THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 18, 2022
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), to consider possible amendments to the Rules, and to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: We will begin today’s meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. My name is Diane Bellemare, I am a senator from Quebec and chair of this committee.
I will ask the people around the table to introduce themselves and say what region they are from. I’ll start on my right.
Senator Oh: Senator Oh from Ontario.
Senator Woo: Senator Woo from British Columbia.
Senator R. Black: Senator Black from Ontario.
Senator Gold: Senator Gold from Quebec.
Senator Ringuette: Senator Ringuette from New Brunswick.
Senator Busson: Senator Busson from British Columbia.
Senator Deacon: Senator Deacon from Ontario.
Senator Marwah: Senator Marwah from Ontario.
Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Saint-Germain from Quebec.
The Chair: Today on the agenda, we have planned to discuss the issue of equity between groups in the Rules and look at what changes are desirable to address this issue.
As we started this discussion in the Senate with senators Woo and Tannas, who moved a motion, which was amended and reconsidered, at the initial request of some members of the committee, we put that motion on the agenda. That is what we have on the agenda, and we also decided to ask Senator Tannas to be a witness today to talk about it.
So that sums up the substance of our meeting. With that, I’ll turn the floor over to him right away.
[English]
Hon. Scott Tannas, Leader, Canadian Senators Group: I am glad to be with you this morning, and I’m particularly glad Senator Woo is here. He is the person who did all of the initial heavy lifting on the motion that he and I have alternated through parliaments and sessions of parliaments when the Order Paper is cleared and needs to be restarted. We’ve taken turns putting various iterations of this motion of equity forward. It’s his turn now in this Parliament to put it forward, and I hope and expect that will happen shortly. My most recent motion was on the Order Paper and fell off at the last election.
The genesis of the motion was really in response to the thirteenth report of the Senate’s Special Committee on Senate Modernization. The report was entitled Reflecting the New Reality of the Senate. It made recommendations for amendments to the Rules of the Senate to ensure that all recognized parties and parliamentary groups were treated equally.
Senator Woo originally took the initiative to act on that report by introducing a motion proposing certain rule changes in the Senate. When it was my turn, I made a few minor changes to his original motion, and I most recently moved it in the Senate in June 2021.
I am glad to see the Rules Committee has taken up the subject matter of the motion. It’s a reflection of the fact that the reality of the Senate today, namely, the existence of multiple recognized groups, is here to stay. Recent changes to the Parliament of Canada Actwhich were also rooted in recommendations of the Modernization Committee reflect the enduring reality of our multigroup composition. Creating new sessional orders and striking informal agreements amongst leaders is not a tenable way for the Senate to operate in the long run. The reality of our multipolar Senate ought to be reflected in the Rules.
The purpose of the motion and the motivation behind my proposed changes to the Rules was to ensure that all groups are treated equally. There should not be a situation where some groups are more equal than others under the Rules. I’m not proposing to diminish or displace the role of official opposition. The motion I move does not take anything away from the opposition but, rather, accords to all other recognized groups an equal standing. In other words, it levels up all groups.
For example, in my motion, the opposition will continue to have critics for bills who will have an extended 45-minute speaking time in debate. Other recognized groups would have the option to appoint spokespersons on their bills who would also have 45 minutes’ speaking time. Again, the opposition retains what it has, but now other groups are given the same opportunity to scrutinize bills through an expert voice. This is a good change for the depth and quality of our debates. There is a saying that a rising tide lifts all boats.
Within the motion I propose are several elements for you to consider: the length of speaking times for leaders and facilitators; broader consultations with all leaders and facilitators on procedural matters; expanding the ex officio members on committees; and the revised definition of a critic of a bill.
I would be happy to see this committee add to or modify the substance of my motion. It is by no means meant to be an inflexible proposal, and I believe Senator Woo has said the same thing in the times that he has proposed this motion. In your review, it is important to keep what works and change what does not.
Our experience this past February during debate on the Emergencies Act is a good example of one modification that might be in order. You will recall that in that debate, Senator Gold spent six hours responding to questions from senators. That was possible because the government leader had unlimited speaking time under our Rules. In that case, unlimited speaking time was a very important component of parliamentary accountability. Finding the balance between rigorous parliamentary accountability and the equality of all groups so that all senators can participate on an equal footing should guide this committee’s consideration of the motion.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tannas.
Senator Gold: Good morning, colleagues, and good morning to everyone who is watching. Thank you, Senator Tannas, for this, and Senator Woo as well. I’m happy to be here.
I have some questions, really some clarification. With your indulgence, can I put a couple of them on the table and the answers can come when they come?
