THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 25, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), to consider possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. My name is Diane Bellemare, I am a senator from Quebec, and I chair the Senate Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
Before we begin, I would like to go around the table starting on the left, and ask you to identify yourselves and the province you represent.
Senator Gold: Good morning. I’m Marc Gold, government representative, senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Wells: Good morning. I’m Senator David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator M. Deacon: Good morning. Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Greene: Senator Stephen Greene, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson from British Columbia.
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie, Quebec.
The Chair: Today we are addressing the broad theme of equity among groups of senators in the Senate. We will divide our meeting into two parts. In the first part, we will, if possible, agree on wording that would harmonize our Rules with the Act of Parliament.
Before I turn the floor over to the clerk, you have already received or you will receive a small document that he will present to you, which shows the wording that is closest to the wording used in the Act of Parliament.
Once we have discussed this first point, we will deal with the points of the Woo-Tannas motion in the proposed version; you have the documents. We will get to them shortly. There are two columns: the current wording and the amended wording. We will discuss how to word the points.
To simplify the process, we will debate the different points in English, with the English version. However, after the debate and when we have reached an agreement, we will make sure that the French version respects what we have agreed upon.
With that, we will start immediately and I will hand over to Mr. Thompson.
[English]
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: Senators, as the chair noted, you should have received from me on Friday, as I promised last week, a listing of all of the provisions of the Rules that touch on the titles that were recognized in the amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act. Those include, highlighted in yellow, the ones that were touched on by Senator Tannas’s proposals.
The chair also alluded to a small document — I will just ask the page if I could have some assistance in distributing these to the senators — which is a model that could be used to address those elements that only are touched on by the titles, which would be to replace references to “Leader of the Government” with “leader or representative of the government,” to replace “Deputy Leader of the Government” with “deputy leader or legislative deputy of the government,” and to replace “Government Whip” with “Government Whip or liaison.” There is an example of how that could be integrated into one of the rules there.
If that is satisfactory, senators, I could begin to draft those provisions to prepare for our eventual report and integrate those into our work. We may also wish to consider that item in the context of some of the proposals from Senator Tannas if you wish.
Senator Gold: Mr. Thompson, thank you. Thank you to everyone for the work that has gone into this and the work you did in preparation for this meeting.
I support that proposal. I asked the question of Senator Tannas in our last meeting, and I hope we all agree that we need to make sure there is alignment between the language in the Parliament of Canada Act, now that it is in force, and the Rules of the Senate. As Mr. Thompson alluded to, the Rules are replete with terminology that is no longer congruent with the Parliament of Canada Act, only some of which are in Senator Tannas’s motion.
I would like to support the proposal — I’m not trying to put words into your mouth, Mr. Thompson — that the clerk add the applicable titles throughout the Rules of the Senate, as identified in the document that was circulated, to include “leader or representative of the government,” “deputy leader or legislative deputy of the government,” “Government Whip or liaison,” including, where appropriate, in Appendix I: Terminology, because that’s also part of the Rules, and that this be part of the report that the committee makes to the Senate. I hope, if you all agree, that would make this part of our work rather simple, because it is the same cut-and-paste throughout all the rules that were identified. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Will the comparative table we have be appended to our report?
Mr. Thompson: No, senator. The report will contain the proposed changes.
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like to comment on the language aspect. In the English version, it says:
[English]
Recent amendments to the PCA acknowledge alternative titles for the positions of Leader of the Government . . .
[Translation]
In French, it says “reconnaît un second titre”. It’s a shift in meaning; it should say “titre alternatif”; that’s the term in French.
Mr. Thompson: We have taken good note of that.
The Chair: If there are no comments, does everyone agree to proceed in this way, and from now on, in the document, all titles will be changed to correspond to the Act of Parliament?
So thank you, it is noted.
[English]
Senator Batters: I just want to make a comment about that. It was only in the last few years that these particular titles were used in the vocabulary of Parliament. The term “liaison” wasn’t something that is immediately distinguishable as being akin to a whip. Is that a term that the Parliament of Canada Act changes has in it? Frankly, that is not something I would associate with the term. A whip is a very well-understood term. One thing I have certainly asked many times, but I never got an answer when the Parliament of Canada Act changes came before the Senate, was whether there were definitions for any of these particular terms. Because many of these terms were then afforded significant taxpayers’ money as a result of those particular positions being used by senators. So again, I wonder, have there been definitions, or is it just the fact the Parliament of Canada Act has those phrases used in the same subsections as the other one? I don’t think that is generally a good way to legislate — to not even have a definition. Perhaps there should be a definition in our Rules that equates the two things, since with the Parliament of Canada Act, the Government of Canada did not do so.
[Translation]
The Chair: I’ll pass the floor to Mr. Thompson, but in the act, we have the term “liaison.”
[English]
Senator Gold: Thank you for raising that, Senator Batters. I believe that when we get through it, we will arrive at a section. There, I’m going to have some language to propose by way of a definition for “liaison,” and we can discuss it.
Senator Batters: I believe that each of those things should be defined, since the government didn’t do it in the Parliament of Canada Act.
Mr. Thompson: Senator, I would just note that in the document you received, those definitions of the current titles are included. I would modify those as we have agreed to directly link the alternative titles with those descriptions. If further amendments to those definitions are required in order to clarify their roles and responsibilities, I can certainly look at preparing additional language for you in that regard.
[Translation]
The Chair: Allow me to point out that in the Rules of the Senate, on page 135, we have the definitions of “Opposition Whip” and “Government Whip.” So we can make the changes with the new terminology, “Government Whip” or “Liaison Officer.”
[English]
It is page 135 in French. In English, it’s —
Senator Batters: Is this in the page provided by the clerk?
Mr. Thompson: Senator, the definition of “Government Whip” is at the bottom of page 9 and top of page 10 of the side-by-side table that I distributed to you on Friday. That is the element I was referring to that we could modify by adding the additional title to link that with the responsibilities of that office.
Senator Batters: Then will you be adding similar definitions to the other ones?
The Chair: When the time comes, yes.
Senator Batters: Isn’t now the time?
Senator Gold: Senator Batters, I defer to the chair. I’m not sure how the chair wants to proceed once we get to it, but when we get to that section, I will have language to propose that we can then discuss. We have given some thought to at least how we see the definition of the role of liaison and will offer it for your consideration.
The Chair: When we started the meeting, we decided to proceed in two periods. First, we were to talk about the title to align those things with the Parliament of Canada Act. We have done this. Next, we will talk about the motion and go point by point.
If that is okay, then we’ll take that as an agreement that we are aligned with those titles.
