rules must respect the significance of deep cultural and religious beliefs.
[English]
I suggest that we start with the discussion of the issues relating to Indigenous peoples who are in the Senate and who sometimes bring with them objects that are of an important cultural identity nature.
We should have our discussion in the spirit of reconciliation. For the moment, we should address only the issue about the letter of Senator McCallum and see if we can bring some ideas to change our practice on those issues. I think mixing two big issues will let us forget that this is a time for reconciliation. We have many senators here who represent peoples of the First Nations, Métis and Inuit, and we have to accommodate them.
On that point, I will invite Senator McCallum to present her reflections and thoughts.
Senator McCallum: Thank you, Madam Chair and all of the senators who are here, and a special thank you to Senator Duncan for submitting the email that she did prior to this meeting.
I looked for a rule this weekend and did not find it. With the help of Mr. James Campbell, I went to page 33 in the Companion to the Rules of the Senate to see what the practice has been. It reads that:
. . . Speakers have consistently ruled out of order displays or demonstrations of any kind used by Members to illustrate their remarks or emphasize their positions. . . . props of any kind, used as a way of making a silent comment on issues, have always been found unacceptable in the Chamber.
In addition:
. . . Other physical objects that are employed with the goal of reinforcing a point, or that are unduly distracting, are to be avoided.
I spoke to three elders this weekend — a Mohawk, an Anishinaabe and a Cree — and talked to them about this so that they could give me guidance. I wanted to share that when we bring any eagle fans, whistles, rattles or anything that we use in ceremony, it is not just something that you buy at the store. It is gifted. It is ceremony to you.
Through different ceremonies, I was given my spirit name, which is Wabanaki — it means Woman of the Dawn or From the East — through a shaking tent ceremony. I’m from the Hawk Clan. I usually do not bring that up. I only bring it up in certain conversations and in certain contexts. It is appropriate to do that today.
You earn what you are given, according to the elders and the medicine people who give you the ceremonial and sacred items that speak mostly about prayer and connection to the Creator, or to God. When we use those ceremonial items, we do it with great intention and with a lot of prayer, which I did, especially because I was speaking on Bill C-15, regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was contentious, and I was going against the grain with a lot of Indigenous people. But my speech still needed to be said.
After going to residential school, being forced to give up your language and your culture, and to have that culture go underground — because it became dangerous for our people to practise it — was difficult. It becomes of greater significance. What the medicine woman did when I took traditional medicine for four years, she said, “We are picking up our sacred bundles, and all of these ceremonial items belong in the sacred bundle.” She said, “We are picking them up where our ancestors had laid them down to protect the children. So we have picked them up, and we’re now carrying them with us.”
I just wanted you to understand that deep commitment that we make to continue to practise our heritage.
Some people say, “Oh, they are healing,” but it isn’t about healing; we are practising our culture once again. When we pick sweetgrass and our medicines — and you must remember medicines are used in pharmacology, they are just given to people in pills — we just go to mother earth, we gather our herbs and we are starting to carry back to continue the tradition that we have.
So when you look at a ceremonial item, it comes with a lot of prayer, a lot of intention and a lot of clarity. When we look at what the Senate does to declare and recognize that they are on traditional lands already, this is an extension of that, and it is a respect that goes both ways.
So when I brought the eagle feather, it wasn’t just for me and my ancestors who have given me this knowledge; it was also to respect the Senate and that they could now be involved and look at understanding our culture further and that we respect both ways.
When we smudge, I smudge to clear my mind for clarity and critical thinking skills. I smudge my eyes to make me see other points of view. We’re such a diverse community; we need to see and hear all groups. That’s what the smudging does.
When we speak, we pray to speak with truth and justice, and it comes from the heart, because the heart and the tongue both have the same root words. Then I clear my aura around me, because I can be hard and mean to myself, so that I do not portray it to people who I am going to meet with that day.
So there is significance in that.
I did smudge this morning, too, to clear the air for me and to be able to speak to you about this.