The first two are kind of linked. They really make the same point. Senator Tannas, as we all know, after the passage of Bill C-19, the Parliament of Canada Act was amended, and it resulted in the recognition of all leaders and facilitators of other recognized parties and parliamentary groups beyond just government and opposition.
In addition, it modernized the titles of those senators occupying leadership positions in the government to reflect the current way in which the government is using it. I’m the government representative, not the government leader. However, I note that your motion, including the original motion — understanding that motion in terms of the timelines, of course — did not address this particularly. In the context of equity between all parties and parliamentary groups and to ensure alignment with the Parliament of Canada Act, would you agree that all of the applicable titles throughout the Rules of the Senate should be updated to include — and, again, I’m quoting from the Parliament of Canada Act — leader or representative of the government, deputy leader or legislative deputy of the government, and government whip or liaison?
Tied to that second point is the following: In the original motion, in your motion, you proposed to eliminate explicit references to those occupying leadership roles in some sections of the Rules and use words like “leader or facilitator” or “all leaders and facilitators.” The recent changes to the Parliament of Canada Act, where applicable, spell out very clearly the leader of the government, the leader of the opposition and, as the modernized act now states, “the Leader or Facilitator of every other recognized party or parliamentary group in the Senate.” Again, for the sake of clarity and to avoid any procedural ambiguity when Rules need to be interpreted and applied, shouldn’t we spell out in clear terms within the Rules all of the leadership titles as they are in the Parliament of Canada Act? That is to say leader or representative of the government, leader of the opposition, and the leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or group. Again, these are drafting questions but it will align it with the Parliament of Canada Act, which I think is now the model or at least the plan du départ for this.
With your indulgence, one last question: This is more substantive, and you alluded to it in your remarks, actually. The motion, as I understand it, proposes to eliminate the unlimited speaking time that’s afforded to the leader of the government and, of course, the leader of the opposition, but all leaders would have a maximum of 45 minutes to speak.
From my perspective, given the unique role that I have to play in the Senate, let me register a concern about that. My ability to have unlimited speaking time has been an important tool that I’ve had to use, and my predecessor as well, in the defence of the government’s policy and legislative objectives, and in some cases to communicate the government’s position to the Senate or to address Senate amendments. It’s rather important, even more important than it was, maybe, because I don’t have a caucus to control. The example you cited is the relevant one. I spoke for the Emergencies Act, but I took questions for in excess of six hours because the Rules allowed me to do that, but also, as you pointed out, because I have a role to be held to account. I was not going to refuse to answer questions, even though I had the right to in the Rules, until the debate was exhausted.
My suggestion is, in the interest of equity, why not simply consider extending the unlimited speaking time to all leaders and facilitators? No one wants to stand up and talk or listen to people talking forever. I understand that. I have a concern based on my role, but I’m looking for equity. I would suggest either everybody gets what I think the government representative needs in this modern Senate occasionally — I don’t think I’ve ever abused it — or think about an equitable compromise. I think you were leaning in that direction or at least you were suggesting that. Again, we’re open to that if we could find an equitable compromise that could exist and that factors in the government’s unique role in both being held to account and communicating government objectives when important.
I have other questions, but I think I’ve taken up enough time. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: If there are no further questions, I would point out that there is a question about the concept of equity; equity is not synonymous with equality. We were all aware of that issue, Senator Gold, so we are going to try to be very equitable in our handling of this motion. Senator Batters had also raised her hand — yes, my apologies.
[English]
Senator Tannas: In terms of nomenclature around titles, given where we are, we’ve had one government that has made this move. The next government may choose not to. As long as there is flexibility in the nomenclature to go backwards or forwards, or to come up with something new that we can recognize as a leader, a deputy leader or a whip slash whatever the other nomenclature is, I think that’s important. I think we have to have that recognition that the Senate has changed. It’s going to be different than it was for the first 150 years for many years to come, and the Rules should have some flexibility around nomenclature.
With respect to speaking times, I agree. I think that, as Senator Bellemare said, there is equity and there is equality. Certainly, with the Emergencies Act debate, your six-hour marathon participation in that, which was incredibly valuable, has to be recognized. It would make sense to me that it be preserved for the government leader and the opposition leader the way it is now. As a leader of a group, my own opinion is that I don’t see a spot where the leader of a group that isn’t in the legislative push and pull would need unlimited speaking time. I think there’s some work to be done on the next iteration. I look forward to seeing what Senator Woo comes up with on this particular subject.
Senator Batters: Thank you, Senator Tannas. I have a few things.