Mr. Thompson: Just before we move away from the document I distributed on Friday, I wanted to bring two additional definitions to your attention. They are in Appendix I of the Rules. One appears at the bottom of page 8 of that document. That’s “Public bill.” The other appears at the bottom of page 10 carrying on to page 11, which is “Sponsor of a bill.” Neither of those definitions make reference to those titles. However, they do make reference to elements that have changed in our practice in recent years, specifically under the definition of “Public bill,” which identifies:
A public bill introduced in the Senate may be a Government bill (introduced by a Cabinet Minister or in a Minister’s name) . . . .
That has not been the case in some years in the Senate, as the government leader, now the Government Representative, is no longer a member of the cabinet.
With the definition of “Sponsor of a bill” saying:
The lead Senator speaking for a bill. In the case of a Government Bill, the sponsor will typically be a government member . . . .
Again, that has not been the case in recent years.
With your permission, I would like to go back and prepare some proposed language for you to consider that may be more reflective of more recent practice — not to completely change it and undo what has been done in the past but just to acknowledge the recent practice in the last few years.
Senator Batters: Particularly about the sponsor, it is still on behalf of the government. I don’t want to have any language that takes away from that. Whoever the sponsor of a government bill is, I don’t want to take anything away from the fact that it is on behalf of the government. The fact that the current government has chosen to have a very small government caucus and to generally have senators who are not part of that specific caucus introduce the bill — that’s their choice. But it is on behalf of the government, and I don’t want anything to take away from the fact that this is the procedure.
As well with the “minister” part of it, we want to be very careful with that language because, frankly, the government leader should be a member of the cabinet. The government leader still is a member of a cabinet committee and attends those meetings and is sworn into Privy Council. We need to be very careful so that we don’t, by putting these types of changes into our Rules, really solidify practices that may be changed back and, in the case of the government leader being part of the cabinet, should be changed back.
The Chair: We will now go to the motion. At the end of it, we’ll do the appendix, the definitions and things like that. We will go through the document that you have in English and in French, but we’ll start with the English version. Its title is “Suggested amendments by Senator Tannas to the Rules of the Senate.”
Senator Gold: Could you repeat that please?
The Chair: I am inviting you to take this document, which is a three-column document. It exists in English and French, but we’ll take the English version first and we’ll do the French after that.
It has been distributed before. It provides the original Rules. The column in the middle has the suggested amendments by Senator Tannas. Then there is the comments column, which is blank. We will speak to each item one by one to decide what version we want to have in the Rules.
The document starts with chapter 3. Rule 3-6(2). Because we’ve changed the title, the rule reads:
Whenever the Senate stands adjourned, if the Speaker is satisfied that the public interest does not require the Senate to meet at the date and time stipulated in the adjournment order, the Speaker shall, after consulting the Leader —
— or representative —
— of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition, and the leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group, or their designates, determine an appropriate later date or time for the next sitting.
This is the actual as amended at the beginning of the meeting. The proposition is the following:
Whenever the Senate stands adjourned, if the Speaker is satisfied that the public interest does not require the Senate to meet at the date and time stipulated in the adjournment order, the Speaker shall, after consulting all the leaders and facilitators, or their designates, determine an appropriate later date or time for the next sitting.
As you can see, it’s a simplification in style. It does not sense change but we are here to debate.
Senator Gold: My comments really follow on the decision we made a moment ago. That is to make sure that for our Rules, there is no ambiguity, that the language we use to describe leadership positions reflect the language used in the Parliament of Canada Act. In this particular area, I would propose that we retain the current rule as drafted but simply add, as we have already agreed, “leader or representative of the government.”
Elegance in drafting aside, the lawyer in me always worries about differences in language being subject to the argument that, “Well, they must mean something different,” and there is no reason to do that. So it avoids procedural ambiguity. It is coherent and consistent with the decision we made. I propose that with regard to rule 3-6(2). Thank you, chair.
Senator Batters: [Technical difficulties]
Senator Gold: It’s the current rule. Whenever the Senate stands adjourned — I’ll get to the point — “the Speaker shall, after consulting the leader or representative of the government.” That is really the only change.
The Chair: Because we just agreed to that. But it is not included.
Senator Gold: Because Senator Tannas’s motion adopted Senator Woo’s drafting convention, but that was all before the Parliament of Canada Act was changed. I think it is just clearer, and in this era of computers and cut-and-paste it is not a lot of work to make these changes and incorporate them.
Senator Batters: I agree with Senator Gold on that because I think it is important to include the language — instead of just saying “all the leaders and facilitators,” it is necessary to say “of any other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group,” to take that out could be then potentially including somebody who has designated themselves as a leader or undefined facilitator or maybe a group of themselves or two other groups and they don’t have the necessary nine people. So all of a sudden we are consulting with 105 senators. It is, frankly, already potentially going to be unworkable. I guess it depends what consultation means. If it means telling, then it is probably not that difficult, but if it is actually consulting, it could be more difficult. But we should have the appropriate language in and so I think it should retain the “any other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group.”
Senator Ringuette: I concur with both Senator Gold and Senator Batters that both their comments would make it very clear in regard to Government Representative and also the fact that it is party or groups, because in the Tannas motion in front of us it doesn’t specify this. I would support this being done.
The Chair: Are there any other comments? If not, I guess it is in agreement to proceed that way, so we shall.
Moving now to 4-2(8)(a). If I read the original as amended earlier in this meeting, it was read:
At the request of a whip or liaison or the designated representative of a recognized parliamentary group, the Speaker shall, at an appropriate time during Senators’ Statements, seek leave of the Senate to extend Statements. If leave is granted, Senators’ Statements shall be extended by no more than 30 minutes.
So the proposition in the Senator Tannas motion was:
At the request of a whip or the designated representative of a recognized party or recognized parliamentary group, the Speaker shall, at an appropriate time during Senators’ Statements, seek leave of the Senate to extend Statements. If leave is granted, Senators’ Statements shall be extended by no more than 30 minutes.”;
Senator Ringuette: So it adds “liaison” to the 4-2 proposal from Senator Tannas.
The Chair: That’s right. But while reading out loud, recognized party or recognized parliamentary group. In the actual rule, the “recognized party” is not there. So here in the proposition it is to add “recognized party.”
Senator Ringuette: Add both “liaison” and “recognized party.”
The Chair: Would that be agreeable? If we introduce it in Senator Tannas’s motion, it would read:
At the request of a whip or liaison or the designated representative of a recognized party or recognized parliamentary group, the Speaker shall, at an appropriate time during Senators’ Statements, seek leave of the Senate to extend Statements . . .
Agreed?
Senator Batters: Just with the proviso that we are going to have a definition for “liaison.”
