THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 14, 2022
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:02 a.m. [ET], in public, pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), to consider possible amendments to the Rules; and, in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning. This is my first time chairing the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament in Room B30.
Participating in today’s meeting are Senator Lankin from Ontario, Senator Deacon from Ontario and Senator Boisvenu from Quebec, who are all here in the room, as well as Senator Ringuette from New Brunswick, Senator Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador, Senator Busson from British Columbia, Senator Batters from Saskatchewan and Senator Saint-Germain from Quebec, who are joining us online.
Since today’s agenda is quite full and we have only until 11 o’clock, we’re going to get started. We have two items on the agenda. First, we will go through the list of amendments to the Rules proposed by the Senate Administration. The committee is being asked to review rules that, as you will see, aren’t particularly controversial.
We will spend the last half hour of the meeting discussing committees, their mandates and their structure. We will be reviewing proposals to help us prepare for work over the summer.
Now, without further ado, we will start with the first item on the agenda. Joining us are Gérald Lafrenière, Interim Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, and Till Heyde, Clerk Assistant. They are accompanied by Adam Thompson, who can answer questions should the need arise.
You received the full list of proposed amendments to the Rules in both official languages. There are a total of 22, so we won’t go through all of them today. Let’s start with point 1.
[English]
It is rule 2-8(c) on smoking. I will read the paragraphs you have in front of you and ask if you are okay with the modifications. If it is not clear, we’ll ask the clerks to elaborate a little bit on each. This item says:
This rule prohibits smoking when the Senate is sitting. In light of the provisions of the Non-smokers Health Act, first adopted in 1988, which prohibits smoking in federal workspaces, this rule is obsolete, and could be removed.
[Translation]
Does the committee agree with removing this rule? Yes? All right, it will be removed. We are moving on to item 2.
[English]
The second item deals with rule 5-1, which has to do with notices of inquiry:
This rule refers to a senator who wishes to “raise an inquiry.” The language used in English sounds awkward. The committee may wish to change this wording and bring it in line with language used in rule 6-12(1) where the expression “initiate an inquiry” is used. No change would be required in French.
[Translation]
Does the committee agree with changing the verb in the English version? I see no objections, so the amendment is adopted.
[English]
Item 3 on our agenda is rule 5-5 on notice to consider messages from the Commons:
While rule 5-7(h) allows a motion to consider messages from the Commons with amendments to a public bill to be moved either immediately or at a later time, without notice, we often receive questions about the notice requirements for consideration of other messages from Commons (e.g., to establish a special joint committee). This is covered under rule 5-5, which provides for one day’s notice as the default notice period. The committee may, however, wish to consider adding messages from the Commons not related to amendments to public bills to the list of items requiring one day’s notice for clarity.
[Translation]
This matter is covered under rule 5-5 which provides for one day’s notice as the default notice period. For clarity, however, the committee may wish to consider adding messages from the Commons not related to amendments to public bills to the list of items requiring one day’s notice.
Does the committee agree with this proposal, or does anyone have any questions for the clerks? I have a question for Mr. Lafrenière. It says that you receive questions about notice requirements, but does it happen a lot?
Gérald Lafrenière, Interim Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments and Chief Legislative Services Officer, Senate of Canada: The issue is that one of the rules mentions messages from the Commons, but the other does not, and that leads to confusion. I think Mr. Heyde is probably a better person to answer your question about the number of requests we receive.
Till Heyde, Clerk Assistant, Chamber Operations and Procedure Office, Senate of Canada: I would say that, almost every time we receive a message from the Commons not related to a bill, we receive questions from people looking for clarification, and that requires certain steps.
People think of what is set out in rule 5-7, where it is explicitly stated, so messages can be considered immediately without leave. However, in that situation, we have to explain that it pertains solely to messages relating to bills. For messages that do not relate to bills, the default notice period covered under rule 5-5 applies, one day’s notice.
In those cases, people tend to be in a hurry. They are looking for information and they refer to rule 5-7, but we have to explain to them that it’s actually rule 5-5 that applies.
It’s a minor amendment that would give us a reference point, so that we could advise people that they should actually be referring to rule 5-5(k), for instance. The change would allow for greater clarity.
[English]
The Chair: I clearly understand you want to change that as a matter of clarity. I think it is common sense. Do you have other questions? Do members of the committee have questions? If not, I guess there are no objections, so we agree.
Next is rule 10-3, on the introduction, first reading and printing of bills.
This rule provides that a bill shall be printed immediately after first reading. We would recommend this be changed to “publish” to reflect that physical hard copies are not always printed, but are instead published electronically.
[Translation]
Are there any objections or questions? It makes sense to everyone, then. The amendment is adopted. Some explanation will still be necessary, though.
That brings us to item 5, which deals with rule 9-10 and the timing of deferred votes. Since it’s fairly lengthy, the clerks can summarize it for us in both languages.
Mr. Lafrenière: The thing to keep in mind about this rule is that, when votes are deferred, they take place at 5:30 p.m. on the next sitting day.
[English]
Basically, what happens is deferred votes are deferred until 5:30 on the next sitting day. The challenges that we have is that often on Mondays the Senate does not start sitting until six o’clock, so right away we have an inconsistency between what’s in the Rules and the sitting times of the Senate.
We have established practice that the Speaker has indicated in this statement that when this occurs, the vote will occur at the beginning of Orders of the Day of that sitting. Again, the issue is that there are often questions about when the vote will occur and when senators need to be there. We think it would be worthwhile to clarify in the Rules which rules apply when the Senate sits after 5:30.