First of all, yes, taking away the ability of the government and the opposition leaders to have unlimited time — I don’t think that’s what we want to do here. That would limit both the government and the opposition leader to only 45 minutes instead of unlimited, which is a drastic reduction. We might see the sort of thing where someone really doesn’t want to answer any questions, so they simply have a very long speech and take away the ability of all senators to then ask the government major questions that could not really otherwise be asked in that sort of forum. I think that would be a really unfortunate situation. The longer time for the government and opposition is really tied to both of their unique roles in the Senate. The official opposition, of course, also has an important and unique role. It’s our sworn duty to hold the government to account. Other senators may do that as well, but that’s the actual role of the official opposition. But the government has information. The leader of the government and critics for the government have information from the government that can only really be gleaned by asking them questions, and to limit their speaking time on government bills and these types of things to a 45-minute time span, I don’t think would be a good objective in any way.
Also, having people listed as spokespeople for a bill would, I guess, kind of be like a critic, whereas generally right now the critics are the official opposition. That is a 45-minute time slot for potentially a speech and questions, and also the ability to have a bit of debate when we’re actually dealing with these different bills. To have a number of people from different groups listed as spokespeople absolutely dilutes the opposition. Maybe you don’t want to do that, but it would have the effect of doing that. What would be the difference between the critic who gets 45 minutes and the spokesperson who gets 45 minutes? That also takes away that important role.
I also see under your suggested amendments that there is no limit to the number of parliamentary groups that would be considered with this, so we could potentially have as many as 11 parliamentary groups, given the number of senators in the Senate, and the leaders of each of those could potentially have a 45-minute time frame and the spokespeople for each of those groups could have a 45-minute time frame. Then if we went to something like Senator Gold was talking about, unlimited time — my goodness.
The general principle, I think, Senator Tannas, which is an important principle of the Senate, is the equality of senators individually, not equality of groups. I think that is where my primary opposition to what you’re trying to do here would be anchored to. I would like to hear your response on that.
Senator Tannas: On the speaking times, and particularly unlimited speaking times, I’m in my tenth year here and I don’t remember an instance where 45 minutes wasn’t going to get the job done until recently. You have to be here a long time to see all of the eventualities come into play.
I think you’re right. I think we have to think it through and make sure that we preserve what should be preserved and change what should be changed. That is, as you say, for all senators to decide. They can decide on change and then they can decide on changing it back if they want at some point in the future. The Senate has always been the master of its own domain.
Here is an example with the issue of spokespeople. In the new Senate of the last seven years, we’ve seen a lot of subject matter experts show up here. We used to have a lot of subject matter experts on the matter of politics. Now we have a lot of subject matter experts on a lot of different and interesting areas. They might not be a trusted friend of the government, and they might not be a member of the opposition caucus. To be able to have a spokesperson that could weigh in on a bill, potentially in opposition, or in favour, or putting some ideas down for people to be aided by the way in which they’re considering the bill I think is important. It would be a waste of senators’ experience if we didn’t do something like that. It’s not always going to be like that, but there will be many times where the subject matter expert is not the critic or the sponsor.
If we’re doing our jobs right in leading our groups, we should be putting our most expert person on that particular file and having them do the work. It would give a spokesperson the customary opportunity to have a briefing from the department, the same way a critic does. It would provide them with 45 minutes. I think that’s a small price to pay for making sure that all of the expert people or people with an interest, passion or expertise can have the same opportunity to have people listen to them regardless of what group they belong to.
Senator Batters: First of all, I would quibble with the fact that you said previously we mainly had people who were subject matter experts in politics before you came to the Senate. Your particular expertise was not politics before you got here. You certainly developed some significant qualifications since you arrived here. It is the same with me. So many people from backgrounds of science and all kinds of backgrounds — of course, I wouldn’t say that we’ve transformed into something where we all of a sudden have subject matter experts now where we didn’t before.
Also, I think there are many different ways those senators can provide their considerable expertise, and that would be through their speeches, through committee questioning and participating on those committees. What do you say to that?
Senator Tannas: I think we have a difference of opinion in terms of this particular idea, and I’m willing to go with whatever the senators decide they want to do.
[Translation]
The Chair: I hope we will have an opportunity to have a second round of discussions on these remarks. Eventually, we will proceed differently than we did overall. These are introductory remarks.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to our witness for being here this morning.
I’m going to stick in this area of section 6 and on the spokesperson and try not to be duplicating what my colleagues Senator Batters and Senator Gold have brought up. Through part of the answer, you discussed what you envisioned the role of a spokesperson to perhaps be. You at least touched on that a little bit. What I want to do is take us a little bit further in the assumption that the spokesperson has increased roles.