The Chair: Yes, we will. Now, going to Senators’ Statements and Tributes, 4-3(1). So the actual reads:
At the request of the Leader or Representative of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition, or the leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group, the period for Senators’ Statements shall be extended by no more than 15 minutes for the purpose of paying tribute to a current or former Senator.
The proposition is to simplify:
At the request of any leader or facilitator, the period for Senators’ Statements shall be extended by no more than 15 minutes for the purpose of paying tribute to a current or former Senator.”;
Senator Batters: For the exact same reasons as we were earlier referencing with the subsection we were looking at, I think it should remain as is. It says the same things. There is an attempt here to simplify the language, but by simplifying the language you are taking out the “other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group.” Therefore, you could have an unlimited number and undefined number of people using this particular provision, and I don’t think that’s what you intend.
Senator Gold: I agree. Just to be clear, when you read it, you inserted “or Representative of the Government.” So yes, we’re fine with that.
The Chair: I will do that all the time.
Senator Gold: Thank you. I agree with Senator Batters.
The Chair: Agreed. We will now move to chapter 6 of our Rules, which is “Rules of Debate, Speaking Time and Time limits for speakers.” We will go one by one because there are (a), (b) and (c) that are in question. So 6-3(1):
Except as otherwise provided:
Leaders
(a) the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition shall be allowed unlimited time for debate; and the leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group shall be permitted up to 45 minutes for debate;
Here we have a change in style but also the proposition:
Leaders and facilitators
(a) any leader or facilitator shall be permitted up to 45 minutes for debate;
Senator Batters: Yes, when Senator Tannas was here last week, by the end of the meeting he acknowledged that it should remain as it is currently, that government and opposition leaders be afforded an unlimited time for debate so that the important questions can be asked. All senators who have such questions should not be limited to a 45-minute time frame, which easily could be run out by the questions or simply the speech alone by government. That takes a significant accountability period away. As well, I would point out the potential revised wording also does not have any limit on who the leader or facilitator is, which is already in existence in the existing provisions, and I am sure that Senator Gold will want to have “Representative” for government added in there, other than that, I do not see any other need to have that provision changed, as Senator Tannas said by the end of the meeting last time.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Gold: I agree with Senator Batters about the language, which we have now incorporated, so I’ll stop sounding like a broken record.
You’ll recall in our meeting with Senator Tannas, in an effort to achieve the goals of equity to the fullest extent possible from our point of view — and I’m speaking only from the government point of view — I had suggested, and it struck terror in the hearts of everybody, that unlimited time be granted to everybody.
We’re content to defer to the decision of the committee on this matter. I agree that, as I made the case, speaking for the government alone, we do need to retain the right to try unlimited time. The rest of it, we’re comfortable with whatever the committee decides.
Senator Woo: I do not support a distinction made between speaking time allotted to the Leader of the Opposition and the leader or facilitator of recognized parliamentary groups.
The intent and substance of the changes to the Parliament of Canada Act put to the opposition as designated on a level-playing field with other recognized parliamentary groups and not to follow through on those changes in the Parliament of Canada Act in our Rules of the Senate by allowing greater speaking time for the opposition would be an inconsistency, and it would not reflect the kind of Senate that I personally would like to see.
The only case that one would make for the opposition having more time is if you believed that the opposition does oppositioning or does its work in the Senate to keep the government in check in a better way than the other parliamentary groups. I don’t think that case can be made, and therefore I support either giving all leaders and facilitators a limited time or giving all of them 45 minutes or possibly allowing the government to have unlimited time, but everyone else only 45 minutes.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I agree with Senator Woo, and I would limit everyone except the government to 45 minutes. However, my comment, which I will make for the last time, is a general comment on the French version, which I am rereading in parallel. It is not consistent with the English version. We will have to revise this version and come back with a version that is consistent with the English version that we will adopt.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain, it is very important that both versions are identical and have the same meaning. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Wells: I think that the question of unlimited time is perhaps more appropriate for the sponsor and the critic of the bill. When we run out of time, it is usually because there are questions, so the additional time would be for all colleagues, not just for the sponsor or the critic.
I think some consideration should be given to having unlimited time for the simple fact that most of the time when we request additional time, if we do request additional time, it is because our colleagues have questions, not because the sponsor of the critic wishes to speak for a long time, but there are questions that wish to be answered by our colleagues.
The Chair: If I understand, you are saying that the critic and the sponsor should have unlimited time.
Senator Wells: Unlimited time, for the mere fact that it is typically questions from colleagues that extend the time beyond 45 minutes or 15 minutes.
The Chair: You propose for leaders and the representative of government and so forth, 45 minutes?
Senator Wells: I am not making a proposal here, I am just saying that we should consider the question of unlimited time because it is our colleagues — less the sponsor, the critic or the Speaker — who deserve the additional time to get clarity on the arguments on a piece of legislation.
Senator Greene: I support the proposals made by Senator Woo. To me, they are fair, easy and logical.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I don’t think the notion of “unlimited” is fair, because if there were to be, for various reasons, dilatory tactics, someone could speak for an hour and a half or two hours for the time allotted for the session.
First of all, 45 minutes would be the norm. What we fear is the risk to the questions. So we could give extra time for questions, as we usually do: “Does the House give Senator so-and-so five minutes?” Perhaps the leaders could be given 15 minutes for supplementary questions. I do not know if that complicates things, but if it is 45 minutes, I agree with Senator Woo’s proposal.
[English]
Senator Batters: First of all, I find it interesting when the Parliament of Canada Act changes were being proposed and debated in the Senate, there was a lot of discussion from members of the government and independent senators who wanted them changed to say, “No, there will be a dilution of the powers of the opposition by the Parliament of Canada Act changes. Only the particular items contained in this bill will be things that we’re looking at. That is it.”
Now all of a sudden, we have changes to such fundamental things as the way we debate government legislation in the chamber. How can it be anything other than diluting the powers of the opposition when Senator Woo says if you accept that members of the opposition actually provide accountability in government legislation, more so than independent members do? Well, sometimes independent members do.
But the fact remains that Prime Minister Trudeau has now appointed the majority of the senators in the Senate of Canada. I personally do not think that senators who were appointed by the current Prime Minister have been shown to provide the same level of accountability and opposition to government legislation as the official opposition. One of our duties is to hold the government to account, oppose government legislation and provide ways that it can be improved upon.
So I just take extreme exception to that particular comment and do not understand how that can be held to stand. When we have people say that if you give the opposition unlimited time, as has been done for more than 100 years — and frankly, for the seven years that we have been in opposition now — we have not seen a situation where dilatory steps have been used in this particular way to have the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate go on for hours and hours to drag something out. We haven’t seen that.