With respect to Fridays, again, the issue we have is the Senate often adjourns at four o’clock on Fridays, so that’s the set adjournment time. If ever there was a vote at 5:30, the Rules at this time are not clear about what would occur. Would the Senate suspend for an hour and a half until 5:30? Could there be other rules in play in that sense? So the idea here is to maybe set a bit of clarity.
Usually on Fridays, what tends to happen is the vote is deferred once again to the next sitting, so we don’t often encounter that problem, but if ever there wasn’t a further deferral, there is a bit of inconsistency or at least a lack of clarity about how the vote would occur.
The Chair: If I understand properly, we would need to consider changing the Rules.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much. My first question is regarding how it is described in the document that we have. It talks about Friday votes and saying that on Friday the normal time of adjournment would be four o’clock. With a deferred vote default of 5:30, that would leave a theoretical gap of one and a half hours. It gives a couple of different options for explicitly providing for the suspension of the sitting at four o’clock until the vote, which would be an hour and a half, or providing for the bells to ring at 4 p.m.
In that second option, are you talking about the bells ringing for an hour and a half, or for 15 minutes so that we would have a vote at 4:15? I’m looking for more clarity there.
When you are talking about the potential of maybe having votes changed to the end of Orders of the Day, can you indicate when that falls within the current agenda? I know you can’t always predict it, but just so we can get more of a sense, approximately how long into the agenda would that occur?
Mr. Heyde: Thank you very much, Senator Batters. These are just suggestions in terms of dealing with the gap. As the clerk indicated, on a Friday this very rarely comes up in practice, but in theory if we got to 4 p.m. on a Friday, the Rules say we adjourn, so the Senate would normally adjourn automatically. Does the Senate at that point suspend on a Friday if there is a deferred vote?
Senator Batters: You said Sunday.
Mr. Heyde: Apologies. It is the end of the week. On a Friday at 4 p.m., the Senate would normally adjourn automatically. If there is a vote deferred until 5:30, what would happen in the meantime? One of the two approaches we identified for your consideration — and it’s possible there will be others — would be to make it explicit that, at 4 p.m., the sitting would be suspended for an hour and a quarter and the bells would ring at 5:15; for a deferred vote, there is always a 15-minute bell.
The second suggestion would be to avoid that hour and a quarter suspension and at 4 p.m. simply have the bells ring for 15 minutes and the vote itself would take place at 4:15. In that second suggestion, Senator Batters, I think the clerk was still envisioning a 15-minute bell, which is the default, and the vote would be at 4:15. That way, once the vote is finished there is no need to wait around until 5:15, which would happen otherwise on a Friday.
Are there any other questions on that?
Senator Batters: Can you explain about the Orders of the Day and what the option is in that case?
Mr. Heyde: Particularly this has arisen on a Monday, as the clerk explained, when the Senate will usually sit at six o’clock. This case arose in 2014. At that time, Speaker Nolin indicated there was a conflict and so the vote would take place at the start of Orders of the Day. As a rule of thumb, we usually think that the initial business before Orders of the Day — that would be Senators’ Statements, Routine Proceedings and Question Period — is approximately an hour into the sitting. In that case, it would still be roughly 7 p.m. if the Senate started to sit at 6.
As you indicated, Senator Batters, that’s a very rough guideline. If Question Period was shortened, it would shorten that period, and if Routine Proceedings were lengthened, it would lengthen it, so it’s very roughly an hour into the sitting.
Senator Batters: Why would Question Period ever be shortened?
Mr. Heyde: It’s very rare, but it’s theoretically possible.
Senator Wells: I think something like this should be anchored to an item on the Order Paper, like at the start of Orders of the Day, or even if we go through the full Order Paper right after the last item, just so that there is more efficiency in this instance.
Senator Ringuette: I agree with what Senator Wells has just said. We do understand and have lived with 5:30 p.m. votes being very disruptive for committee work. Is it possible, Mr. Heyde, to have the deferred votes after a 30-minute bell following Question Period on a regular basis? We have Question Period every day we sit, so if deferred votes could be right after Question Period at every sitting day, wouldn’t that resolve the issue?
Mr. Heyde: In this, senator, we were taking the approach of minimizing the changes to the Rules and basing it on the precedent that goes back to 2014. It was an issue that particularly arises in relation to Monday sittings, so we didn’t really analyze it from the perspective of what you are describing, by changing the entire system of timing of the bells, which would address both the Monday and Friday issues. We can certainly look into that.
The normal default for a deferred vote is a 15-minute bell, but that’s because there is a set time. There could be some variability — say, 30 minutes. I see no reason you couldn’t have it timed in that way. That way, there is a consistent set time. As you and Senator Batters have both said, Question Period takes place early in the sitting, and it’s always called, so it’s going to happen. It is certainly something we could look at. We had just taken a minimalist approach based on precedent. This would be going somewhat beyond our initial approach, but it would certainly address the problems of both Mondays and Fridays.
Senator Ringuette: It would address Monday and Friday. Also, I find that it would bring consistency. We would have the same measure on every day that we sit, instead of Monday and Friday being one thing and then something different Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
Anyway, I find it would resolve the issue regardless of the sitting day. It would be consistent.