At the same time, we listen in the Senate to our colleagues, and our debates have become a series of pre-written speeches on ways to vote and to take a vote. Granting extra time to a few more senators in the role of a spokesperson would perhaps only add to this perception or impression. I’m wondering if it would improve the quality of our debates for senators with more to say on a particular topic to be encouraged to get creative during their lines of questioning during a debate and make it a little more real. Maybe that’s where I’m going with this. Perhaps we could modify or change a rule so that if there are questions, that senator perhaps receives an extra five minutes automatically rather than requiring leave. I’m just wondering what your thoughts are on that. I certainly understand the intent of spokespeople, but I’m also trying to look at how we make this more authentic.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
First of all, some of you probably know that just because you have 15 minutes or 45 minutes doesn’t mean you should use it. I’ve tried to keep my thoughts that way. Sometimes you do run out because there are questions. That’s a good thing. On this particular topic of time, I lean towards a “be bright, be quick, be gone” management of it. I wouldn’t envision that we would see a bunch of spokespeople lining up to reel out 45-minute speeches all the time unless they really have some value to add, I would hope. We see it with critics on particularly private members’ bills that aren’t contentious. We see very good, quick speeches.
Trying to find a way to bring equity to this was the proposal. We can hear and you can provide recommendations to alternatives. I’m fine with it. The one step I’ve made from the experience of being here now is that the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition in a legislative or in a government versus opposition situation do need the unlimited speaking time. That was made clear to me. But the rest of us, I think, can get by with 45 minutes.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: We are currently in the process of implementing Senate reform, which is the responsibility of the Senate. The government has proposed amendments to the Parliament Act. It is now up to us to implement them. This motion, in my view, fits very well into that context.
My main comment will also be on the spokesperson issue. However, before that, I want to support Senator Gold’s comments in general. It is important for us to be able, from an operational point of view, to implement the amendments that we will make to the Rules. I am concerned about that aspect, as well.
On the other hand, this motion from senators Woo and Tannas respects the role of the government and the role of the opposition, but recognizes that there are now groups that are not affiliated with a political caucus. In that context, I think it is important that we have what I call a “legislative critic,” but I understand wanting to reserve the word “critic” for the official opposition.
Also, I feel that “spokesperson” is the wrong word. You will tell me that it is up to me to find a solution. The term “spokesperson” means a person who speaks on behalf of a group. In the group that I represent, this is not possible. In your group, as I understand it, it’s the same thing, and the same is true for the Progressives in the Senate. So we have to find a solution. We’ll talk about the potential title or the analyst later.
However, I would like to point out that, as an independent senator who has never been affiliated with a political party either in Quebec or at the federal level, I like to have an expert’s opinion in addition to the opinion of the government that prepared a bill and the opinion of the opposition that criticizes the bill, in both cases, the objective of which is still tied to a party line.
In my view, it is extremely important that, in the reform, that role be recognized and that this person, above the partisan fray, be able to have time in the House that allows us to get a fair and unbiased view of the situation. So I really insist on this amendment.
Senator Gold: Thank you all for the questions. I would like to follow up on what Senator Saint-Germain said.
[English]
On spokespeople, I think it’s appropriate to have voices other than government and critics. I support the idea for exactly the same reasons that Senator Saint-Germain identified. I speak from personal experience, having been an independent senator in the ISG. I want to suggest alternate phrasing, and may I suggest “designated senator” or something along those lines. Because “spokesperson” really creates the impression, which is not going to be true, that the senator is speaking on behalf of the group. That’s not the way groups organize themselves. “Designated” is less ambiguous. Anyway, I’m not wedded to that. I like the concept, but let’s get the term right.
If I may have one last question, which is also a substantive one — and I would encourage the committee to think about this. In the motion — and I believe it was in Senator Woo’s as well — there is talk of the ex officio status. I think you mentioned that briefly in your concluding remarks. I would like to hear you explain a little bit more fully what the purpose is of having ex officio members of every recognized party or group, which carries with it the right to vote in a committee.
I’ll ask it in the form of a question. Is it actually fair to the committee process and to the Senate to inflate the size of the committee significantly — and perhaps unpredictably — at the clause-by-clause stage, for example, when you may very well have a lot of leaders, which logically is possible, or even the current number, when those senators weren’t necessarily present at all during the debate, especially since the committees have been — and I think should be — populated proportionately to the groups? It just skews the balance and the complexion of it. It’s a point to ponder, and I just leave it on the table for you to think about it. Thank you.
Senator Tannas: It is an area where Senator Woo’s proposals and mine are different. Senator Woo had ex officio membership for all leaders, in which nobody could vote. The issue is — and this is my issue — that takes something away from the opposition. That’s a tool that they have. In reality, if the government and the opposition both have a vote, they cancel each other out every single time, so it’s pointless. You are right. The more groups we get, the more the committee loses control of all the work it has done and runs the risk of multiple leaders showing up at the last minute to skew the vote on all the work it has done. I think in this case, it makes sense for all the leaders to be ex officio members with no voting privileges whatsoever. Having thought it through, I don’t see it as a diminishment of the opposition because they get cancelled out by the government every time, and vice versa.