This is a very valuable part to be able to properly debate government legislation. Frankly, again, I will make the point that if you limit the government’s time to 45 minutes, then we will see government speeches that are 44 minutes and 30 seconds long and have 30 seconds for questions, as we recently saw with the speech given on behalf of the government by the sponsor of Bill C-11, Senator Dawson, at second reading where there was no time left for questions. We cannot have that.
Similarly, people who are in this chamber as members of the official opposition, their most important duty is to provide that check on government and government power to make sure that this legislation is the best that it can be. That is best done by having these types of additional abilities to provide that check.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: I understand Senator Batters’ comment. However, that being said, I would think that in the last seven years, the critic of government bills has always, or 99% of the time, been within your group.
If you take that into consideration, and the fact that the critic of the bill also has an additional 45 minutes in debating time, what we are seeing here is that the opposition group has, in reality, 90 minutes, because you have your leader and the critic of the bill. You have 90 minutes to view your opposition or critique of a bill. While most of the other groups, as of yet, seldom identify themselves as critics so, therefore, they only have 15 minutes on the debate.
I believe that with regard to a balanced process, that what is being proposed, you already have 45 minutes more than any other group, in practice. I would support that all groups have 45 minutes, except the government. We have to understand that they have a particular role to play. Some day, Senator Batters, it may be your group that will be in that position.
I support Senator Woo for all these reasons, and also the fact that I clearly remember our discussion with Senator Tannas the other week. Senator Tannas clearly indicated — and I agree with him — that if you cannot make your point in 45 minutes, you have lost the game. You lost the attention of your colleagues. The attention span on a given issue is about 12 to 15 minutes.
Taking all this into consideration, I support Senator Woo’s proposal and hope that we move on this.
Senator Gold: Thank you. As I said, we are trying our best in our approach to this process to respect both the letter and the spirit of the Parliament of Canada Act. I appreciate that this doesn’t fully address Senator Batters’ underlying point about the special role for the opposition, but I think levelling up rather than levelling down makes more sense.
Senator Batters put it, I think correctly, that it is very rare that either the government leader or the Leader of the Opposition has — I think it is not the case at all — abused the unlimited time. I sometimes felt a little abused during the Emergencies Act. I am making a joke. I didn’t. I was glad to be able to respond to all the questions that were put to me. That was an example — but not the only example — of why the government really does need that unlimited speaking time as a safety valve.
In the spirit of equity, I want to suggest again, colleagues, trusting ourselves not to abuse it, that all leaders or representatives of the government, leaders of the opposition, facilitators and the like, be given unlimited time so that those who need the time, whether it is to hold the government to account — the opposition to be sure, or others — or whether the government needs time in a complicated area both to present its case, as we had to do in some back-to-work legislation which was controversial and as my predecessor did, or to answer questions, I have confidence that we won’t abuse it; if we do, this committee or the chamber as a whole can say the experiment failed and we can revisit it.
I offer that again as a possible tiebreaking consensus approach.
The Chair: Thank you. I see many hands.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. I think it has been a great discussion. I’m not sure I have got it down to two.
As I said to my colleague Senator Black, I remember once going to a meeting and the great oilman said, in terms of length of speech, if you can’t strike oil in 20 minutes, stop boring. That is not always possible. That is no offence to either leadership or opposition who have jobs to do and messages to get out. I’m not sure whether I want all leaders to have unlimited time, or just the government leader and 45 minutes for everybody else.
I’m wondering if we can table this section. I think we have had good discussion on it. We can discuss it with our caucus and come back with just this section, because I’m betwixt and between a couple of options. I would like time to discuss it with members of my group.
The Chair: Thank you for this suggestion. I think it is wise.
Senator Busson: With deference to my colleague Senator Cordy’s suggestion to put this in the parking lot for more thought, I wanted to brainstorm out loud about the fact of the different times allotted.
If the government has unlimited time, as I’m thinking about it, the people who are wanting to hold them to account have unlimited opportunity to ask questions. To me, that addresses the issue of accountability and the ability for people to hold the government to account for bills, because if they have unlimited time, they are not safe from questions. We can ask questions all evening long, if that is what needs to happen. For my two cents’ worth, unlimited time for the government, the accountability issue, from my perspective, is addressed.
As Senator Ringuette said, for the rest of us, if you can’t make a succinct point in 45 minutes, I suggest you don’t have one. Forty-five minutes is, for me, long enough to listen to someone making a point. After that, attention wanes and people are wasting their time, in my humble opinion. That’s my two cents’ worth.
Senator Batters: Perhaps with Senator Tannas we should have perhaps formally amended his proposal on this particular point last week, because the exact point that he made by the end of the meeting was to say that he saw the wisdom of having government and opposition having unlimited and all the other leaders and facilitators of recognized groups having 45 minutes. That’s what Senator Tannas said himself about his very motion.
Giving all leaders or facilitators unlimited time, I suggest, significantly dilutes the power of the opposition, which is an important part of the Westminster system. And as I pointed out last week, under the current setup, where you only need nine senators to be a recognized parliamentary group, you could potentially have 11 different leaders giving unlimited speeches — because yes, perhaps many wouldn’t have unlimited time but many would probably give quite lengthy ones. Then there would be a desire to potentially limit debate on a particular bill saying, “Oh, we’ve already had sufficient debate,” even though no one other than leaders have given a speech at that point.
It is not that you cannot make a point in 45 minutes. I do not think that personally I have ever given a speech longer than a half hour, even as the critic of a complicated bill. But the fact that it also gives — the opposition leader is an important person as well for accountability because that is the opportunity for them to have significant debate on the ideas they’ve just proposed in their speech.
So to allow other senators in the chamber, including the government senators, to be able to question — and that is where you actually get the best work of the Senate, not just listening to somebody’s rote speech that has been delivered, but to have that debate, the back and forth, the questions and answers. That is where you get to really delve into the main parts of the bill and what it’s really about. Not that you can’t make a point in more than 45 minutes, but to have that ability to have that back and forth.
Let’s remember that there are also additional senators who are not affiliated, and this would potentially limit their role even more as well.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: My perspective is different. I see this unlimited period of time, except for the government, as an encouragement to filibuster in a chamber that should be a chamber of objective second thought. Under Senator Cordy’s proposal, if this provision is set aside for the time being, I would like to see whether in the House of Commons all recognized parties have this opportunity. I do not think so, but I would like to have it checked.
Personally, for the reasons I have just given, I am opposed to this amendment, which would allow all parties unlimited time. I would add that already, according to the Rules, when a majority of senators consider that we need more time to hear the sponsor or the critic of the bill, we are allowed additional speaking time. Thank you.
