THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 4, 2022
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:00 a.m. (ET) to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone.
It is 9:00 a.m., so we can start. I am Diane Bellemare, a senator from Quebec, and I am the chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
We are going to go around the table, starting on my left, to introduce the members and the province or territory they represent.
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson, British Columbia.
Senator Cordy: I’m Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
Senator Black: Rob Black from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia.
Senator Wells: David Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have three items on our agenda today. The first is a return to the creation of a temporary committee on the labour market and human capital.
The second item is more of a piece of information. You received documents about this, and it has to do with the evolution of the Senate modernization process. So this is a return to the recommendations made by the Special Committee on Senate Modernization.
This is kind of an introduction to the third item, actually, which is one of the items that came out of the modernization process, but which hasn’t been concluded yet. We are going to present a document to that effect today as well for discussion purposes. That’s it.
I’ll start with the first item, which is creating the Special Senate Committee on Human Capital and the Labour Market. The proposal before us last week was to move this motion in the Senate so that we could discuss and debate it among ourselves.
When I moved this motion last week, some of you felt that the mandate narrow, so I would like to make clear that the creation of this committee is a pilot project to eventually determine if a standing committee on human capital would be appropriate.
So in that sense, it isn’t like a special committee looking at a particular subject concerning the labour market, employment, and human capital, but a committee that looks at all of these issues and is defined in much the same way as other committees are defined in rule 12 of the Rules of the Senate.
As you recall, we did a stylistic review of committee mandates without changing the substance in one of the first reports; in that context, broad definitions of committees were given, but they were still specific enough to provide direction. So will this human capital committee be discussing the gig economy? Will it discuss foreign workers — a motion that has already been tabled in the Senate? Will it discuss the labour shortage issues that everyone is talking about? Will it discuss other issues? It will be up to the committee to structure its work.
Since the committee hasn’t yet been formed, we don’t know what it will study, but I think the description we have is specific enough to see that it won’t be looking at the environment, transportation or health, but really human capital, the labour market and employment, in general.
For this committee, for example — as for all committees — the topic of focus will not prevent another committee from doing work on similar subjects as well, as is the case for all committees.
We added an item to this motion, as there were several questions related to resources.
As a result, we added an item that reads:
[English]
That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration authorize the Senate administration to provide the necessary resources for the functioning of this committee in accordance with the Senate Administrative Rules until the end of the current session.
[Translation]
I am submitting it to you again. If you agree, I could table it in the Senate this afternoon. However, I should point out that this doesn’t mean that it has been adopted, but there obviously has to be a consensus around the table, the consensus being that there is no serious objection to tabling this document.
Are there any comments?
[English]
Senator Batters: First of all, I just wanted to point out — and perhaps it was just the translation — but when you were describing the committee, you were saying that it was a pilot project, or that’s how it came through in the translation.
It’s not really a pilot project. A special committee, of which we’ve had many in the Senate, is one that is not set up as a permanent committee but simply for a limited duration. It’s not really as a pilot project, as maybe some of us would understand it, but it is set for a limited duration. I just wanted to make that point.
I was also wondering, that paragraph that you have in the motion about CIBA authorizing the Senate Administration to provide the necessary resources, is that the normal wording that is in these types of motions setting up a special committee, or is that just always assumed, and it’s not necessary to put it in?
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: It is not normal, but I think it was added in light of some of the comments and concerns raised last week about resourcing available and just including that to identify this as a priority that would allow committees to take that into account when allocating resources.
Senator Batters: Then I wonder about the necessity of putting it in, because then if we put it in this one, would some committees think, “Oh, maybe all committees should have this in their motions.” I’m not sure.
Senator Ringuette: I want to add my comments to those of Senator Batters. The Senate votes on a motion, and whether this is there or not, it has nothing to do with the mandate that the Senate would give to this special committee.
I believe we would be setting a precedent that at the end of the day, the Senate agreeing to an issue should not be conditional on the Internal Economy Committee providing the necessary human and financial resources. From my perspective, these are two distinct things.