One of the small benefits of having put this motion forward to see it die so many times is that we get to do some editing and thinking through — and situations keep happening. I don’t know what you think, Senator Gold, but what’s the point of you having a vote if you know the leader of the opposition is going to cancel it out every single time? Any time you come and want to impose your will specifically in a committee, you can be assured that the opposition leader will be there imposing his or her will in the opposite direction. I don’t know. I’ll put that back on the table for you to maybe mull over as the new proposal comes forward.
Senator Gold: I will make some inquires to myself and be happy to —
Senator Tannas: Report back.
Senator Gold: — respond in a timely fashion.
Senator Batters: Senator Gold might get a quicker answer that way, if he asks himself in the mirror.
Senator Tannas, just a few things: There has been some talk about expert opinions coming from senators. Wouldn’t you say that expert opinions on different bills and subject matters should primarily come from expert opinion at committee? We don’t have senators going to committee to testify. They are there to scrutinize, ask questions and provide their own knowledge base to inform that, but we’re not a think tank. We are a parliamentary institution. We debate and —
Senator Tannas: It’s a very good point. Let me be clear. Just practically speaking, a group my size — small — wouldn’t have a designated person on every single bill. We’d use it when we had somebody we thought could add — really add — something to the debate and needed access to the government for briefing and extra time to speak — and not just time to speak but time to answer questions from other senators on the record.
I can see that being useful, a lot. However, as a leader, I certainly wouldn’t be casting around with every single bill for a spokesperson or an expert. I think it would be something that could be used — tradition? Time would play this out or not, but I think we would be ones that would look to build a tradition where a designated person had something to add. The real important roles still remain. Somebody has to sell us on what the merits of the bill are, and somebody has to be poking holes in it. The rest of us can have a chance to weigh in with our own opinions, and I think affording — not all the time but in certain circumstances — a member of another group that has something to say — really something to say, not pro forma something to say — could be beneficial.
Senator Batters: That would be good if that’s how the groups decided to go about things, but there is no requirement if we passed your amendments as is, right? I mean, every group would potentially have that possibility. There is no limit. Just going by some of the comments you are making, are you basically agreeing that government and opposition should have a longer time — they should retain their unlimited time — and the other groups should have a 45-minute limit?
Senator Tannas: I am.
Senator Batters: Can I ask one more thing? This is about the part about time allocation: 7-3(1). I just wanted to point out to you that on this particular issue, time allocation is limited to two and a half hours. If all leaders spoke, there would be no time for non-affiliated senators, independent senators or anyone else. Only leaders, basically, would have that time. Would you acknowledge that this could be something we could —
Senator Tannas: Time allocation needs fixing anyway. I don’t profess to know exactly what, but it has certainly been raised in discussions I’ve heard that the time allocation wording is problematic today, so it needs to be fixed in that instance. I agree that you would probably have to increase the debate time around time allocation, as well as around the other components of time allocation, to make sure it wasn’t just a leaders’ speaking festival.
[Translation]
The Chair: We can have a debate, a more specific, more comprehensive conversation, on these topics when we proceed rule by rule. I now give the floor to Senator Woo.
[English]
Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Tannas.
When this motion in its first iteration was tabled, the ostensible opposition to the motion was that the Parliament of Canada Act had not been changed and therefore there was no authority for the Senate to change the Rules in the absence of the statute conferring equality of status to groups other than the government position. Of course, that is now behind us, and we have in the Parliament of Canada Act substantive equality between what’s deemed the opposition and other recognized parliamentary groups. There is no distinction apart from nomenclature.
The decision to keep nomenclature was a practical one, for the reason you cited, so that a future government choosing to go back to a partisan Senate would allow for a group to retain the term “opposition.” But the imposition of equality has already been entrenched into the Parliament of Canada Act. That, to me, provides not just the licence — we always had it — but it provides further reason for us to change our Rules to make it consistent with the statute. In fact, we now have an obligation to do it. We cannot not do it.
The question, then, is if we have this real substantive equality between what is the term “opposition” and other recognized parliamentary groups, why should there be a distinction in the privileges accorded to the opposition and those accorded to recognized parliamentary groups? The question boils down to this: What is it that the CSG does, in its critique of a government bill, that is really that different from what the opposition does, except the fact that perhaps you keep an open mind about whether to vote against it? If there is either no difference or if, in fact, what you do is adding value to the work of the Senate, why would we not accord your spokesperson or designated senator the same privileges as the critic for that bill?