The Chair: Since there are no more speakers, I move that we do what Senator Cordy has proposed.
[English]
That is, we put that aside for the moment, we have a discussion and have direct appropriate verifications made by the clerk and we proceed with the other items.
We are now looking at (b), which is the sponsor of a bill. It is written here that “the sponsor of a bill shall be allowed up to 45 minutes for debate at second and third reading.”
Here it says:
The sponsor of a bill, if not the leader or representative of the government or the Leader of the Opposition, shall be allowed up to 45 minutes for debate at second and third reading.
So here, the distinction was to simplify but in the old rule, it spells it out:
The sponsor of a bill, if not the leader or representative of the government or Leader of the Opposition, shall be allowed . . .
[Translation]
Are there any comments on this? Whereas here we simplify by saying —
[English]
That “The sponsor of a bill should be allowed up to 45 minutes for debate.”
Senator Gold: Of course, again, leader or representative of the government is there. But I wonder whether, again to reflect the spirit of the changes, might I suggest that the current rule, with the addition that we’ve already agreed to, be amended as follows. I will just read what I have. It says, for subsection (b):
The sponsor of a bill, if not the leader or representative of the government, the Leader of the Opposition or the leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group, be allowed 45 minutes.
That just recognizes the equity between the sponsors.
The Chair: In other words, if everyone understands, in the old part it said, “The sponsor of a bill, if not the Leader of the Government or the leader . . .” now we will add all the other facilitators so it will be explicit that we are talking about all the others.
Senator Gold: I neglected to add, you will forgive me, in subsection (b) where the current rule says “the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition,” I think the heading should be “leaders and facilitators.” This is subsection (a), “The leader or representative of the government, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader or facilitator of any other recognized party.” And that would carry on into subsection (b) as well.
The Chair: That’s right.
Senator Gold: Adam, was that clear to you?
Mr. Thompson: Certainly with the heading, as far as the definition of sponsor of a bill, in the existing rules, the Leader of the Government or Government Representative and Leader of the Opposition are specifically mentioned absent the other leaders because under the existing rules, none of the other leaders have unlimited time. So it is just to clarify that if the Leader of the Government or the Leader of the Opposition were also a sponsor of a bill, they would not lose their unlimited time by virtue of becoming the sponsor.
Your proposed addition to subsection (b) would certainly be necessary if the committee were to decide that they wanted to propose that all leaders had unlimited time. It would be linked, but it is not necessary, unless the committee decides to go in that direction.
The Chair: Before we turn to the discussion, maybe we will agree to postpone? Because it is related to the point that we just discussed. Okay? Now we will go to (c), critic of a bill. It is the same thing. We will postpone this. We will come back to that when we decide what to do with leaders, representative of the government, leaders of groups or facilitators. Do they have unlimited time, 45 minutes? Who does have limited time and so forth? That will be next week.
Mr. Thompson: Senators, before we move on from this section, I would draw your attention to the new proposal for a spokesperson on a bill, which would give all parties and groups one designated representative from that party or group 45 minutes, which would then be the same as the sponsor or critic. You may wish to postpone that and roll it into the broader discussion of leaders and unlimited versus 45 minutes, but I just wanted to flag that as a further distinct element of this.
Senator Gold: I agree with that in terms of substance, but while we’re on this section, I wonder if we could agree on nomenclature. In our first meeting on this subject, it was suggested by a number of people, including myself, that “spokesperson” was a misleading term because it could be interpreted as if a senator actually spoke on behalf of the group, and that is not going to be the case in many circumstances.
I had suggested changing “spokesperson” to “designated senator,” which is more neutral. It might be helpful to fix the terminology, speaking time aside. If there is something better than “designated senator,” I have no dog in this race other than to make it clear that a person is speaking on their own behalf.
The Chair: Senator Woo, do you wish to speak on that point?
Senator Woo: I propose we combine the description of the time allocation for the designated senator to be put in the same paragraph as the provisions for the critic, because that is the analogous position. I think that you could have one paragraph to deal with the critic and the designated senator as opposed to two paragraphs.
The Chair: Okay, I understand what you mean.
Senator Batters: As we briefly discussed last week, this one will be significantly contentious. While the critic has a designated role of accountability, I don’t really understand why — again, we could then have 11 speeches lasting 45 minutes each, many which really do not provide that level of accountability.
This is a contentious thing that should be postponed. It is something about which we need to have witnesses and much further discussion, not simply five minutes of discussion.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Batters.
On that terminology, just before I turn to others who want to speak, I would like to add a point that is there for myself. It is the fact that, in French, the sponsor of a bill is a parrain or marraine. Personally, maybe I share something that nobody thinks the same as I do, but I find this terminology very old. We want to be more neutral in the terminology.
I would suggest that for sponsor of the bill, in French we would call it promoteur. Think about something for the next time, but promoteur could be a term because the sponsor of the bill is usually to promote the bill, so it could be that. In French, we do not use the word “critic,” but I think we should use the word critic in French. In French, it’s just the spokesperson — le porte-parole du projet de loi. That is also very confusing.
[Translation]
In French, we often say that we are criticizing, when we talk about an art or film critic.
[English]
The point being that the term in French could be changed. I do not find it appropriate, personally.
Do you agree that we look into that when we come back and have some propositions?
Senator Batters: Thank you. Could you just explain what the word is in French currently for the sponsor?
The Chair: It is parrain or marraine.
Senator Batters: Okay.
The Chair: It looks really old. I do not appreciate that. In French, the critic is la porte de parole, the spokesperson.
Senator Batters: Oh, okay. That is very strange.
The Chair: That is very strange. You would think that the spokesperson would be the parrain or marraine.
Senator Batters: What do other parliaments do? For instance, what does the French parliament do?
The Chair: I do not know, but we will have a look at that so that we have a more appropriate terminology.
Especially, when people want to be called iel, they or them, governments are changing a bit or are trying to be more inclusive, so maybe we should in our terminology.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I completely agree with your proposal. I, too, was often confused when I first came to the Senate when I heard that a critic was being sought for a bill. I know that the critic will criticize the bill, but in French, it is not a critic, it is a spokesperson who promotes the bill.
So these terms, “critic” and “spokesperson” are not consistent. It would be nice to take advantage of the work we’re doing to try to find the appropriate terms, in English and French, that coincide, that give a fair translation.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: This is a question — and I do not want to muddy the waters; that’s not my intention. Coming to the time piece — and I’m not disputing where and who should have it — again, first arriving as senators, you touched on yourself, has that been the time, since the beginning of time — has that 45 minutes been part of our history before a lot of our print media and before our opportunities to attend committees before? I just want to understand it, because I know that it could extend — my gosh, if everyone used it, we rarely go to that length — but it could extend for really long sittings. As long as people cannot delay indefinitely, we’re going to be fine. But I just want to take a moment to ask, where does it come from?