The other issue, Madam Chair, with regard to this and other issues, is that a letter was sent to the different leaders. Last week we were supposed to meet with one of the leaders. Did you meet? And if you have any answers with regard to the issues in that letter, I’d like to know. Essentially, I would like for us to table a motion for the creation of this special committee as long as it doesn’t sit on the Order Paper for a year.
The Chair: Fair point.
Senator Ringuette: That is my question. I would like to be aware of the result of the meeting.
The Chair: We did not yet receive a letter from the Conservative leader, but I met with him very quickly. We had our meeting last Tuesday, and the week was shorter. so I met him today and he told me the letter is in the mail. He saw it, but I did not receive it yet. Maybe Senator Wells has more ideas about the content.
Senator Wells: I would never speak for Senator Plett’s claims that it may be in the mail. I have two comments.
First, I wanted to understand the nuances between a special committee and a pilot project committee.
Second, I’m in full agreement with Senator Ringuette and the question posed by Senator Batters that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration be included in this. That’s a whole other phase of what we may be trying to create here. I would say to let the Senate decide if this is a good thing and then let the processes that follow from that occur in their natural order. Rather than putting phase 1 and 2 in here, just put in the intent of the Rules Committee to have this committee approved by the Senate.
The Chair: This item that was put on was a request from one of the members of the steering committee. It was done the last week at the end of the Senate session. We thought we would try it. Because of time constraints, we didn’t have time for a steering committee before we met. I don’t have any issue with that. I thought it could help. If not, we will take it out. I can understand that there are good reasons to take it out.
The difference between a special committee and this committee, as I understand it — I didn’t want to have the word “special” on this because usually when you have a special committee, it is reserved for specific topics and there’s an end to it.
This committee was suggested because, looking at all the mandates, people found that there’s a missing item in the committees of the Senate: human capital, manpower, labour market. Let’s try to have one, to see if it’s used for legislative purposes. If there are issues that are very important — I personally think that this is missing and that we should have that kind of a committee. But it’s not personal. Many times in the Senate, Senator Ringuette talked about the necessity of such a committee.
It is designed in such a manner as to be only for this session but to work as a standing committee. If it is to work as a standing committee, then it would have a general mandate, it would meet and it would organize its work in accordance with legislative priorities that are coming in the Senate and in accordance with issues that Canadians want us to discuss, as all committees do. They research their topics to be clearly on the public agenda.
It is expressed this way. It’s a temporary committee for the duration of the session but to work as a standing committee, so it has a general mandate. When the members who will sit on the committee are chosen, they will discuss it and bring it to the Senate as whole. They will get their mission or mandate directly from the Senate when they table a motion for their special studies, as other committees do.
Senator Batters: It does say “Special Senate Committee” in the motion, which I think is very much reflective of the discussion we had not only here but also at steering committee, when we got the consensus of this particular group that that’s how it would be formed.
I think it’s correctly expressed in the motion, but I wanted to make it clear that at this point it isn’t intended to be anything other than a committee that will be constituted for a specific duration. So any hopes that it might go into something else, that will have to come in time, no matter what people’s personal hopes are about that. For the time being, I think it properly reflects to list it as a special committee and for it to have a limited duration, because that’s the consensus we came to here — to see if this is something that would be a good idea going forward and also dealing with the issue of having a limited number of senators who can populate committees and to ensure that is dealt with as well.
The Chair: Do you have any other comments? Should we table it as we intended to do? Because it was approved in our last June meeting that this is what we would do.
Senator Wells: I don’t know if we’ve agreed to remove the final paragraph, or I could make a motion to remove the paragraph that references CIBA and go with that. If that’s appropriate, then I’d like to make a motion to remove the paragraph that references CIBA.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Wells. Senator Black is supporting that. If everyone is agreed, we will remove the last paragraph. I think it’s wise.
I will table it this afternoon. I hope that the members of this committee will participate in the discussion. Certainly, I will explain the matters that come to me.