When we look at the protocols that exist in the Senate, like the prayer that a sitting starts with, that is a prayer that was foreign to us. We adopted it, knowing that it is going to one supreme being — a higher being. We adopted it. We respect it. As we adopt certain protocols that we all have, which lead to the processes, we’re asking that you give us the same respect back. That is what we are asking. It is not to be disruptive. It is simply a form of prayer. I have used the eagle fan only once in the four years that I have been in the Senate, and I will use it, too, when I give praise or when I especially want to honour somebody. We only use it at specific times.
I wanted to share that with you.
I didn’t want a list of items, because the elders said that is too colonial an approach. With the Yukon, they have seven or eight eagle feathers coming from the different parts of the eagle. One part can be to lead; the tail feathers are used to guide people. You are given those as they see the gifts you need to bring out.
But if we were to get an eagle fan from Europe or from the Americas, that would be something you would always be forever changing the rules and accommodating what is there.
There are so many across the country who have different items of cultural and sacred significance to them that it would be impossible to go from B.C. to Nova Scotia and to the northern territories —. That is why I said it should not be a list of these items but be almost like a fluid or living document.
I wasn’t afraid to bring it in; I was just shocked when somebody raised it, because I was just unprepared for it. I had not realized that someone would see it as a “prop.”
Like I said, when Senator Plett apologized, he wasn’t indifferent to it; he just didn’t understand the significance. I understood that. I have had the conversation with him.
So I would just like to expand that when we have our traditional elements, it is not a right; it is not just traditional — whether it is clothing or the regalia — but it is a right to wear that and a responsibility on how we use it so that we don’t use it disrespectfully. It is very sacred. All of our items are attached to ceremony and are not something that we just put on or that we bring to the table.
I’m asking that when you look at this, it should reflect that. Our ways are not malicious, and they are not racist. They are just who we are, and that is who we are going to continue to be. I’m asking that we senators do due diligence to go down the correct path and, as Madam Chair said, to be involved in reconciliation.
That is my appeal to you as a group. Thank you for giving me the time today.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. We will now go to questions from senators.
Senator Duncan: Thank you, Senator McCallum.
Also, I would like to express my thanks to my colleagues for their patience. I submitted information of what has taken place in the Yukon with regard to eagle feathers. The French translation was only sent out this morning, so my apologies in the delay of that.
I shared that with you because of my experience in the Yukon Legislative Assembly with the use of an eagle feather. Following up on sending that information out, I also had a discussion with the former clerk of the Yukon Legislative Assembly about the issue surrounding the use of the term “prop.”
The root word of “parliament” is parler, “to talk.” The cultural element of that is to speak and to persuade one another with our words. The use of an object is where the term of a prop comes in — and prop being disallowed — because what we are doing in Parliament and in the chamber is persuading one another with our words. Holding something in your hand is entirely appropriate if that is your cultural norm and is your method and best practice in speaking the truth and persuading people of your point of view.
If you were to hold something in your hand to enhance your argument — for example, if you were holding a feather and speaking about conservation of birds — then it would be considered a prop. That’s the way it has been explained to me. It’s the context in which the object is being used that is at issue.
The use of a feather in some cultures — and what was argued in the Yukon Legislative Assembly — is that when one is holding a feather, one is the only person talking. In Tlingit cultures or some western First Nations cultures, the use of a talking stick is similar. If you’re holding the talking stick, you’re the only person talking. A talking stick is now, as I understand it, in place in the B.C. legislature.
My point is that I believe strongly that the feather as held and explained by Senator McCallum is not in any way, shape or form a prop. A prop is clearly defined in other legislatures and in other instances. I think we need to clarify the definition of a prop as something that you’re using to enhance your argument. You are using it as an object to support your argument — your question. You’re not using it for any other purpose, and it doesn’t have any other meaning. It’s simply to enhance your argument.