Mr. Heyde: I would like to add one point not directly related to this. On Wednesdays, as you know, the Senate often has an order that it adjourns at 4 p.m. One factor of which I would like to remind senators — and I think it’s somewhat linked to your question, Senator Ringuette — is that under the default, even if we still adjourn at 4 p.m., we have the bells at 5:30 p.m., which would be horribly disruptive for committees even if they have the power to meet. So that’s something you may want to keep in the back of your mind. When we do adopt motions that the Senate adjourn at 4 p.m., having the provision on the Wednesdays that the bells for the deferred vote — if we don’t have the system you described, Senator Ringuette — start at 4 p.m. means that the vote is done. The bells finish ringing at 4:15 p.m., and the vote is done by around 4:25 p.m., and that way you avoid disrupting committees.
We did have that in one recent session. I don’t know if it was last session or the session before, but it’s something to keep in the back of one’s mind.
Senator Ringuette: The situation you just described is another scenario. I would like us to aim for consistency — that all senators know there is a 15-minute bell after Question Period for deferred votes. Then it is always the same. That would be my preference, but I’m only one voice at this committee.
Senator Lankin: But yours is a very influential voice, Senator Ringuette. I agree with all the senators who have spoken, but particularly Senators Wells and Ringuette as they have proposed this option. I would like to ask that the clerks come back with a couple of options when they come back with actual wording. I personally favour the option of the same time every day — a 15-minute bell at the end of Question Period. That way, at the beginning of Question Period, all senators have sufficient notice of when the bell will likely be and will be able to arrive in time.
Senator M. Deacon: I have been trying to appreciate the institutional history of this part of the report and urge, as my previous colleagues have said, consistency. With the number of people and changes and for a variety of reasons, it should be at the same place in our proceedings — Question Period is fine by me — so that regardless of the day of the week, we know when it is. Right now, it does cause confusion and — frankly — disrespects a lot of the things that are happening after 4:30 p.m. in the Senate precinct.
The Chair: I think we’ll ask you to propose specific wording for this rule in both official languages for the next meeting of our committee. I think we are all aligned on the fact that we want consistency, and to have a vote after Question Period, even though it’s not sitting time, has consistency and predictability, so it makes sense.
[Translation]
We now go to item 6, which concerns rule 10-10 and amendments to bills. Again, would you mind summarizing the issue in both languages, please?
[English]
Mr. Lafrenière: The sixth item was brought forward at the request of the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. This rule is quite dated and refers to technical aspects of drafting legislation, which essentially is no longer followed by the Department of Justice and the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons have been modified to take into account these drafting changes. The Office of the Law Clerk has asked us to bring this matter to the committee to ensure that, moving forward, the legislation as drafted by them is consistent with the Rules.
I would also note that, with the passing of the Accessible Canada Act, there will be new measures put into place to make parliamentary text more accessible with respect to font and style. We think it would be worthwhile to have a rule that would allow some flexibility for future changes.
[Translation]
The proposal before you was drafted by the Office of the Law Clerk, which noted that the rule basically goes back to the 1920s. The way that the Department of Justice and the Office of the Law Clerk, in particular, draft bills today is no longer in line with the Rules of the Senate. The legislative drafting process has undergone a few changes. The House of Commons amended its Standing Orders to reflect the new process. The Office of the Law Clerk has asked us to replicate the changes made by the House of Commons on the Senate side to provide a bit more flexibility.
I just want to mention that the Accessible Canada Act, which Parliament passed a few years ago, will affect how bills are drafted to ensure that they are accessible to all Canadians. In our view, the Rules should be flexible enough to allow for these types of changes without having to involve the committee every time.
Charles Feldman, from the Office of the Law Clerk, is here if you’d like more details. He can answer any specific questions about the bill drafting process.
The Chair: Thank you. This would require a specific proposal as well. I do have a question, though. Could this measure also include a way to notify parliamentarians, as deemed appropriate, of any amendments that the legislative drafters and clerks would make under their authority? The purpose would simply be to make parliamentarians aware of any changes. Do you think that would be necessary?
Mr. Lafrenière: I think I’ll ask Charles Feldman to answer that. He has a lot of experience at the Office of the Law Clerk and is well-versed in amendments made by the committee and the short turnaround times. The window for submitting reports to the Senate is very tight, so typos and omissions can be made. Certainly, no changes of significance would be made. However, communicating changes is very important. I will ask Mr. Feldman to elaborate.
Charles Feldman, Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: Thank you, senator. Our proposal was to replicate House of Commons Standing Order 156.
Subsection (1) of the Standing Order refers to minor changes of an administrative or typographical nature, but subsection (2) reads as follows, and I quote:
The Law Clerk of the House shall report any corrections made under subsection (1) to the Clerk of the House, as the clerk may from time to time require.
If the Senate replicates that provision, then, yes, corrections would have to be reported to senators. The wording could be adjusted to stipulate that all corrections be reported automatically to the Senate. Flagging the changes is no problem, if necessary.
The Chair: I think it would be a useful practice. That way, there would be no surprises. Are there any further questions or comments?
[English]
Senator Batters: I wanted to say that, yes, this is precisely the sort of suggestion to Rules changes that I was hoping to see in this suite of possibilities, so I thank all of those who brought this forward. This seems like a good way to change things and make our work better in the chamber of sober second thought. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We will wait for you to come back with a proper description, and we will add that to the review that we are undertaking in the next session.