This brings us to the other part of our meeting today, the recommendation of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization. You received two documents. One was from the Library of Parliament, which describes what has been done since the late special committee, the Committee on Modernization; and you received another document, which has a legal format and expresses in more detail the recommendations and the result. These documents are for your own understanding of the issues.
If you read, for instance, the document from the Library of Parliament, you realize that the most of the items that were raised in the Special Committee on Modernization have been addressed one way or the other. They have not all been solved in the manner proposed in the Committee on Modernization, but most of them have been discussed.
There are at least two items that have not yet been discussed thoroughly — the seventh report of Modernization — but I will go through the report. There are two, the seventh report and the thirteenth report, which are the subject of our third point today.
I would like to have a panel eventually, but you will tell me if you think it’s interesting to have a panel organized in the future on all of those issues.
I’m referring to the Library of Parliament document. The first report was a general report. As you recall, the first big report on Senate modernization was divided into small reports so that we could discuss one point after another and bring the appropriate changes for transformation.
Point B is the second report. It was on omnibus bills. We had a lot of discussion at that time on those issues. As you know, it is a practice — especially with the budget — to have omnibus bills. No specific measures were taken, because we have all the rules in our Rules to handle these things if we don’t want an omnibus bill.
Point C, the third report, dealt with committees. It was specifically on the appointment of a Committee of Selection. The change in the rule has been made, as requested in this third report.
The fourth report on modernization was on the Order Paper. That was presented October 4, 2016, and it recommends that the Senate direct the Rules Committee to propose amendments to the Rules of the Senate to restructure the Order Paper.
We had a lot of discussion on that issue at the time in the Rules Committee, and there was discussion in the special committee. We had some changes in the numbers and the way the Order Paper was structured, but I will ask Adam to address it further.
For the moment, I can tell you that we went as far as we could on the practices. We still have this standing of items again. Maybe we would like to address that at some point in time. It has been addressed in the fourth report, but not perfectly.
Adam, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Thompson: I don’t have anything to add at this point, but if it is something the committee would like to revisit, we can certainly do that.
The Chair: Do senators have any comments?
Senator Ringuette: I agree. I remember we discussed this at this committee, and we renumbered. We decided that only the Speaker will say “stand” if the item is stood when it’s called. I will say that from my experience, and now that we are televised, it doesn’t look as though we are a very efficient group of people. When I meet people, they say, “Why do you say ‘stand?’”
Maybe it is an issue that we should review. I would have a recommendation when the time comes. I think there’s a way to deal with it in a more efficient way for this “stand” to be called. For instance, the Order Paper has different headings. We all have people at scroll. We all know who intends to speak and so forth. So the issue could be as simple as calling the heading on the Order Paper, and if there’s no one in that heading — such as Committee Reports — to speak on that day, you just say “Committee Reports, stand,” and not do all the list of committee reports.
Another option, in addition to that, would be to just call the heading. If no one has said they want to speak on one of the issues under that heading, the Speaker will ask, “Does anyone wish to speak on an issue under this heading?” Just to make sure that people who were not at scroll or changes at scroll have the opportunity to raise an issue under that heading.
I don’t want to take over this meeting with this issue, but I think it could be easily dealt with.
Senator Gagné: I’m fully supportive of Senator Ringuette’s views.
Senator Batters: We sit in a parliamentary chamber. I don’t think that flying through the Order Paper with maximum speed is the way we want to go with this. Last week, none of our sessions went beyond 4 p.m.
I don’t think it’s a problem. I’ve personally never had anyone say to me, “Why do you say ‘stand?’ It holds things up.” I don’t think that reading out headings is good enough. Frankly, sometimes it isn’t even that obvious which heading it would be under.
What is unique about the Senate is that anyone can speak on any issue at any time, and I like that. I think that’s important. It encourages independence. As well, not everyone is represented at scroll. For example, non-affiliated senators don’t have any representation there, so they wouldn’t necessarily know what’s going on.
I think the goal should not be maximum efficiency to the potential detriment of having excellent debate.