I apologize if that’s not clear. It’s an early morning for me. I would just like to thank you for your patience and for listening to what I had to say. I believe that we need to clarify that definition as well as modernize our practices and enhance our cultural understanding of all senators.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Duncan. I think it is very important to distinguish between a feather for an Indigenous person and a prop. They are not at all the same thing.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: I want to thank Senators McCallum and Duncan for their contribution to this discussion. I totally agree. It is not in the rules because we can’t start to make a list of prop items. For instance, if I’m in the Senate Chamber and I show a book to enhance what I want to convey, that’s a prop. This is a prop. Okay?
But an item of culture — for instance, putting on the Ukrainian ribbons that have been in circulation for a few weeks now — is not a prop. It is a matter of judgment. There lies the difficulty in putting in any kind of rules. It’s a practice.
Madam Chair, I don’t know how we would report to the chamber or to the Speaker. We have received a letter from the Speaker and from Senator McCallum about how we should report on this issue. I do not believe that we should be putting a new rule in place with regard to props. I think it should remain a practice and be respectful of one’s culture.
I am seeking your guidance, Madam Chair, about how we should report on this. Should we have a single report or just reply to the Speaker and Senator McCallum who have sent us letters in this regard?
The Chair: If I may say this, I think we need to have our discussion. After our discussion, we’ll be able to evaluate if this discussion will be expressed in a letter or report to the Senate. But for the moment, I think we are seeing some clarity in distinguishing what props are and are not. The expression of the spirit of an identity or of a ceremonial nature — that’s not a prop. Certainly, when I have had to give a speech, clear my mind and be clear, I used to wear red. The colour gives me something in my spirit. If I feel another spirit, I will wear other things. But it’s not a prop. It’s just a colour.
So let’s hear from colleagues, and we will see after that what we will do.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator McCallum, for generating this discussion. I appreciate it.
When the event happened, I didn’t have a good feeling about it. In retrospect, however, I’m glad it happened because we can have this discussion, lay out our thoughts and come to understandings.
First of all, I think the eagle feather in that circumstance was entirely appropriate. It was respectful just like, as one of our colleagues mentioned, the colours representing Ukraine — entirely appropriate. This is something we have to remember.
I’m not sure what the rules say, but I believe that in the House of Commons it says, regarding business attire or what you might bring, “contemporary business attire.” That’s an older construct and has changed. Contemporary business attire for someone like me might be a suit and tie. For someone else, contemporary business attire might be something — and certainly is — entirely different.
We have evolving cultural dynamics, not just in our society but represented in the Senate, which is good. The Senate is supposed to be representative of our country, and that evolves as well.
I would also caution — as Senator Ringuette correctly pointed out — having a rule on this because of that evolution of what is in front of us. Hard rules have sharp edges. They won’t always take into account something that might be entirely appropriate for the moment. I’ll note one example, which happened a couple of years ago and Senator Batters will recall, when the Saskatchewan Roughriders, her favourite football team, won the Grey Cup, so for her statement, Senator Batters wore a Roughriders jersey. By no measure is this contemporary business attire, but it was appropriate for the moment. She didn’t wear it for the whole session. People saw that it was done in the appropriate context, and people read the room and understood the purpose of that. It wasn’t anymore of a statement than it was respect for and a comment on that team at that moment.
When we think of protocols, we need to have flexibility — rather than rules — based on common sense and respect for whatever cultures are being represented by whatever symbols. Senator Duncan mentioned, rightly, the issue about having a prop to enhance your argument, and you’ll recall a couple of years ago — or maybe last year — that Senator McPhedran had a mask on that said “Vote 16,” which was part of her legislation, in front of the Senate. The Speaker ruled on that and said it was inappropriate, it was a prop representing something other than a cultural idea or a cultural accoutrement. She changed it. Those are the things we should keep in mind.
I know Senator Bellemare said we’ll get to it once we have this conversation, but I think we should send a note back to the Speaker with some of these thoughts. My recommendation would be not to change the rules. The Senate evolves and makes rules, and the Senate has practices and conventions based on the evolving times. I think that’s what we see in this circumstance.