[Translation]
That brings us to item 7. It concerns rule 11-3(1), which identifies the Principal Clerk, Committees, or another official appointed by the Clerk of the Senate to serve as Examiner of Petitions. In late 2020, the Committees Directorate was restructured to be headed by a Clerk Assistant.
This rule should be amended to reflect that change.
[English]
This is something to assure conformity:
Rule 11-3(1) identifies the Principal Clerk, Committees, or another official appointed by the Clerk of the Senate, to serve as Examiner of Petitions. In late 2020, the Committees Directorate was restructured to be headed by a Clerk Assistant. This rule should be amended to reflect that change.
[Translation]
Are there any questions?
[English]
Senator Wells: My question is for Mr. Heyde or Mr. Lafrenière. Who appoints the Clerk Assistant? If it’s the Clerk of the Senate, I don’t see any need for a change, because it says, “Principal Clerk, Committees, or another official appointed by the Clerk of the Senate,” so that other official could obviously be the Clerk Assistant who does the job now.
Mr. Lafrenière: The appointment of the Clerk Assistant is done by the clerk following competitions in the Senate. The only thing I would note is the title “Principal Clerk” has been used since the beginning of the Senate itself, and I believe it was about three years ago that the titles were changed. I don’t predict any changes to Clerk Assistant moving forward. We have a new structure that will last us and will serve us well for many years to come, so this is basically just an update to the title. Right now, if I identify people, Shaila Anwar is the Clerk Assistant, and she has two principal clerks who work for her. Presently, the way the rule is written right now, it does not identify the right level.
Senator Wells: Thanks for that, but it still identifies “another official appointed by the Clerk of the Senate,” which is essentially what happens now. Am I missing something, or is it just the words “Clerk of the Senate” versus “Principal Clerk?”
Mr. Lafrenière: First of all, the way the rule is written right now, would allow me to appoint anybody I want to that position, but this is basically fixing the titles that have changed at committees.
Senator Wells: Is that the title of “Principal Clerk” versus “Clerk of the Senate?”
Mr. Lafrenière: “Clerk Assistant.”
Senator Wells: I’m still missing it, then, because the Clerk Assistant is still “or another official appointed by the Clerk of the Senate.”
Mr. Lafrenière: Yes.
Senator Wells: I don’t see a need for a change, unless I’m missing something, because it identifies the “Principal Clerk . . . or another official appointed by the Clerk of the Senate” to serve as Clerk Assistant, and that’s currently what has happened, or what is happening, and that is proposed to be what’s happening.
Mr. Lafrenière: I think the way rule was originally drafted was that part of the Principal Clerk’s — which is now the Clerk Assistant — job is to take on this responsibility. The idea of allowing the clerk to appoint another official, I believe, would be in cases where maybe there’s a vacancy, or an inability to act by the Principal Clerk. It was to allow some flexibility, but historically, it has always been the head of the Committees Directorate who was appointed to take on this responsibility, and that title is now Clerk Assistant.
Senator Wells: Rule 11-3(1) already identifies that.
The Chair: What I understand, Senator Wells, is there have been changes in the names, and the Principal Clerk is below the Clerk Assistant.
Senator Busson: I thought I understood this request for a change until Senator Wells started asking questions. The very fact is that most of us are not necessarily confused but not clear on what this rule is and where it’s going, so if we have an opportunity to scrub it and make it a little more elegant — so that everyone understands who is who and who is appointing who to what — then we should seize that opportunity. Thank you.
Senator Lankin: Senator Wells, as I understand it, this would simply remove the words “Principal Clerk” and replace them with “Clerk Assistant” and it would still maintain the opportunity as it does for the clerk to appoint someone else. All it does is make it clear that this responsibility normally resides with the Clerk Assistant. I think the titles are confusing, because in English I personally think of a Principal Clerk as being higher in the hierarchy than a Clerk Assistant, and assistant clerk might be easier for me to understand in English. In any event, I know what you’re saying, Senator Wells, but I think this is simply a substitution of the two titles and still allows for someone else in the absence of that Clerk Assistant to be appointed by the clerk.
Senator M. Deacon: Building on that, I was interested — as a result of Senator Wells’ questions — if you could give us feedback on how you would reframe that statement to make it reflect what 2022 is.
I am just trying to make sure I’m getting these names and titles that have been changed correct. How would you adjust this wording as it appears right now?
Mr. Lafrenière: Right now, rule 11-3 says the Principal Clerk of Committees is the default person in the Senate that will take on that responsibility.
The Principal Clerk of Committees in 2022 is now a middle manager as opposed to the head of the directorate. In 2019, we created the position of Clerk Assistant, which is consistent with what we have in other Westminster parliaments. It’s consistent with the titles at the House of Commons. That’s why we restructured in that sense.
Yes, it may be confusing in the Senate about who is who. When we deal with other institutions, it makes it clearer for them who is at what level. So the idea is just to change the Principal Clerk to Clerk Assistant so that that person is the default person to do this.
I would retain the right to appoint another official if ever I felt it was appropriate.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. That is in that first line?
Mr. Lafrenière: Yes.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Batters: Thank you. I agree that the titles make it difficult to tell who’s who in the zoo.
I agree, frankly, with Senator Wells and what he’s saying here. Instead of saying, “identifies the Principal Clerk, Committees, or another official appointed by the Clerk of the Senate, to serve as Examiner of Petitions,” what it would propose to say is something like, “identifies the Clerk Assistant or another official appointed by the Clerk of the Senate to serve as Examiner of Petitions.”