Senator Cordy: I agree with Senator Ringuette that we could go through it, but Senator Batters also raised a good point. In years gone by, we’ve addressed this issue over and over again.
I’m not even sure if it is a rule, but what we do is even if your name isn’t down at scroll in the morning, it does not prevent you from speaking during a session. That has to continue. We don’t want to go so fast that people miss it. Speakers throughout the years have been more than gracious in asking for leave to go back if someone asks. Not always, but in most cases they do.
I think that premise has to remain, even if your name is not on at scroll. It would be very easy to say, “Well, this is what we decided at scroll, and this is what we’re doing.” We can’t do that, because we all have a right to stand. Sometimes you hear a speech, and you did not intend to speak, but you do want to comment on what someone else has said.
We have to keep that. It has to be in the forefront at all times, but, as a committee, I think we can certainly examine ways in which to make it more efficient.
The Chair: I hear you. We will put that on our big list so that when we have time, we may come back to this item.
Point E deals with the fifth report of Senate modernization moving forward. That was a big thing that was one of the first items that we discussed in Rules and in the Senate as a whole. It is the creation of groups, others than groups related to political parties — the creation of groups and caucuses. So that’s done.
And next, point F is the sixth report on Senate modernization moving forward — speakership. There was debate in Modernization, if you recall, about the election of our Speaker and our Speaker pro tempore. So I think we changed the rule on the Speaker pro tempore. Now that position is elected, as proposed. Under the Speaker itself, it is a constitutional issue, so it is appointed by the government and the Governor General, so it has to stay the same. It is a constitutional thing.
The seventh report was on moving forward regional interests. We discussed this issue for quite a while in the Modernization Committee, because the Senate had been created, as you recall, at the demand of the provinces, especially Quebec. The issue was to have a parliamentary institution that would look carefully to the interests of the population in all provinces and territories — to have an eye on that — and to keep an eye against, at that time, the centralizing forces in Ottawa.
For the moment, there was nothing done on this item from Modernization. How do we address the regional issue, which is moved to minority issues? We look at minorities, but in that time when we debated that, I remember it well because I had a motion I introduced in the Senate to have an addendum in the reports of committees a checklist of agenda items that were addressed. Regions were one of them. That way, we make sure we address regions, diversity and other groups, and the constitutionality of bills.
If ever we are interested in that, it could be brought forward.
Senator Busson: I have a comment on that subject. Being from outside the capital region, it is important for the relevance of the Senate to be able to travel to different regions when we’re doing those kinds of studies. The separation between the western region and — I can’t speak for the eastern region — but certainly where I come from, the Senate is a far distant place with a lot of mystique. We could really work to change that if we were more able to go to regions to seek out opinions and perspectives, rather than always doing it here.
The Chair: That’s a good point. Committees do travel sometimes, but it’s not on a regular basis, especially for bills. Maybe it’s an issue to keep in mind when we study the mandates of the big structures of our committees. Maybe we can have an element that tackles regional aspects of our work. We have to keep that in mind, I guess.
Senator Batters: I wanted to make a comment that, as I read this part, that particular Modernization report from 2016 had recommended that the Senate direct CIBA to make available sufficient funding for committees to travel to all regions of the country when studying bills with regional impacts and that sort of thing.
I wanted to make the point that we already do that. One example I can point this committee to is that when I was on CIBA, I recall we were dealing with Bill C-48 at the time, which was the tanker bill, which has a particular effect on the western part of Canada. That came right to CIBA and we had a significant discussion about it. We were able to get the particular committee dealing with it at the time, the Transport Committee, to travel to all those areas of Western Canada that were very significantly affected. It really did have a significant impact on our work.
So when that sort of thing comes about, there are mechanisms already to make that happen. It happened recently; that was just a few years ago.
I also note that the Human Rights Committee, I believe, was also doing some travel to different parts of the country on the study they are doing, so it certainly does happen. I don’t think it’s necessarily needed to enshrine it in anything.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
The next point has been dealt with. It’s the broadcasting of the Senate. At that time when we were doing our studies, we were not broadcast. We thought it would be good to have that.