Mr. Thompson: I will do some research. I think I know the answer, but I will wait until I can confirm that with the history. However, I do not believe it has been since the beginning. I think there were some changes made about 30 or 35 years ago, but I will look into the history of those time limits and get back to you.
Senator M. Deacon: No disrespect to everything that’s been said, but outside of the Senate — and I know we’re unique — boy, the last 20 years we’ve been pushed to keep things at 10 minutes, and if not 10 minutes, 12 minutes. As the earlier comment was made, you are moving on.
So I am trying to really respect why it is unique and critical in this medium. Thank you for listening. That is all I have.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for allowing me to jump in on this excellent question. In a system with a duality of government opposition and very few non-affiliated senators, this was fair and manageable. Is it now fair and manageable?
The Chair: That’s a good question.
Senator Batters: I just wanted to point out why it is sometimes necessary, even with the desire for brevity, to have a 45-minute time frame or a longer time frame. Sometimes we’re dealing with bills, for example, the government’s budget implementation act, which can run 500 pages. Frequently, Justice bills are 100 pages. So to ask somebody to give any kind of a comprehensive speech in 10 minutes, as brief as you can be, it is just not workable.
We are not dealing with the types of things and backgrounds that many of us have come from where you want to make a very specific point; we are dealing with speeches that are often quoted later by the Supreme Court of Canada. When determining what the intention of Parliament was, they will look back to the sponsor’s speeches and critic’s speeches. That is why, when you look at a Criminal Code section, underneath that section in the explanatory notes, they will often link to the sponsor of the bill’s speech in the Senate. For example, when I gave a speech when I was the sponsor of the bill for the government of the time with the new prostitution law, my sponsor speech is referenced and linked in the Criminal Code of Canada so that for people looking back to see whether the law is constitutional or whether there are grounds to challenge it, they will look back at things like that. They will look back at our committee hearings. Particularly, they will look back at speeches given in the Senate, because we’re able to give that sober second thought. That is what we’re all based upon. So if we limit our times to those similar to House of Commons, where they acknowledge they do not really have the time we do to devote to this type of study, I think that would really be doing us a disservice.
The Chair: We are going to move to another point, then, if it is agreeable to all of you.
The next point is “Process of Debate,” and 6-5(1) is written as follows:
A Senator recognized to speak may yield the floor to another Senator for the purpose of debate. The speaking time of the Senator who thus obtains the right to speak is limited to:
(a) the time remaining to the Senator who yielded; or
(b) the time remaining, not to exceed 15 minutes, if the Senator who yielded is the Leader or representative of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition, or the leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group
This is what it says with the addition of “the representative,” and the proposition was to replace everything with “a leader or facilitator.” The remaining time is not to exceed 15 minutes if the senator who yielded is a leader or facilitator.
Do you agree that we use the —
Senator Gold: If the question is do we use the existing rule with the addition, the answer is yes.
The Chair: Perfect. I see all of the faces saying yes; so I agree that we do that.
Senator Batters: You are just proposing that we use the existing rule —
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Batters: Okay. I would also point out that I’m not sure when the last time that was used, but I do not recall it in my nine years.
The Chair: I did.
Senator Batters: Did you use that one?
The Chair: Not for me, but Senator Cools wanted to speak on a budget bill. It was one of the last times that she was going to speak, and because I was the sponsor of the bill, I had 45 minutes; so I gave her my 15 minutes, and she could speak about the history about that bill, and she was very happy.
Senator Cordy: I’m not sure if we need “the Leader of the Government” if the remaining time is 15 minutes, but I’m fine with it.
The Chair: Chapter 7, that is a tough one, I think. We will see. We will move on time allocation.
Senator Batters: Postpone.
The Chair: With agreement to allocate time. Let’s see how it reads:
At any time during a sitting, the Leader or representative or the Deputy Leader or deputy representative of the Government may state that the representatives of the recognized parties have agreed to allocate a specified number of days or hours . . . .
So the proposition:
At any time during a sitting, the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government may state that the representatives of the recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups have agreed to allocate a specified number of days or hours either:”;
Senator Gold: Colleagues, first of all, I am obviously supportive of including reference to “recognized parliamentary groups” and would also underline our agreement to add the applicable titles of leader or representative of the government and deputy leader or legislative deputy. I would also add some technical language, and I can read what I would propose.
Again, it is for clarification. I propose that 7-1(1) should read:
At any time during a sitting, the Leader or representative of the Government or the Deputy Leader or Legislative Deputy of the Government may state that they have reached an agreement with the representatives of the recognized parties and the recognized parliamentary groups to allocate a specific number of days or hours either . . . .
The addition of the words “that they have reached an agreement” are just for clarification.
The Chair: To summarize this part of time allocation, an agreement to allocate time when there is agreement, reflects what happened in the past when we had a tough bill such as the marijuana bill.
Senator Batters: That was actually entirely different. This is about time allocation. That was a significantly different thing —
The Chair: Right.
Senator Batters: — of having an agreement about the types of things that would be debated, when that would be debated. This is about the government limiting time for debate, closing off debate. And this is, from the opposition’s perspective, an absolute no-go to have, because as it exists right now, in the current Senate, the only recognized party is the Conservative Party of Canada, which is the opposition. Right now, this time allocation agreement would be between the Leader of the Government and the leader or representative of the opposition party because that’s the only recognized party. To have a time allocation agreement with all the represented parliamentary groups would absolutely be the thing that would dilute the power of the opposition probably the most of anything here. Obviously Senator Gold would like that, but we cannot agree to this in any way, shape or form.
The government has thus far been fortunate that they’ve not had to use time allocation, but if it is needed — and this is absolutely not a workable way to do it either — you are going to have to reach agreement with potentially 10 different people. That is never going to happen, and it shouldn’t happen, frankly. That’s just not a workable parliament.
Senator Gold: Yes, I do apologize. I’m taking up a lot of space here, but I do want to respond to the last point.
The current rule seeks to get an agreement if there can be an agreement. Then it goes on to give the government the power — if there is no agreement — to put a time allocation motion forward. This is all tied together. So in that regard, Senator Batters, I respect your point, the principle about the special role of the opposition, but in fact, at the end of the day, the government puts itself in the hands of the Senate if groups cannot agree.