I agree with Senator Wells that the wording “another official appointed by the Clerk of the Senate” seems to just handle it fine and dandy and we don’t necessarily need to make a change.
Senator Wells: I understand it better now, identifying the clerk. Maybe it’s the way it’s worded. I better understand “Identifying the Clerk Assistant or another official appointed by the clerk to serve as Examiner of Petitions.” If that’s the intent, and if that’s the result, then I would be in agreement with this.
But I also want to go back to something that Senator Busson said. I think it might serve us, as members of this committee, to have the full organizational chart of Chamber Operations, or what happens in the Senate, so we can see what jobs there are and the titles and jobs that hold those tasks under their control.
Mr. Lafrenière: Thank you, Senator Wells. I’ll undertake to provide you with an organizational chart.
Based on the fact that we’re before the Rules Committee today, I can provide an organizational chart of the procedural team; it would include Chamber Operations and committees. It would provide a more wholesome picture of everyone who works on procedure in the Senate.
The Chair: We will end on that and return to it, or are we finished with that? I think it’s clearer the way that Senator Wells proposed to make the change; if we do it that way, it’s going to be understood, acknowledging that we know the charter of the Senate’s Chamber Operations.
Number eight is about the publication of rules respecting notice for private bills. Can you can explain this point to us?
[Translation]
Mr. Lafrenière: The Rules of the Senate require the Clerk to publish the rules respecting notices for applications for private bills in the Canada Gazette and in the official gazette of each province weekly.
We looked into this practice, and it would appear that 1984 was the last time such notices were published in the Canada Gazette. Another thing worth noting is that purchasing 40% of a page in the Canada Gazette costs approximately $150. If you add that to the cost of publishing notices in the official gazette of each province, you are looking at a cost of between $1,000 and $2,000 weekly during dissolutions and prorogations.
We are not sure who made the decision. We think it may have been the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, along with the then Speaker, but these notices have not been published since 1984.
[English]
The Rules require the clerk to publish weekly in the Canada Gazette and the official gazettes of each province the rules respecting notices for applications for private bills. I would note that this has not been done in the Senate since 1984.
We are not aware exactly who made the decision at that time; I would assume it would have been done in collaboration with either the Committee on Internal Economy or with the Speaker.
We would note that covering about two fifths of a page in the Canada Gazette costs $150 per week. If we were to take into consideration doing so in every province and territory, we would be talking about $1,000 to $2,000 per week as a cost for the Senate during dissolution and prorogation.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We recommend that this rule be repealed. Do you agree? Are there any objections, or does this make sense? Since 1984; I recommend that we adopt this change.
That brings us to item 9, which discusses the fact that the Selection Committee is neither a standing nor special committee. Can you elaborate on that for us?
Mr. Lafrenière: The reason we have this on our list is that we would note that, going back to the first session of the Forty-second Parliament, there’s been an order adopted by the Senate to suspend this rule. It’s happened several parliaments in a row.
What we’re suggesting is when we notice continually, session after session, the adoption of orders to suspend a rule, we just wanted to highlight that to find out whether senators feel it should be reviewed at this time.
The Chair: Are there any comments on this? What are the consequences of suspending this rule? What are the bigger considerations?
Mr. Heyde: Until 2013, Senator Bellemare, the Committee of Selection was, by default, treated like a standing committee. The rule changes were made that year to make it a sui generis committee, which means it’s neither standing nor special; it is sort of a class of committee by itself. Then, as the clerk indicated, since November 7, 2017, there have been orders adopted to regularly deem it to be a standing committee.
The primary practical effect, I believe, will be in terms of remuneration of the chair and deputy chair. You would want to consult and consider that point, senators.
In practical terms, the notice requirements are the same for a report of the Committee of Selection, whether it falls under rule 12-2(4) or if it were treated as a special committee; it’s one day’s notice for its reports. The rules are currently explicit about that under rule 5-5 for a report of a standing committee or the Committee of Selection.
When we made the change back in 2013, we ensured that everything lined up so that the Committee of Selection continued, for procedural purposes, to generally have the requirements that had held before that time, which is to say the requirements for a standing committee.
So I think the primary effect would be the one that I mentioned.
The Chair: What is the feeling of the members of the committee on this subject?
Senator Ringuette: I would say that I like the flexibility of this rule. There may be a reason from one session to another to keep it as not a special committee or to build it as a standing committee.
I understand that, since 2013, it has been a standing committee. I cannot remember why it was changed, but I find that it brings flexibility. I don’t think there is any appetite right now to have it formally made a standing committee. That’s my perspective. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other comments?
Senator Wells: Thank you. I was appointed in 2013. I will defer to Mr. Heyde on this, but I believe it was — I don’t want to say “tradition” — the practice that the chair of the Committee of Selection would be the whip of the government. I know that during that time of increased scrutiny on expenditures of the Senate, it was disconnected from the whip’s job. I think it was something like that; I’m just trying to remember the history when I first got here and I don’t know if I have it clear.
Mr. Heyde, do you have any recollection of how it was structured?
Mr. Heyde: Subject to possible variations, Senator Wells, by and large, you described the situation accurately. It was typically the government whip who was chair of the committee. Under the current circumstances, that has changed quite significantly, so there was a variation starting in about 2015 where we moved away from previous practice.
The Chair: I would suggest that we keep it like that for now and that we talk about it later on. We’ll be able to think it over during the summer as to what the better way is to treat this element. Is that okay?