Senator Batters: Since we’re dealing with this particular point, there is a continuing issue. I’m very happy I was a proponent of this all along, since I first came to the Senate — that we broadcast our proceedings so that people can see what we do, not only in our committees but in the chamber.
I actually tend to watch CPAC once in a while, which is maybe not the most common thing, but I’m always very happy to see the Senate being broadcast there. But one thing that needs to be rectified is that when we have a break for, say, a technical problem or a bell, which would be most common — I could see if it’s quite a short bell, but even when there is an hour-long bell or times when we have a two-hour break in our proceedings — the replay of it on CPAC is played with that suspension fixed screen, potentially for two hours. That looks terrible. That’s not an accurate reflection of what we’re doing.
It ought to be quite an easy splice. I have siblings in the film and video industry; they would say it’s an easy splice to provide before CPAC is given the product to run. That should be fixed. We don’t have that many hours that we are able to broadcast our proceedings on CPAC each week, so why would we take up any of those hours with a fixed screen? It doesn’t look good to the public, because they might even pause on CPAC, but they might turn away from a fixed screen.
Senator Cordy: Can you make a motion on that? I’ve noticed the same thing. This is 2022; why do we have a one-hour or even a 30-minute pause with just the logo of the Senate and —
Senator Batters: — and elevator music.
The Chair: Do you have something to say on that?
Senator Ringuette: Is CIBA responsible for the contract with CPAC? Yes?
Senator Cordy: But it might give us another committee that would be aired. If you have a couple of those hours for two committees being televised, it could mean that another committee could be televised in that time period.
Senator Saint-Germain: And CIBA is also responsible for negotiations regarding the broadcasting of committees. So CIBA is negotiating with CPAC for the broadcasting of all the deliberations of the Senate and its committees.
The Chair: So it’s possible that the point be questioned with them.
Senator Cordy: Should we send a letter to CIBA?
Senator Batters: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. We’ll have a letter sent to CIBA, formally, on that issue.
The ninth report concerned Question Period. At that time, we were not used to having ministers for Question Period, so we debated that. It’s not in the Rules. It’s a practice. We’ve had a lot of progress on this issue of Question Period. Perhaps we might want to get back to it, to erase the Question Period rules, but I don’t think there is a will for that at the moment.
The tenth report was about the nature of the Senate. The idea was to have a specific discussion on the nature, the mandate, of the Senate. The discussion started, but there was no conclusion; it wasn’t finished. We don’t have any specific recommendation on the mission of the Senate as a whole.
We have documents; we have the Supreme Court report and so forth. But I think we know what we’re doing. Unless it’s very important, we have other kinds of issues that are more relevant for the moment.
The eleventh report is on the study of a bill proposed by Senator Mercer for the election of the Speaker of the Senate. We debated that issue and decided that, constitutionally, it was difficult to do.
The twelfth report had no recommendations. It was the report on the structure of the Senate as a whole. We have no specific recommendations. It was chaired at that time by Senator Greene.
The thirteenth report brings us to today. It’s a report that asks Rules, for instance, to undertake a review and to recommend amendments to the Rules with a view that all recognized parliamentary groups in the Senate are treated equally. There were three parts to the issue. We should undertake a study to change our Rules to ensure equality of groups in our Rules; that the Senate Administrative Rules also be reviewed; and that the Parliament of Canada Act be amended to officially recognize the other groups.
The Parliament of Canada Act was amended in the last budget. In the Senate, we had motions before us in the past — in 2018, the first one, and then 2019. The last motion was tabled by Senator Woo on behalf of the Independent Senators Group, and Senator Tannas amended that motion. Senator Woo incorporated the proposed amendment. So there we are. It went nowhere. It was not accepted in the Senate as a whole because it has to be worked out.
As was asked, here we are today, on this thirteenth report. It’s the subject of our thirteenth element of discussion for today.