Senator Lankin: Senator Wells covered a couple of points that I wanted to raise. I too want to talk about some of the examples where the Senate has had, writ large, a reasonable response. For example, Senator Batters’s Roughriders shirt was appropriate, whereas someone wearing a protest shirt with a slogan like “freedom” on it during the occupation of Ottawa would be a statement related to something current. Those are entirely different. We have seen them differently in the Senate, the House of Commons and other legislatures.
Again, let’s talk for a moment about the use of an eagle feather or another cultural, ceremonial, meaningful item to Indigenous people. I want to focus on that, because as Senator Bellemare said, we are in a period of reconciliation. I think we need to frame this discussion and our recommendation to the Speaker or to the Senate that way. It’s important.
To even have had the issue raised using the word “prop” is denigrating to our understanding of the importance of these ceremonial and sacred items to many Indigenous peoples. The item may change from First Nation to First Nation or from culture to culture, especially with Métis and Inuit as well. It’s very important that we acknowledge that.
In thinking about their use in the past, I know eagle feathers have been used when a senator is being sworn in, and they may carry that with them. In fact, not only Indigenous senators but also non-Indigenous senators who have been gifted eagle feathers have used those feathers as they were being sworn in.
When I was involved in partisan politics, a former colleague in the federal party that I belonged to used an eagle feather when voting during the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord. That was Elijah Harper in the House of Commons. As Senator McCallum said, these items have great import and great meaning to the individual and express to others the nature of the communication that is occurring. It is not something that is frequently used, because it is of such import.
I think it’s important for us to move from the point in the conversation, where it seems we are in unanimity, to discuss how we can affect this. My recommendation would be two-fold. First, I would recommend a response to the Speaker and to Senator McCallum, in writing, to outline the nature of the discussion and the differences that we see between items that have traditionally been ruled on by Speakers as being inappropriate and out of order in the manner in which they were being used, and items that are of a completely different nature. In this case, our discussion and focus in this Senate are on reconciliation, focusing on the use of items that are sacred, ceremonial and important symbols to First Nations, Inuit and Métis. Second, I believe that we should also write a report to the Senate that essentially echoes what we put in the letter to the Speaker and Senator McCallum. By accepting that report in the Senate, we know the Senate has officially seen it and has not objected to that report in any way.
I believe then there is the opportunity — and Mr. Thompson can confirm this for us — as they are updating the practice references, that this could be built in to illustrate a positive step forward in reconciliation. We still should have the description updated and modernized in terms of what is inappropriate, but it would be a clear stance in the statement of practices about what is not, in fact, inappropriate. That would be my suggestion, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Very interesting.
Senator Manning: Thank you for the wonderful discussion. I applaud Senator McCallum for bringing us here today to have this discussion, along with the letter from the Speaker.
I want to reference a couple of comments Senator Ringuette made, and certainly, I agree with pretty well everything she said. I don’t think we should make a list of props. It has to be a judgment call, because the question with that is always “Where do you start and where do you stop?”
Coming from Newfoundland and Labrador, Senator Wells, preserving our culture and our heritage on this rock in the Atlantic Ocean is important to all of us. That doesn’t mean I’m going to show up with a codfish in the chamber next week and lay it on my desk, which I tried to do once in the assembly, but it didn’t work. However, I do understand the importance of items that are culturally sensitive and important to people.
Senator McCallum used the eagle fan that day, and I certainly didn’t have any issue with it, but I’m happy now that Senator Plett did raise it and Senator McCallum has followed up with that. It gives us an opportunity not only to discuss the eagle fan and feather, but also anything and everything that relates to what some people deem to be a prop.
We have a Speaker and Speaker pro tempore in the Senate, and it’s their judgment call. I’m not a big supporter of creating rules that lock us down and don’t allow us to express ourselves the way we would like to, on behalf of the people we represent here in the chamber. Yes, we have to respond to the letters from Senator McCallum and the Speaker, and I agree with Senator Lankin that we should have some type of report sent back to the chamber, so it allows all senators to be aware that this discussion has taken place and that, from what I’m hearing thus far, most people are in agreement with the use of items that are important to the culture and the heritage of certain senators.