Item 10 concerns rule 12-7 and the role of the Audit and Oversight Committee.
[Translation]
Can you give us some information on this item, Mr. Lafrenière?
Mr. Lafrenière: With respect to item 10, there have been some developments that we did not account for. The Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight is submitting a report in the next few days containing its proposed amendments to the Rules. We recommend that the committee wait to see what the Audit Committee brings forward.
[English]
To be clear, senators, we should probably defer discussion on point 10, because I have been informed that the committee is about to present a report in the Senate dealing with recommended rule changes that could then be considered by this committee. This would be the proper approach to take at this time. When we drafted the letter, we were not aware the work was proceeding that quickly.
[Translation]
The same goes for item 11.
The Chair: We will discuss items 10 and 11 at a later time, and I think the same goes for item 12, regarding in camera proceedings in committee. We’ll have more information so we can have a more in-depth discussion when we come back in the fall. That also applies to item 13, which deals with rule 12-18(2) and committee meetings during extended periods of adjournment.
[English]
Members, you will note that this point is on the list of items we want to look at, but we won’t start today; we need to elaborate more on the issue.
On our list, then, we are moving to item 14.
Mr. Lafrenière: On item 14, I would refer to the discussion we had on the first item, which is a reference to smoking in the Senate. I believe when we were dealing with that first item, senators agreed we would remove that reference. We’re making the same recommendation for item 14.
[Translation]
The Chair: We will remove that reference, then, as we did with item 1.
Item 15 deals with rule 12-22(6) and debate on a tabled report.
Mr. Heyde: This item deals with a more technical matter, Madam Chair. In the case of tabled reports — rapports déposés in French — for which a decision on the Senate’s part is not required, but optional, a provision exists so that the report can be debated without a motion to adopt it. Pursuant to rule 12-22(6), it is possible to move a motion to adopt the report once consideration of the report has begun. In that case, senators who have already spoken could speak again for no more than five minutes.
In reviewing the French version of the rule, we realized that, even though the marginal note makes clear that the provision applies only to tabled reports, the rule itself reads as follows: “Lorsqu’une motion portant adoption d’un rapport est présentée après que le débat….” The French version of the rule should instead read, “Lorsqu’une motion portant adoption d’un rapport déposé et présenté....”
The French version lacks precision by not referring to tabled reports, as the English version does — to adopt a tabled report. It’s very much a technical point.
The Chair: It’s a technical correction, but does it apply only to the French version?
Mr. Heyde: Yes, it applies only to the French version to ensure the rule is consistent in both languages.
The Chair: Great. Is everyone okay with that technical change? It’s agreed.
That brings us to the next item, which deals with rule 12-23(6) and the signing of amended bills. What does that have to do with?
Mr. Heyde: Once again, thank you, Madam Chair. Pursuant to this rule, when a committee recommends amendments to a bill, the committee must attach to its report a copy of the bill containing the amendments. It then comes to us, at the Chamber Operations and Procedure Office. It doesn’t go anywhere; the whole thing is stored in the archives forever. The practice has gone on for years.
[English]
In 2006, we realized that the Federal Accountability Act — Bill C-2 — took an enormous amount of time to prepare the copy; I think it took two or three days. These days, if we did that, it would take an enormous amount of time for some bills.
[Translation]
To avoid this unnecessary delay, the practice that has been adopted is simply to attach a copy of the report to a copy of the bill, which is then sent to my office. It goes no further, merely ending up in the archives. Under the proposal before you, if you wish to avoid the practice, you can simply say that the committee’s report is available online or in hard copy, that it is read in the Senate Chamber or that it is debated by senators in the chamber.
Instead of having all this paper floating around and ending up nowhere, you could just do away with the requirement to keep a copy of something that serves no purpose at the end of the day.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Heyde.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you, Mr. Heyde, for that explanation. This will be a general comment regarding things like this. I look at the last line in item 16 where it is says, “This provision serves no purpose and should be removed.” There are a lot of things that we do that could be considered to serve no purpose other than tradition or custom. We’re a place that has been around for 156 years and there is a rich history around it. This isn’t a comment directly on the signing of committee amendments. I still don’t think it’s a bad idea to have the imprimatur of the chair or deputy chair saying we have considered this and in the opinion of the committee we think these changes should be made. I don’t think it is a bad idea to have it signed. I recognize it may serve no specific purpose other than its prima facie purpose, which is to say, “The committee has considered it, I speak for the committee and here is the document that references that.”
I just don’t want to be too quick in removing some of the things we do for the history or the culture of the Senate.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Wells. That is a good point.
Mr. Lafrenière: Can I address Senator Wells’s point before we continue the discussion? I don’t think we would be proposing any changes that would fundamentally change the history of the Senate or important practices.
I will note that the report that is presented in the chamber with all of the amendments is signed by the chair of the committee. Basically, the reason we are arguing this rule is no longer required is everything used to be completely paper-based in the Senate. The only official records we had in the past were the records that were kept in the clerk’s office. Now with the electronic world we live in, it is probably more efficient and more transparent to have these documents available electronically and available to everybody.
The idea that the chair signs the document before it goes into the chamber would not change. It would just be covered by a different rule. I’m going to go back to what Mr. Heyde said about the Federal Accountability Act that came in. I was clerk of the Legal Committee when we studied that bill. If I remember well, there were over 700 amendments to that bill. We had to cut and paste every amendment into the bill and strike out text that had been removed.