Before turning to this principle of the equality of groups within the Rules, do you have any questions about the Senate modernization process? Do you think we should have a panel of witnesses, including ex-senators and also external witnesses — those that look at us, who study us, professors or the public in general — to give a reflection of what we do? It could be of interest at some point to have such a panel, but it is not something urgent.
Senator Batters: I think that could be a good idea to have a panel, to have some evidence and background presented to this committee, so that when we’re going forward with different ideas in the future, we have a fuller understanding of them.
The Chair: So you think it’s a good idea. We’ll think about a panel of witnesses who are quite relevant, who study us and who have addressed some issues at the Senate Modernization Committee and who have reflected on what we have done since 2016.
Senator Cordy: Perhaps we could have people who have been in the Senate and one or two people who are looking at it from outside.
The Chair: We’ll think about that, and we’ll prepare such a panel with good witnesses in due time. Good. For the moment, that terminates element 2 of our agenda.
We turn now to item 3, which is a change in our Rules for the equality of groups within the Senate. We do have documents on that issue. You did not receive them yet because they were only ready last night. You have a lot of paper, but remember, I did some teaching at university and it was a habit of mine to always have documents.
Mr. Thompson: Senators, I will explain what is being distributed right now. With your documentation that you received yesterday, there was a link to a notice of motion given by Senator Tannas, which was the last version put forward in the Senate.
This is a chart that compares the proposal in that notice of motion along with the current text of the Rules. You can see the specific proposed changes.
The Chair: We did prepare that in-house, in my office. Adam supervised, also, but if ever there is an error, we will take the responsibility and we’ll change that. It’s possible; it has been done quickly.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Words are really important in a discussion like this. Right from the start, in the title in both French and English, there is a word that doesn’t convey the meaning of what is reflected in the document. I’m talking about equality between parties and groups. Rather, we’re talking about equity, équité, between the parties and groups, except that each group is treated—
[English]
It is that each group and caucus is treated equitably with equity. Equality of senators, that’s a point. That’s different. But when we have government representatives, a position in the Senate and three other recognized groups, it’s not a matter of equality; it is a matter of equity.
The Chair: This is a good point, senator. Thank you for this distinction. I was looking at that, and I had that problem while reading. I said it’s not equality, égalité; it’s equity. That’s a very good point. If you all agree, we’ll change the title right now and call it “equity.”
Senator Batters: Can I just ask, is this a compilation of the Woo and Tannas motions? Is that what this is? Or is this something different than that?
The Chair: No, it’s not something different.
Mr. Thompson: It’s the last notice of motion given by Senator Tannas, which I think was the incorporation of where things had ended up. The evolution began with Senator Woo’s notice of motion that was subsequently amended, and this was the last proposal put before the Senate that was not adopted before the last election, but this is where things last appeared on the Order Paper.
Senator Batters: I want to point out that not only was that not adopted, but it was actually not really debated very much in the Senate as well — either Senator Woo’s motion or Senator Tannas’ motion that was amended and that we’re now looking at. I wanted to bring that up because I don’t want anyone left with the impression that this was something that was really on the cusp of being adopted or anything like that. There was still much work to be done.
The Chair: To be very proper, maybe when we say “proposed amendment,” it means suggested amendment because it was proposed but it’s for us to propose. It’s the Rules Committee that looks at all the rules and tries to be equitable among parties and groups. So the work that we are asked to do is because we decided to look at the Rules and to make sure that there’s equity among groups and caucuses. It’s to reflect what happened in the Parliament of Canada Act. It’s a process parallel to the Parliament of Canada Act. In the act, groups have been recognized. It is up to you to discuss that, and we’ll take it rule by rule, but for the ease of the committee work, we took the liberty of taking the Senator Tannas proposal, which included the Senator Woo plan, but it’s going to be the work of the Rules Committee from now on. That’s why there’s no name associated with the document.