Senator Tannas: I think they should have the same privileges: 45 minutes speaking and an opportunity to have the same kind of briefing that, while it isn’t in the Rules anywhere, is customary from the government. It’s not a lot, but it gives every group the opportunity, pro or con — or neither — to put things on the record in a way that’s been considered. For me, this has the potential, if done properly — I agree with Senator Batters. If it’s just pro forma, all it does is take up more time. But if we use it appropriately, it will add value to the debate.
In my mind, the essential thing we need is somebody who gets up in the morning with a view to get a bill through the chamber and to sell it on its merits and downplay its foibles. Equally, there needs to be somebody who gets up every morning with a view that they are going to point out the problems in the bill and potentially seek that it be changed, defeated or delayed. That’s the context. That’s politics. We’re a political institution at the end of the day. I don’t see that there should be any tension between the two things we’re talking about here. Government and opposition have a traditional and important role to play.
This new situation that has developed over the last seven years means that there are senators who approach the job in a different way and who potentially have valuable things to say. If we can bring those people to the fore in the right moments, that has to be good. I would hope that with 45 minutes, with whatever expertise that person is bringing — whether it’s research or actual experience — we’ll have lots of time for questions.
Senator Woo: I agree with the need for efficient use of time and so on, but I want to press you on the way you define the two solitudes, if you will. I understand the role of the government. Their job is to get legislation through. You talked about the role of the opposition. I hope you used the term broadly rather than specifically to a designated group, but you say the role of the opposition — and I see it as the rest of the Senate — is to poke holes where there are holes and to criticize problems in the bill. Does your group not do that?
Senator Tannas: Sure, we do.
Senator Woo: Why, then, is there a distinction between what you do when approaching a government bill and what the so-called opposition does when it approaches that same bill?
Senator Tannas: There are others in the room who can defend the opposition better than I, but the opposition has a responsibility that goes beyond poking holes. There is a political element in badly divided bills where half the public is on one side and half the public is on another. We have a meeting going on in the next room over that right now. We have an interesting bill coming to us here. Delay is an important thing. A lot of us in the Senate don’t like delay, but it is an important tool for opposition to allow public sentiment to crystallize and for people to see what is really going on. All of those things go into the thinking in opposition.
When we, as independent senators, are providing our views, and we’re providing our views in the purest way possible; it’s our experience, our opinion, et cetera. So there is a different job in critic and salesperson. We know that.
And for the government, it’s the same thing: “No amendments, please. Yes, there are mistakes. Please ignore those. We’ll fix them later. Please pass my bill.” It’s two sides of the same coin.
Senator Woo: And it’s your view that the traditional role of the opposition, with all of the tools you describe — the delay, the appeal to the populace, the appeal to the electoral calculations, the congruence with the caucus in the House of Commons — all of that should be preserved in the new Senate. That’s basically what you are arguing?
Senator Tannas: It’s an interesting balance. I think if we went to the point where there was nobody, we’d have a hockey game, a shinny game, where there are no teams and everybody is just skating around. There has to be that tension, and I think we have achieved it.
Senator Woo: That’s the crux of the issue. You have put your finger on it.
[Translation]
The Chair: Yes, absolutely, that is indeed a central point of this discussion, but I don’t think we’re going to resolve it today. There are different ways to change the thinking.
On the one hand, in the context of this beginning of the study, we can do the rule-by-rule analysis, but on the other hand, we can also possibly invite witnesses from other parliaments and other jurisdictions who can enlighten us.
[English]
Senator Saint-Germain: I’d like to make two points with regard to what Senator Tannas said.
He described the Senate of Canada as a political institution, and he is right. It’s not a partisan institution, though. There is confusion. We have a government representative who represents the government’s views and promotes government bills, and we have the opposition caucus who represents and promotes the views of the elected opposition. That’s okay. But for the time being, we still have three non-partisan caucuses. So, yes, it’s a political institution, but it’s not only a partisan institution, and there is no value added to have a partisan Senate that would simply mimic the other place. This is my first point.
My second point is with regard to receiving witnesses. I do very humbly believe that we are the best witnesses that the Senate can find, and I don’t see why, once again, we would consult with other parliaments. We have all the documentation. We received a very good briefing note and analysis from the Library of Parliament. Personally, I do not believe that it is relevant or timely to have other witnesses on this issue.
Senator Tannas: I would agree with your last comments, Senator Saint-Germain. When this motion came forward, there was a good argument that it was ahead of its time. Now we’re behind the times. Where we are demands that we make changes that recognize where we are today — not where we want to be in the future but where we are today. Our Rules don’t work; they are broken in this instance.