After all that work had been done, Mr. Heyde reminds me of working 24 hours around the clock to get that ready. We then had to go to the chair’s office and the chair had to initial every single change that had been made in the bill. We think that the report that goes into the Senate and is presented by the chair covers that well.
Senator Lankin: Thank you, that’s a helpful explanation. This proposal would remove the requirement to have the amendments clearly written on a copy of the bill and would substitute the current practice of the signed committee report being the document that is put on file.
Following on Senator Wells’s concern, is there any reason not to have the rule amended to specify that the report is constituted by the signed report from the committee with the amendments attached? It would simply be to substitute your explanation of what the practice is for the actual rule.
Mr. Heyde: It would work, I think. Quite frankly, these are copies that go nowhere and just end up in the archives in boxes and no one ever looks at them. This would certainly be clearer. If you want to keep the provisions of 12-22(6) to have the copies there, it would be clearer to explicitly recognize that. Like Mr. Lafrenière said, it took three people 24 hours to make the copy when we were strictly respecting the letter and there was a very long delay in proceedings in the Senate do that.
Senators, you may want to think about what the purpose is of doing this altogether. We have the report. As Senator Wells addressed, the report is signed by the chair or the designate of the chair. That is the official copy. That is readily available now and is kept in the archives. We would never think of getting rid of that copy. But this copy, under 12-22(6), goes nowhere and does nothing. Maybe at one point it served a purpose in the 19th century, but it doesn’t nowadays. We archive them and they make their way over to Hull where the archives are. Unless we want to look at them, which we never do, they sit there.
Senator Lankin: I’m fine with the recommendation to remove it, then. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I have nothing to add; the last few comments answered my questions. Like Senator Wells, I wanted to mention that, generally speaking, we should be cautious about amending certain things that may very well be outdated through the lens of productivity, technology and efficiency but that are and remain meaningful and significant through the lens of tradition, history and a sense of decorum.
That said, I am filling in for another senator today, so that was just a general comment I had.
The Chair: I have a question. You may have wanted to say something first, but I have a question about all this.
My question, which has to do with the archives, is this: If this procedure is eliminated and the committee’s report is relied on for reference, shouldn’t the committee be required to list in its report all of the amendments that were proposed but not adopted?
Mr. Lafrenière: I’m going to come back to the matter of the archives, because I think it’s important. We are not saying that the document should no longer be held in the archives of the Senate. What we are saying is that it would no longer be attached to the bill necessarily.
Every Senate committee has its own archives, so the report containing all the amendments would be there. In other words, the records of the Senate would be protected and preserved. Under the current rule, the report is held in the archives in two places.
Committee reports have always focused on the decisions of the majority of committee members. Think about committee proceedings, Hansard and the minutes of proceedings for committee meetings — which clearly list defeated amendments; they provide a historical record of all amendments that have been proposed. Reports that are tabled or presented in the Senate reflect the voice of the majority of committee members, so I don’t think it would necessarily be appropriate to include motions that were not adopted.
The Chair: Thank you. That answers my question.
If no one else has any comments, we accept this recommendation. It’s agreed. There you have it.
That brings us to item 17, which concerns rule 12-25 and payment of witnesses’ expenses.
[English]
Mr. Lafrenière: For item 17, I would like to provide a bit of historical context. When the rule was first adopted, it allowed the Clerk of the Senate to pay for living and travel expenses for witnesses who come before a committee.
Over the years, the Committee on Internal Economy has authorized the clerk to cover other expenses when witnesses come to Ottawa. I’ll give you one example: During the pandemic, headsets for witnesses were covered to ensure the health and safety of interpreters. There have been decisions from the Committee on Internal Economy to allow the coverage of child care expenses under strict parameters. I think senators would be aware of the pilot project that was adopted by Internal Economy — I believe it was last week or two weeks ago — with respect to therapy support for witnesses who come before the committee.
Based on the fact that the rules are quite limiting in covering only travel and living expenses, it might be worthwhile for the rule to be updated to also cover any other expense authorized by that committee so it wouldn’t be left to me as the clerk to determine the appropriate expenses. It would be for Internal Economy to be authorized to make decisions with respect to the proper expenditure of Senate funds to make the list.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Mr. Lafrenière. I see the cumbersome nature of what’s on your plate with respect to this because things come up that are beyond living and travel expenses.
You mentioned child care, headsets and therapy. Would that include — and if it is given to Internal Economy, they would decide that — the witnesses’ time? And is that something we have paid for or normally pay for or occasionally paid for?
Mr. Lafrenière: No, I’m not aware of anybody receiving any honorarium to appear before a Senate committee. I’m not even aware of that necessarily being discussed. That would be something that I think would have to be brought forward at Internal Economy or here. But it has not happened that I’m aware of.
Senator Wells: Thank you. This proposal would transfer the authority from the Clerk of the Senate to Internal Economy. Is that essentially what we are saying?
Mr. Lafrenière: I think the proposal we are recommending is the rule is quite clear that, as the clerk, I can authorize the coverage of living and travel expenses for witnesses. But to modernize the rule, and the fact that Internal Economy has made several decisions over the years to broaden that, that we recognize the fact that the clerk is also signing off on expenses that have been authorized by Internal Economy. It would just make reference to any authorized expenses from Internal Economy.
Senator Wells: I’m good with that. Thank you.