The context of the purpose for the use of an item is vitally important. It’s not to be taken lightly in any stretch of the imagination.
We all know what a prop is, in my view. An eagle fan or an eagle feather used by Senator McCallum, in our case, to me is not a prop. It’s something that she explained to us, and that is part of who she is and the people that she represents.
I support the opportunity for senators to use items that are deemed appropriate. It may be a suggestion — and I’ll close with this — that if a senator is going to make a speech next week on whatever item — whatever piece of legislation we are dealing with, or whatever the case may be — and he or she is planning on using an item that is close to that person’s heart, for whatever reason, that they run it by the Speaker, that they touch base beforehand to get some advice to allow the Speaker — or whoever may be in the chair at the time — to know that this is coming, just in case someone does raise it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It’s just a suggestion to advise the Speaker’s office that, “I’m speaking today and plan on using,” whatever the case may be, “as part of my speech.”
I think that would help in this situation and would erase the necessity of creating a bunch of rules around things. We are forever changing in the Senate, and the changes are not going to stop today. There will be more changes. Therefore, we will need to at least open up the lines of communication with the Speaker’s office for things such as we’re discussing here today. Thank you.
Senator Cordy: This has been a great discussion. Thank you very much, Senator McCallum, for your letter and for raising this issue.
I agree with others that it shouldn’t be a rule change that it isn’t really necessary. I think the Speaker in his letter spoke about practices changing. I think we can have a letter clearly to the Speaker and to Senator McCallum, but I think that a report would also be really important so that senators understand that we have taken this very seriously, this letter from the Speaker, and lay out the conclusions that we have come to.
I don’t think we need a list of what a prop is and is not. That’s not our judgment to make. We can all use common sense about that, and I think a report to the senators and Senate will give a sense of the discussion we have had today.
Senator Lankin and Senator Wells both gave good examples of what would be a prop, what wouldn’t be a prop. It’s a matter of using common sense. It has been a great discussion today and an important discussion, and I think other senators would be interested to hear about it and to read a report from us.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much, Senator McCallum, for bringing this forward today and for the very fulsome way that you have explained this issue to us. I appreciate that.
It’s helpful, because when I first was looking at this, I was kind of surprised to see that there doesn’t appear to actually be a specific rule about props. It’s this practice that has developed through Speaker’s rulings and things like that. When I was reading and briefly saw the email from Senator Duncan, is it correct that courtrooms in Yukon but also the legislature in Yukon have taken this particular practice?
I am assuming that because we haven’t received any other notifications about different legislatures in Canada that might have rules about these types of items that there aren’t any such rules about these types of items? Those would be my questions.
In Saskatchewan, a Roughriders jersey is always appropriate contemporary business attire. I actually recall when I had that jersey on. I knew that it very well may be considered a prop, so I ran out quickly thereafter, but I’m giving the Speaker warning right now that if the Roughriders win this November at home, I’m definitely wearing it again.
Senator Busson: I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I also want to acknowledge Senator McCallum for bringing this forward and giving us all an opportunity to have this really important discussion. It’s put a lot of things in perspective for me. I want to go on the record as saying I agree with what has been said by a number of people that this ought not be a rule change but rather a matter of, as I think Senator Cordy said, good common sense.
It’s so much easier not to make a list because, certainly in this circumstance, a list is easier to describe what is a prop than to describe what is not a prop. We would get into a black hole of trying to eliminate certain things. I support what my colleagues are suggesting — that we do a report, and as Senator Lankin says, that this goes on the record as guidance, I hope, to the Speaker in making calls in the future on guidelines of what is and what isn’t a prop.
As you said with your reference to the colour red, it brought something to my mind. If I need a powerful moment, my mother had a favourite scarf that I would wear when I need that power moment, and it’s my prop.