Senator Cordy: Thank you, Senator Tannas, for being here. It’s one thing to write it all down on paper. It’s another thing to be the witness before the committee and answer questions, especially from your colleagues. Thank you also to Senator Woo.
Senator Tannas, you were correct when you brought forward these motions. I don’t know how long ago it was. It seems like a long time ago. It was challenging, because it was certainly a very different Senate than today, and you were brave to put your foot in the cold water and get it started, and here we are today.
I agree with Senator Saint-Germain. I don’t think that we need witnesses. I think we are the best experts. Senator Tannas made reference to it. Those of us who have been around for quite a while certainly understand the vast difference between the Senate of 10 or 15 years and the Senate we have today. We all recognize, certainly as three leaders here of independent groups, that you don’t tell your colleagues how they should vote or you would not be leader for very long.
We can certainly do it more efficiently and faster. We have had this before us for a long time. The Parliament of Canada Act has passed, so this certainly has to be updated in parts to recognize what we have already passed. It was part of the budget bill, but the former Parliament of Canada Act. I think that we can all move along fairly quickly and get this done in a very timely way, because we are all familiar with the kinds of things that are in this particular document and hearing the testimony today. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for those comments. I’m happy to hear that, because it could accelerate our debate.
Senator Ringuette: I appreciate your perspective, the 99% of it that I share.
I find that 45 minutes is an enormous amount of time. As you said, say what you have to say. You don’t have to say it ten times and take 45 minutes. Maybe there is some work we could do there.
I don’t believe that we need witnesses. We are witnesses.
Earlier, you said that the next iteration of this motion is upon Senator Woo’s shoulders, so I will ask a question of Senator Woo. Senator Woo, where are you in this next iteration? What is your preferred way to get on with the work that we have to do?
Senator Woo: Thank you, senator. It may be notionally on my shoulders, but it’s not my baby by any means. It belongs to all of us. We know that.
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Senator Woo: Today’s conversation helps clarify some of the issues and will provide a path forward for resolving some small things that are left to be resolved.
If I may, chair, I would like to suggest two paths for the next steps. In the belief that most of us or all of us want to get this done fairly quickly, this committee could either simply stop the study and punt it back to the chamber, where a group of us — it may be me, but I will have to work with many others from across the chamber — could come up with a fresh motion that tries to find consensus on the issues that we haven’t quite agreed on, have it debated in the chamber and bring it to a vote. That’s one pathway, and that is the pathway that returns to the approach we have tried twice already but did not succeed in completing.
The other pathway is for the committee to quickly complete its study and to, in fact, make the recommendation to the Senate that you have come to an agreement on what should be done. I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Cordy and Senator Saint-Germain that it should not involve a lengthy study with witnesses. In my view, one more meeting is all it would take.
I’m a visitor at this committee, so I’m not going to put forward a strong view. It’s in your hands. If you choose to stop the study, I will gladly take up the responsibility of working with the other groups to come up with a fresh motion and have it debated in the chamber.
The Chair: If I may say something about that, this group is well balanced and well organized to do the job of going through article by article and seeing if there are corrections to be made and then putting forward a report that we can debate in the Senate, where at least the most evident things will have been accomplished, and then for the remainder of the political decisions that may need to be made, it will be debated in the Senate. I think that is a fair proposition, and everyone here could do the job.
Senator Batters: I thought we were going to conclude with Senator Tannas first and then get into this type of discussion, and all of a sudden we have senators talking about how we don’t need witnesses or even need to proceed with this committee study, which, frankly, we started less than an hour ago with Senator Tannas’s discussion here today.
I think that our committee should spend some time. Senator Tannas’s motion had proposed that government and opposition leaders receive 45 minutes for their speeches, just like all other leaders, and in his time here today, he has already gone from that to saying, “No. Actually, those two should have unlimited time.” Plus, we have already pointed out things on time allocation and other issues that need to be changed. I am hearing, “No, we’re all done here; we’re good. We don’t need witnesses or to look at this further. Let’s just put it back into the chamber.” Frankly, if debating it in the chamber was what was desired, that’s where it should have been. It could have been brought back into the chamber rather than come to this committee, but it’s at this committee, so I think we need to do our job at this committee. Personally, I think we can benefit from hearing from some other witnesses to get into the nitty-gritty of these particular rules and how they change things and whether some of them are good ideas or some of them need to be changed. That’s the best way that we should handle it.
Senator Gold: I think this is the right place to do the work. I’ll leave it to the committee to decide how to structure the work, but there are, undoubtedly, other issues that people might want to raise. There is also the technical question of drafting and all of that, where we want to take advantage of the expertise around the table.