Senator Batters: I’m not sure why we would need to make a change given that the clerk has already been paying these amounts as they’re authorized by the Committee on Internal Economy. I’m wondering exactly what it would say. Are you proposing it would say something other than “living and travelling expenses?” Are you proposing a reasonable sum for their expenses as authorized by Internal Economy? Or do you want us to leave in the living and travelling? Given that one item you mentioned is just a pilot project, I don’t think that should be included because it’s just a pilot project right now.
I’m surprised to hear that about the headsets because I have been part of the Legal Committee where we’ve had many witnesses who have had problems with their headsets. You might want to make sure that people widely understand that’s a possibility for them to access. I have been part of many meetings where even people who I would have expected to have a good headset have not able to testify as witnesses, including the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
The other comment I wanted to make is with respect to what Senator Wells was asking about — a witness’s time. Certainly, we have not done that. If we did that, for example, at the Legal Committee, we would be spending a huge amount of money because lawyers — and I appreciate the fact that they do this — give of their time to prepare detailed briefs for us on complicated topics and they do that all just to help Canada have better laws. Certainly, that’s not something we have done and I don’t think we should do that. We haven’t had a call for it. We have relied on the very kind help these people have given us with their own time, taking away time they could be billing their clients.
Mr. Lafrenière: Thank you, Senator Batters, for those questions and those comments.
To be clear, the recommended change would not be to identify any list of expenses. That’s not what we are intending. It would be more to add general wording so that the rule is more a living tree rule; so any other expense as authorized by Internal Economy. That way we are not limiting that committee in making decisions now or in the future; it would just be to set parameters on what is covered.
With respect to the headsets, I understand the issue that not every witness who has appeared before the committee would be wearing one of our recommended headsets. We could have Ms. Anwar come and testify, but sometimes it’s a question of timing. Sometimes a witness is only confirmed a couple of days before they appear before the Senate, and we might not be able to get it to them beforehand. It is but a recommendation; in the end, we can’t necessarily force the witnesses. We have had a few issues in that sense, too. I can assure you that the clerks do their utmost to ensure that as many witnesses as possible do wear those headsets, and it is communicated on several occasions with the witnesses before they appear at committee.
Senator Petitclerc: I’m curious; this proposed change will cover the support requirement for witnesses living with a disability; at least I think it does. As you said, it is not about having a list of definitions, but I have seen, when we were studying Bill C-81, for example, witnesses with a disability having some very specific needs and even perhaps needing a support person with them. I just want to make sure this is covered for those witnesses.
Mr. Lafrenière: Again, to be clear — and thank you, Senator Petitclerc, for the point — Internal Economy has authorized covering expenses for witnesses who need support to attend committee meetings. That is one of the covered expenses. The list I provided you was not meant to be exhaustive. Maybe what I will undertake to do is work with the Committees Directorate to provide a list of the other covered expenses, just so that senators are clear with what they are.
[Translation]
The Chair: If there are no further comments, I’ll conclude the discussion on that item and say that we are good with your coming back to us with a proposal we can consider at a future meeting.
We are now on item 18, which deals with rules 12-26(2) to 12-26(4) and the tabling of reports concerning committee’s financial expenditures.
Mr. Lafrenière: This is a more complex issue. Should the committee decide to keep the requirement for committees to table financial reports, I want to flag a discrepancy between the English and French versions. The English text refers to “sitting days,” whereas the French refers to “jours ouvrables.” If the committee wishes to maintain these rules, the French should be corrected to refer to “jours de séance du Sénat,” which is in line with “sitting days” in English.
[English]
The thing I would talk about with respect to this requirement is that the requirement for committees to table financial reports based on session goes back a long time. These requirements were put into place before the adoption of proactive disclosure for committees. Under the federal legislation, committees are now required to proactively disclose on a quarterly basis all of the expenses related to a committee. I would also note that the Committees Directorate prepares an annual report where those expenses are covered by fiscal year. Everybody generally works by fiscal year.
So the need for transparency and accountability for the Senate has gone up significantly over the years based on federal legislation. We would note that the House of Commons never had a requirement for the committees to provide a detailed breakdown of their expenses the way we did in the Senate. We would argue this rule has been overtaken by our proactive disclosure requirements, which actually require committees to now be much more detailed in their financial reporting. The fact that the rule requires the committees to table these reports in the Senate on a sessional basis also created a lot of confusion, because we would report on a quarterly basis and on an annual basis and then we were reporting on sessions that did not necessarily correspond to any fiscal year, depending on the session of Parliament.
We would never come before the committee and argue that we should remove any transparency or accountability for financial reporting of committees. The point we are making here is the rule has been overtaken by other financial reporting requirements.
[Translation]
The Chair: If I understand correctly, you are recommending we make the English and French versions consistent, and consider removing certain elements.
You are saying that repealing those elements would not undermine our duty to be transparent because another process captures it.
Are there any questions or comments on that item?
In that case, you have our agreement to further refine the language to indicate that the French is being amended for the rules being repealed. Would that mean we could make a final decision at our next meeting?
[English]
Senator Lankin: I see what you are saying about taking the decision in the next meeting. I think the consensus is to repeal it, so we don’t need to worry about the language. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: We are now at item 19. Is it a complex one? Looking at the time, I wonder whether we shouldn’t wrap up our discussion of the administration-related part of the agenda and discuss the summary.
I think we should conclude the first part of the meeting and move on to the second part on the agenda. We will now go in camera for that discussion.