With reference to the eagle feather, I had been given an eagle feather by a very dear Indigenous friend and colleague, and it has an important place in my office. I never realize how much power it has until I look at it when I need to make a difficult decision.
I support Senator McCallum’s presentation and hope that we can find a good way to move forward in reconciliation in recognizing her cultural needs and those of others in our Senate. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I’d like to make a brief comment. This is the first time I have attended a meeting of this committee, so it’s a pleasure and a privilege to be here. Thank you, Senator McCallum, for your remarks today.
I am thinking not only about what you said today, but also about when all this happened. It spoke volumes about the work we still have to do on the road to reconciliation. When you think about all the work each and every one of us has to do to foster reconciliation, it’s clear that we can do a lot on a practical level, and today’s discussion is part of that.
All I want to say is how glad I am with the committee’s approach in terms of responding to Senator McCallum’s position and reporting to the chamber. I say that as a senator who does not regularly participate in this committee, in the hope that all of our fellow senators will have access to this information and to what is being said today. Our understanding of these situations — the nuances with respect to props and cultural items — is at stake. By reporting back to the chamber, to the Senate, the committee is ensuring that everyone will have access to the information, as we move forward step by step on the path to reconciliation.
[English]
Senator Clement: I did want to especially thank Senator McCallum for her patience and her bringing this forward in her words and explanation around the significance and importance of the eagle fan.
I do agree with the comments made, in particular the issue of having a report before the Senate.
I do want to caution, though, that times and cultural significance and sensitivities will change faster than the Senate will. The discretion of the Speaker can be a burden for them at times when we will have other discussions. This feels good and unanimous, but there may be times where it might be more difficult, in which case the Speaker is in a difficult position.
I’m just making that comment around the understanding that we will have further conversations and that the Speaker’s role is significant here. Discretion can be a burden to bear. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for that comment.
Senator Black: Thank you very much, chair, and thank you, Senator McCallum, for bringing this forward.
I will be very brief. I think the report should indicate for our colleagues who were not part of this discussion that it is very clear to me that if we create a rule, we would also have to create a list. Senator McCallum’s letter noted that a list is colonial in nature. I see that list as being a problem in that we would be here for days creating it. I think the report should note that for our colleagues who weren’t able to join us today.
I believe the direction we’re heading makes a lot of sense. Thank you very much, chair.
Senator Ringuette: I just have a short comment to say that I agree with Senator Manning when he said that we should, in our report, ask our colleagues that, when in doubt, they should not hesitate to call the Speaker’s office and explain the context and the item. That would probably eliminate a lot of uncertainty and points of order that would not be necessary. Thank you.
Senator Duncan: To make one final point, we have many senators who have been appointed to the Senate who have not had previous experience in a legislature or in a legislative setting. Time spent with the clerks and table officers at an initial training session might be a useful way to explain what a prop is and is not, just in terms of introduction, so that newer senators are aware of that as they take their Senate seat.
That is a really important one.
We senators ought to learn more outright rather than learn the hard way, which I did as a member of the legislature, what a prop is or not. You cannot, for example, bring in pieces of broken pavement to talk about the lack of infrastructure and money for highways. You learn by doing. Rather than having new senators have to learn the hard way, perhaps we could emphasize that, during their introduction to the chamber, there be a knowledge session on this particular element of the practice of the Senate.
I would also like to support the suggestion of Senator Lankin of letters to Senator McCallum, and a report to the Senate as well. Thank you very much.
The Chair: I don’t see any hands raised, so if I may summarize. There is quite a large, wise consensus on the idea, first, that we will have a letter and a report to the chamber. The content of those two pieces will certainly state carefully and clearly that we don’t want any specific rule, because it is too narrow a concept. We don’t want a list of props, we certainly do not want to call a feather a prop but a cultural, ceremonial or spiritual item.
We want the practice to be more flexible and to understand the principle that, when you bring something with you that tries to promote a political idea or an idea about your speech, that is not correct. However, clothing or items that are more cultural identity aspects are correct and that it is common sense to accept that.