From my point of view, both as the government representative in the Senate but also as a senator who believes in the modernization of the Senate, as long as there is proper input into this process by all interested parties, then I think that’s the right way to go. I don’t think it has to drag on forever, and I don’t have a firm view as to whether we have witnesses or not. This is the right place to do it, I think, because we’ll have the expertise at the table, and all groups are represented and can provide their input. I think this is the good, healthy beginning of a process, so congratulations.
Senator Busson: Being third, you always run the risk of not having anything unique to say, but I have to say that when we’re engaged in discussion around the ex officio participation of other members in committee discussions generally, it struck me how in one breath we always talk about the incredible value added and the amazing work done by committee, and yet we are discussing whether people might be able to jump in at the last minute and become involved in a vote. It brings to my mind how important it is to recognize the value of committee work and this committee’s work. I’m just supporting your proposal and the words of others who are talking about getting to this, getting through this and making the important changes that we need to.
I’m not a newbie on the block, but I’ve only been here for four years. Others have been here a lot longer. This has been a discussion, certainly, from the time I arrived. I think it is up to us, with great input, and I think Senator Tannas’s comments and his reflections have really made me revisit a couple of things that I’ve been thinking. I think healthy discussion and debate in this group will bring things forward much more effectively than going the first route that Senator Woo suggested. I’d like to see our committee get into this.
Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: This is my first day on the committee. It’s Senator Marwah’s first day. I’m just a little shocked that we are thinking about moving another committee already. I’d like to reiterate that I think the committee should take the time to roll its sleeves up and look at this at the committee level.
Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Tannas, thank you very much for this appearance and for this testimony. It was excellent, and I think you raised questions that are really important and that we’ll have to dig into. We see the limit between rational discussion and political issues also, so we’ll try to balance those two arenas of thought and bring forward a good project to the Senate. We will have a debate here. Thank you very much for your participation.
[Translation]
Our meeting is still public. I would prefer that we continue our discussion and conclusion in public. We shouldn’t take too much time.
[English]
I don’t want to be too long for the conclusion of this first session, but this is the way I will do it: I’ll try to summarize what I understand from the exchanges we had, and if you’re okay, then we’ll have a steering committee meeting, hopefully, and we’ll be able to provide you with a quick agenda for this committee to tackle this issue.
If I correctly understand those I heard, the committee is a good set-up to look at the Rules of the Senate on the issue of equity among groups. I think it’s well balanced, and the leaders can come if they want. We can have a debate that is more fluid, and I think we can understand more of the pros and cons in this arena than in the Senate as a whole, where it will take a longer time, I am sure. It could, anyhow.
If we proceed here, we can arrive with a project. It may not be perfect. It may not be completed. It may bring forward issues where we have a strong consensus, and on some rules we may not have consensus, but it will be the project that the committee will arrive at. We will do rational thinking and identify what appears to us to be common sense changes that are efficient in a Senate that is more independent and with more groups. For the issues where we have differences of thought and very strong differences in views about political issues, then we’ll debate that in the Senate.
Looking at what I heard today with how we understand what Senator Tannas proposed, we see that there are common sense issues. Let’s get to that. For next week, we could start rule by rule, point by point, with the document you received. We can see where we have a consensus, a strong one, and where we will bring that forward into the Senate.
Senator Cordy: I wonder if staff could look at it and put an asterisk beside ones that have to be changed because of changes to what we’ll still call the Parliament of Canada Act so we would be aware of the changes. We don’t really have to discuss if it’s in the Parliament of Canada Act or the BIA. They would be automatically changed.
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee, Senate of Canada: Senator, on that point, certainly what I can do is take Senator Tannas’s motion as a starting point. It’s not comprehensive, and Senator Gold himself alluded to the other element of the Parliament of Canada Act, and that’s surrounding some of those titles. I would be happy to prepare a list of the rules that are touched on by those. I would not necessarily describe those changes as automatic, but the act does give options. Senator Tannas’s rules, I think, deal with the equity side of things, and I have done a preliminary analysis of the rules, and I think it’s caught all of those elements within our Rules.
The other half of that equation is the titles. I can prepare a separate list of those. It is extensive, because those titles appear throughout the Rules of the Senate. I’m not sure I’ll be able to prepare a table like this in time for next week, but, certainly, I can provide a list of, I think, every mention of “leader of the government,” “deputy leader,” things of that nature that would require some attention.
Senator Cordy: That would be great. Thank you very much.
Senator Woo: Also, my version and Senator Tannas’s version are very similar, but there is the one important difference that bears highlighting. It was mentioned already, and it is the issue of ex officio participation. In my version, everyone has ex officio participation, all of the leaders, in fact, but nobody has a vote. I think that’s an important decision point that this committee should discuss.
The Chair: Factually, if I may say, every senator has the right to attend any committee.
If there are no other comments, I declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)