Again, given the current Senate, changes in the Parliament of Canada Act, it is appropriate that the leaders and facilitators of all recognized parties, opposition or groups have a chance to reach an agreement with the government. Failing that, then the subsequent rules provide for how the government may choose to proceed or leave themselves in the hands of the Senate to see whether or not the Senate would support time allocation, even when there is an absence of agreement.
I stand by my proposal.
Senator Ringuette: I agree with Senator Gold because the mere fact that the Government Representative or leader would need a time allocation motion is because there is no consensus and some group, leader of a group or facilitator of a group does not agree; therefore you require time allocation to move forward.
I completely agree with what Senator Gold is proposing. This time allocation is time allocation because some do not agree but the government needs to move forward.
Senator Woo: It is precisely that time allocation is such an important feature of our practice that all groups have to be consulted if the government wants to seek an agreement to go ahead. If agreement is not forthcoming, then the Government Representative has the option to go to 7-2. For that reason, I propose we deal with 7-1 and 7-2 jointly because they are essentially two sides of the same coin.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: For my information, I would like to know, when we want to ask for a deadline, does there have to be a criterion or a reason? For example, our discussions have reached a dead end, the bill cannot move forward, so we are asking for a deadline. Perhaps Senator Gold can answer? Are there any other reasons why we are asking for a deadline? Can that reason be noted in the regulations?
[English]
The Chair: Perhaps Senator Cordy can explain because she was there for a long time, but I witnessed time allocation in the Senate several times.
Senator Cordy: I’m actually glad to hear that question because it means that time allocation is used very sparingly. I do not think that it has been used since 2015. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong. Yes, that’s a great question.
This underlines the fact that since I’ve been in the chamber, time allocation has been used when there is no way forward to get legislation through. For example, when it is something that the government ran on in an election platform and promised people they would get through but the legislation is being continually blocked, they will bring in time allocation and they will say that the legislation has to be dealt with by five o’clock on Thursday afternoon. The debate just continues on that particular piece of legislation. It is used very sparingly, but it is something the government can use if they feel that they have to use it.
I will guarantee you that when the government calls it, because it is a last resort, the opposition is always against it because that is why they are bringing in the time allocation. That is sort of simplifying what it is.
The Chair: That’s fine. That is why, in the Rules here — and this seems rather bizarre — it says “with agreement.” When you time allocate, it is because you believe there is no agreement. However, you could time allocate with agreement. This was not the same kind of process, but at some point in time we did kind of coordinate the debate for the medical aid bill and the marijuana bill. It was not time allocation but it was kind of a process where everyone agreed.
Senator Cordy: There can be no time allocation without debate.
The Chair: That’s right.
Senator Batters: A process is a far different thing than time allocation. Some people may be more familiar with the word “closure” because it closes off debate. There are distinctions but that is, perhaps, a more understood term.
Again, on this, yes, when the government cannot get agreement and they feel that they need to resort to time allocation to have a particular bill, which may be very contentious and may already have been debated for a considerable period of time, and they need to move on the legislative agenda to have something brought to a vote, when they are not able to do it in other ways, they can then pay the potential political price for invoking time allocation. When the Liberals were the opposition, they would often criticize our Conservative government for invoking time allocation on bills after a certain point. That is something the media and the public can become aware of. It is one of the measures that people may base their vote on, perhaps, in an election.
Again, on this whole thing, to simply equate the roles of the opposition, the key part of the role of the opposition is to hold the government to account. This limits the role of the opposition. It is obviously something that the opposition needs to have a specific mention and specific powers with respect to. It is not equivalent to another recognized group. There is no specific requirement in forming a recognized group in the Senate to have a specific purpose that is to hold the government to account. So, to equate the opposition — and that is its specific purpose — with other groups is not acceptable.
If we want to move forward today on other items at that might be less contentious, it might be a good idea because we’re going to go around the horn a long time on this one.
The Chair: I have a question for you after Senator Gold.
Senator Gold: Respectfully, Senator Batters, every time we level-up to acknowledge that there are now recognized groups, it is going to change the special status that the government and the opposition have had in the old Rules and in the Senate as it was up until now.
We now have more or less 70 senators who, for whatever reason, are not affiliated with political parties or do not sit in groups. It seems unfair to exclude them from the first-stage negotiations to see whether there can be some agreement on a path forward, a process, an agreement such as you made reference to.
Those discussions will inform both the government’s decision on how to move forward and perhaps the opposition’s decision as to how they will position themselves in the face of a determination of the government to move forward with a particular bill. Senator Woo is correct. We have to look at 7-1 and 7-2 together because they are part of the same process.
I think that this is fair and equitable and to not recognize it runs counter to the spirit of the exercise.
The Chair: On the line that we are speaking about, 7-1(1), Senator Ringuette?
Senator Ringuette: Yes. I am looking at the way that current rules are read. It is a process that is being undertaken by the government or the Government Representative. Right now, the current Rules don’t mention any groups or opposition to this process that is very specific. I have a hard time understanding Senator Batters’ comment because it is a process that is undertaken by the leader or the Government Representative. However, the current rule does not specify a special role for any groups or parties. I have a hard time trying to understand.
Senator Batters: I can explain that because it only says “recognized parties” in both of the current provisions. It doesn’t say, “recognized parliamentary group.” As I was explaining before, currently, the Conservative Party is the only recognized party in the Senate. As a result, it is the responsibility of the government only to consult with leaders of recognized parties. In 7-1 and 7-2, that’s the distinction. It is being sought to add in “and recognized parliamentary groups,” so currently time allocation. That’s the distinction.
Senator Ringuette: This is a very simple modification. Just add “or groups.”
Senator Batters: It is simple but it is very profound and not something that we, as the opposition, can agree to in any way.
The Chair: Maybe we will move forward to complete that later, in another week.
Paragraph 7-1(1) is about agreement to allocate time when there is an agreement. When there is an agreement, everyone should agree. If there is an agreement with both the government and the opposition but the others don’t agree, there is no agreement. Isn’t that correct?
Senator Batters: So then it does not take anything away because any senator in the chamber could always oppose it, right? That’s fine. It’s saying this is the process for time allocation, the government —
The Chair: When there is an agreement.
Senator Batters: When there is agreement between the government and the opposition, then that will happen. Or, if there is no agreement between the government and the opposition — well, I say “opposition” but right now, as the situation exists, for both the government and the Conservative Party, which is the opposition, that is the situation.
However, as you are pointing out, yes, any senator in the chamber can disagree, cause delays and things like that, within reason. But then, of course, the government then has the ability to proceed on with the time allocation procedure, which is already set out in our Rules, that it’s limited to two and a half hours and all of that sort of thing.