Therefore, having heard what I heard, I propose that we write a short report and a short letter, both to Senator McCallum and to the Speaker, in the spirit of everything that was said to state also elements that Senator Duncan stated, which is that some legislative assemblies have adopted their practice to what we are living here. In the spirit of reconciliation, this is what we have to say.
When we write this letter and report, we can have them circulated beforehand so that we are clearly all on the same wavelength or have the same idea of what we want to say. We would then, after the 28th, report back both to the Speaker and to Senator McCallum, and introduce the report to the Senate.
Have I forgotten something, or is that clear enough?
Then I have a question for Mr. Thompson: Do you think you have enough guidance to be able to have this report and those letters done?
Mr. Thompson: Senator, I think I have enough direction to proceed, but I’m not sure I will be able to proceed as quickly as having documents ready for next week.
But there has been a strong unity of feeling in this, and I do have an idea of where I can go. I will begin working on those right away.
The Chair: Okay, thank you very much.
Senator Batters, did you have an intervention?
Senator Batters: It is on a different topic, so I wanted to wait until you were concluded with that.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Maybe now we will conclude this item today.
[Translation]
I will give the floor to Senator McCallum just before we hear from Senator Batters.
[English]
Senator McCallum would like to speak on the last item.
Senator McCallum: I want to thank every single person here in the Senate who has spoken, thought about this or met with me in private. When we look at our spirituality, it is with us every moment in time. When we’re in the chamber, we wear ribbon skirts, we wear the Métis sash and we have our Missing and Murdered Women pins. Nobody sees those as props. There have already been changes in the Senate.
I just wanted to say that I see this as an opportunity. When I did my interview with the Winnipeg Free Press, I thanked Senator Plett for bringing this subject to the floor. I don’t harbour any ill sentiments toward Senator Plett; I just thanked him for bringing it up. This is how society changes when this happens. I wanted to say that as an opportunity and also that it is about reconciliation. I’m very encouraged and I want to thank each of you for that. Thank you. Kinanâskomitin.
Senator Batters: I wanted to bring up an item. I’m very pleased to be back on this committee. Because I missed that lengthy in camera discussion that happened last month about potential future study topics for this committee, when I was speaking to Senator Bellemare about this, I asked if there would be a possibility of getting either transcripts or the video for me to be able to watch, so I could know what was particularly discussed at that meeting. The clerk advised that no such transcript or video were available, even if the committee was to approve me seeing it.
I was surprised about that. When I was deputy chair of internal economy, there were detailed minutes that were kept for even in camera discussions. Perhaps it is a matter of the nature of CIBA, which is very intensive as far as the items involved. This was, I know, more of a wide-ranging discussion rather than particular points that would be carried forward.
I’m wondering, is that a new development that a transcript or a video or some sort of recording is not kept of in camera proceedings? Because I don’t think it is really good governance and I’m wondering how we would ever go back to review previous testimony or discussion that was held in camera if we don’t have those types of means available.
The Chair: Before I turn to Mr. Thompson, what I have though is a list of items that were put together and we are working on it, actually, to be a bit more explicit and extensive about the items that were proposed for study. I take the opportunity now to tell everyone that you will receive soon this piece of paper.
Mr. Thompson: I would just say that Senator Batters is correct that CIBA does transcribe their in camera proceedings. Most other committees do not in order to manage the confidentiality of information and to avoid leaks, but it is certainly within the power of the committee to authorize doing that. This committee has done that at times in the past. If it is the desire of the committee, I can prepare a motion for our next meeting to be adopted.
Senator Batters: Yes, I would say if any committee should be concerned about leaks it would be CIBA. Certainly, I would propose that, yes, this committee should do that. As the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, we should have the best governance procedures and we should keep that routinely.
The Chair: Are there other comments or questions? If there is no other subject, I will say that we will have a meeting on the 28th. I hope that we will be able to talk about, first of all, we have our report and letters, if possible, and we would also talk about the consultation on the first step and the second step on the committee mandates. Next week we will come back with this issue, and in order to see if the proposition that has been put forward is agreeable so that we can organize a report to be sent on the subject.