Senator Batters: At one of the recent committees before any of these potential rule changes, we heard from some people who would tell us which rules were required. Now it seems like we’re taking the proposed motion that was brought by Senator Tannas quite some time before the Parliament of Canada Act current changes were, and I believe perhaps they’re fairly unchanged from what the original ones were. I’m not certain of that. Perhaps a better title would be amendments proposed by Senator Tannas, just so we’re clear on what we’re dealing with here, because this is not something that comes out of nowhere. It’s the act amendments that were proposed by Senator Tannas.
I’m also still wondering if we’re going to be receiving something. Have the clerk and others highly versed in procedures in the Senate looked at these? Is this what they believe should be our best starting point in discussing this issue?
The Chair: These are good questions, senator. Today my intention was to table this document so that we’re aware of what we’re talking about, because there are all sorts of rules that are addressed here. Today I table this document, we go through it so we understand. After that, we will decide how we will proceed. We could have witnesses for some of those rules, if this is agreeable to all of you.
Senator Batters: It would be a very good idea to have witnesses and also to give us some time with this document. We did just receive it right now.
The Chair: Absolutely. It’s just a tabling and an understanding of where we’re going, what are those rules and so forth.
Senator Ringuette: Is it possible that our next meeting be in two weeks because we’re saying, “Well, this is parallel to what should happen in the Parliament of Canada Act and so forth.” And I think we must have assurance that as we deal with the different chapters and clauses of our Rules that we do it right.
Maybe my request is not reasonable, but is it possible to have an additional column here and start with chapters 1 and 2 and so forth? There might be other rules that need to be changed to conform with the act. Madam Chair, is what you’re proposing a two-step thing or one step?
The Chair: I think you’re right. I asked, and the answer I understood is that the rules identified in this document are complete, but maybe there are others. Maybe Adam can help us.
Mr. Thompson: Sure. Senators, I’ll identify with the amendments that were made to the Parliament of Canada Act. There were really two things that were changed. One is that it amended a number of elements. It wasn’t just in the Parliament of Canada Act, it was in a number of pieces of legislation, particularly those concerning the appointment of officers of Parliament, and it acknowledged the existence of other parties and groups and incorporated those into the consultation processes that were necessary.
The other element of that was acknowledging the title that has been used being Government Representative. So that has also been incorporated in those legislative provisions.
Now there’s the question of the Rules. I think it’s in your hands, senators, as far as which elements of our Rules also need to be updated in order to acknowledge the presence of other parties and groups, if you want to mirror the new structure of how they’ve referred to the leader of government or Government Representative, which in legislation is now presented as two equally alternative titles for that same position, as well as the other leadership roles within that office operating for the last six years.
Senator Cordy: Senator Ringuette raised a good point, but I would like to start with this document with the changes that Senator Batters said, proposed by Senator Tannas, so we all understand that this has come from a group leader within the Senate so we don’t get overwhelmed.
Sometimes what happens is we try to change so many rules that none end up getting changed. If we start with this document and work through this document, then we could certainly start with another group of rule sets that, either individually we’ve thought of or that have been raised by other senators in the chamber. Maybe it’s just me. I like to work in incremental parts so that I feel I can tick boxes off. It is the teacher in me; that’s exactly what it is. If we have 200 proposed changes, we will not get through them before the next election in my mind. But if we have a document this size, we could certainly get through it in probably a matter of weeks. That would be my suggestion.
The Chair: If I understand, we will go and title this document with the modifications proposed by Senator Tannas, and we could invite Senator Tannas to present it. That would be a start of the discussion. And we would have other witnesses eventually on some other specific issues. Is that okay for you? Okay.
Do you think it’s a good idea to go through anyway now?
Senator Batters: We just only now received it.
The Chair: So you don’t want us to review it? No, okay. You received it and you will read it. At our next meeting, we will have Senator Tannas go through the document with us.
If that is so, this concludes our meeting for today, unless you want to bring some other items. I will table the motion on the special committee — we will call it the special temporary committee — on human capital this afternoon. Thank you very much. We’ll see you in two weeks.
(The committee adjourned.)