That’s right, but the distinction here is about recognizing, in the Westminster system, the very specific role of government and opposition, whose job it is to hold the government to account. If there were other recognized parties in the Senate, then they would have a role in this particular provision as well. Right now there aren’t.
The Chair: I see there is no way to go on with this particular subject now unless people want to speak more about it. We could reflect on that. Maybe the issue is a bit difficult for the new senators who have arrived since 2016 because this never happened. But when it happens, we know how it works.
In Chapter 7 of our Rules, there is a section about when we have agreement. It means that it has to include everyone because, otherwise, it will never happen.
There is a section about being without agreement. In this section, there was a question of speaking time and so forth. We may want to read it so that people know what we are talking about. We can have questions and just exchange ideas, and we’ll come back maybe with some more explanation on those issues.
Senator Gold: I just want to clarify, chair, what you are suggesting. Back to Senator Woo, I think subsections 7-1(1) and 7-2(1) are the same issue, on whether or not there is agreement. You are suggesting we come back to that.
I want to go on the record. Are you also suggesting that we also include in that table subsection 7-3(1)(f)? That’s the speaking time.
The Chair: That is what I wanted us to discuss a bit.
Senator Gold: Okay. So let me just suggest that —
The Chair: Before you go on with your suggestion, I want to hear from Senator Cordy and Senator Batters. And then if everyone agrees, we’ll talk about the speaking time.
Senator Gold: Of course. By all means.
Senator Cordy: I can’t go along with the suggestion — and I’m talking initially about the one time allocation with agreement — that only the government and the opposition are part of any agreement. In our current Senate, that would be 18 people in the Senate — 3 from the government and 15 from the Conservative Party. I can’t go along with it if there’s going to be an agreement with 18 individuals in the Senate and the ISG, the CSG and the PSG would be left out of any of these discussions. I’m just putting it out there that, in my mind, 18 people can’t be making those decisions. We have consulted and worked together. We haven’t always agreed as leaders, but we have always come to conclusions that I think have worked fairly well. I’m putting that out there immediately.
Senator Batters: Although if you called yourself Liberals still, then you would be part of that particular court because that would be a recognized party.
My other comment was about the speaking time, so if we are going to go into that —
The Chair: We’ll go on with the speaking time, but we will read it out loud so everyone knows what you are talking about. Rule 7-3 states:
When a government motion to allocate time without agreement has been moved:
(a) the debate shall not be adjourned;
(b) debate shall last a maximum of two and one half hours;
(c) during the debate the rules respecting the ordinary time of adjournment shall not apply, and the debate shall instead continue until concluded or the time has expired;
(d) no amendment or other motion shall be received, except a motion that a certain Senator be now heard or do now speak;
(e) Senators shall speak only once;
(f) Senators may speak for a maximum of 10 minutes each, provided that:
(i) the Leader of the Government —
— or representative of the government —
— and the Leader of the Opposition may each speak for up to 30 minutes, and (ii) the leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group may speak for up to 15 minutes;
(g) when debate concludes or the time for debate expires, the Speaker shall put the question; and
(h) any standing vote requested shall not be deferred, and shall be taken according to the ordinary procedure for determining the duration of bells.
What is proposed by Senator Tannas and Senator Woo was here in 7-2(1):
At any time during a sitting, the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government may state that the representatives of the recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups have failed to agree to allocate time to conclude an adjourned debate on either:”;
It was replacing rule 7-3(1)(f) by the following:
(f) Senators may speak for a maximum of 10 minutes each, provided that a leader or facilitator may speak for up to 30 minutes;”;
That was the proposal. I submit to you that if we add up the time, it’s difficult to get into the two and a half hours.
Senator Ringuette: Almost mission impossible.
The Chair: That’s right. I just want to hear from you on this.
Senator Batters: That’s exactly the point I was going to make. In fact, when Senator Tannas was here last week, I pointed that out to him, and he then said that he wanted us to basically not consider that particular part. So I’m not sure why we’re even talking about this today because when the person who has brought this very motion forward admits that, yes, that was not perhaps a good idea, given the significant limitations. So let’s move on and not even consider it.
Senator Woo: There are, of course, other solutions to that problem, and Senator Batters knows so well that we can, of course, lengthen the time of debate overall or reduce the time of speaking for the Representative of the Government and the Opposition Leader and the leader or facilitator of all recognized groups.
Those are the solutions that I would learn towards because they respect the principle of what we’re trying to do here, which is equality of all recognized groups.
Senator Gold: I think the point that Senator Batters and Senator Tannas made is the right one, but there are solutions. Again, speaking from the Government Representative’s perspective, I don’t think we need 30 minutes. I could see us agreeing to a shortened period of time for the Government Representative because I do think — and I am like a broken record — it’s appropriate to seek equity and fair treatment wherever we can.
I’ll reserve the right to defend what I think we need in the government because we’re different. We don’t have membership on committees. We don’t have membership on steering committees. When government bills come before the Senate, I think we have a responsibility to Canadians to make the case. Where we can live with, in this case, equitable treatment but take a little bit of a haircut on our time, I would be prepared to do that.
Senator Batters: I would just point out that it’s not only the speech that gets shortened for the government but the ability for all of us to ask the government questions which, on time allocation, I think is crucial. So I don’t think the government should limit their time from what currently exists. I think, and frankly Senator Tannas thought that if there was another solution to this dilemma posed by his amendment, then he should have proposed it before. He has had considerable time to think about it, so I think we should leave the procedure as it is right now.
Senator Ringuette: Madam Chair, I believe that in order to put forth reasonable alternatives to what is being suggested, we move this to next week’s meeting so that we can come up with a reasonable alternative for the purpose of moving forward.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
You took the words out of my mouth.
[English]
In other words, for everyone around the table, I think it is a good moment to close our debate today. We have done a lot of work. There are some issues that we will want to think about, and this is one of them.
There are other issues that are also coming. We have the two big ones: time allocation and the other one that we said we will postpone. We may be able to move forward better next week.
Hopefully, you will talk with your caucus and groups, and maybe come up with something. Time allocation is an old-time notion. It was used with bipartisan groups, and it has never been used since now. Maybe there are other ways to think about what we do when we have a deadlock. I don’t know.
Mr. Thompson: Just before we finish, I know there were a number of questions about origins of rules and where they came from. I would draw your attention to the Companion to the Rules of the Senate of Canada, which is available on our website, and contact my office if you do not already have a physical copy of it. I will not email it to you; it is that thick. But for every rule that we have, it includes a historical summary of where it started and how it got to where it is today. I would recommend that for your reading. I will draw out the particular elements of that in relation to speaking times that were asked about by Senator Deacon earlier.
The Chair: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)