There were three items that I had in mind. The mandates of the committee go back here today to the report of the Speaker pro tempore, we will have a short report. The third is the letters and the report that we will have on cultural and spiritual items in the Senate. We will also discuss the agenda for the coming weeks because we have our list. During this week we will have a meeting with the steering committee in order to plan our agenda for this committee for at least four or five weeks ahead.
Senator Lankin: Thank you very much. This is just a question for clarification.
With respect to next week’s agenda, the item that is dealing with the results of our consultation on committee mandates. Those of us who took part in that conversation, we know that there is a step one and a step two. There was a preliminary consensus among committee members on step one, concerning the language, standardizing the language and reordering, although we were going to consult and come back if there were any problems that we were unaware of or did not bring up. Step two is with respect to other committees and an actual change dividing mandates. I think that the expectation is that we will consult on both of those items even though we haven’t yet had a fulsome conversation on step two. We’re pretty close. There were a couple of questions raised that were deemed important to go back and consult on.
I just want to be clear, Senator Bellemare. The expectation is that we will be dealing with both of those step one and step two results of consultation and see where that discussion takes us, whether we land on an agreement or if there is further work to be done. Am I correct on that?
The Chair: You are correct.
Senator Lankin: Okay.
The Chair: And I hope that step one will be easy to complete, while step two, I don’t know. We may want to have some witnesses, and maybe we can have some witnesses with us next week also on step two. Okay? But that is a discussion, a conversation, that I want to have with the steering committee this week.
Senator Duncan: I wanted to clarify that our meeting times are remaining on Mondays?
The Chair: For the moment. I asked the question to Mr. Thompson this morning. For the moment, yes, because we are hybrid and I think it is convenient. But we will see because if we go back, eventually, to only physical meetings I think it will not be possible to have the meetings on Mondays for many of you because of travelling. We may ask the selection committee to put us back to our former scheduling, which was on Tuesday morning.
Senator Lankin: Yes. Just on that, I was going to raise this with you privately but the issue has been raised now. I understand the restriction on our resources now in terms of translators and clerks and the other resources that are needed to hold hybrid meetings.
My question is about the time on Monday, though, if we remain on Mondays. This is right in the middle of the day in my time zone, I know it is not for everybody. What it means is I either have to leave at 4 a.m. to get to Ottawa before this meeting or I have to leave after this meeting and not get to Ottawa until nighttime, and there have been a couple of times where I have had to participate in other committees in the late afternoon and evening. So it becomes impossible to travel and to get to Ottawa without coming in on the weekend. This is my own problem, but I have another committee that meets all day Friday which means that I cannot get home until Saturday.
I would appreciate if we could consider if there are any options on times and that could be brought to us as a committee. We could decide whether that is a possibility or not. I know that SECD and OLLO’s traditional times were Monday late afternoon and evening respectively. So I leave that with you, Madam Chair.
Senator Busson: Not to belabour the point brought up by my other colleagues, but Senator Duncan and I are in the same situation. A travel day on Monday for us is all day. It is all day Monday. The only time that works, certainly for me, is a very early-morning meeting on Monday.
I’m sorry, Senator Duncan, I know you hate early mornings. But if the meeting is early, there are still flights that possibly get me into Ottawa by midnight that night, through the connections. Later in the day or an evening is quite difficult with the three-hour time change. I just thought that I would mention that. Thank you.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you. We will take that into consideration, and we will have a more fulsome debate or discussion in steering. But we will also see, with Mr. Thompson, the possibilities to accommodate every need and not to be in conflict with other committees on Mondays, if we put this meeting later in the day.
Senator Lankin: I was just going to say, you said “later in the day” — or earlier in the day.
The Chair: Yes, yes, earlier.
Senator Lankin: On the point that Senator Busson makes.
The Chair: Yes, yes. Absolutely. If there are no other comments nor questions, I declare the meeting complete. See you next week. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)