THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 1, 2022
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET] to consider possible amendments to the Rules, pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a).
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Hello, I am Diane Bellemare. I am a senator from Quebec and Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. Before we get down to business today, I would ask each of you to introduce yourselves, starting on my left.
Senator Gold: Senator Marc Gold, government representative in the Senate, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Wells: Good morning. Senator David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Busson: Good morning. I’m Senator Bev Busson from British Columbia.
Senator M. Deacon: Good morning. Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie, Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you. We will continue the deliberations we began last week regarding consideration of the motion on equity between groups, which does not necessarily mean equality, as noted.
Before we resume our clause-by-clause consideration, there were some questions and you were promised that we would look into the background of these questions. We do have a few answers for you. To begin, Mr. Thompson will provide details about speaking time.
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee, Senate of Canada: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
[English]
Senators, I’ll ask the page to distribute two documents that are extracts from the Companion to the Rules of the Senate as well as the Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons, as there were a number of questions last week as far as the origin of unlimited time and when time limits began to come in.
With the Senate, it is fairly simple and straightforward. Up until 1991, all senators had unlimited speaking time. There were no limits on speaking time. In 1991, limits were introduced, and it was essentially the model we see today that was subsequently amended somewhat more in the early 2000s to allow for a third party.
In the House of Commons, the provisions began in a similar manner. There were no limits on speaking time. They began to impose some limits around 1927. They imposed a 40-minute limitation, and that was subsequently further reduced to a 20‑minute limitation. As you know, in the House of Commons things are a bit more complicated. There are different speaking times for different processes and elements of debate.
The documents that are being distributed to you now will give you more context and history of some of those changes.
[Translation]
The Chair: Are there any questions for Mr. Thompson? You can read the document and I think it will answer a number of your questions, should you have any.
The second item is the French translation of the word “sponsor,” as in “sponsor of a bill.” We went to the library to see how this is handled in France and in Quebec. You will be surprised.
In France, they say auteur, or author in English, of a bill. In Quebec, they use the same term as in France, but you will be surprised why this term is used, or you might learn more about the French Senate. In France, it is the ministers who introduce bills, and that is also the case in Quebec, because it is not a Senate, but the National Assembly. So the author of a bill is a minister, which is why the term auteur is used.
That raised the following question for me: would it not be a good idea to make a distinction between the sponsor or spokesperson of a government bill and those introducing a bill from a senator? So, one could say auteur d’un projet de loi and author of a bill in English, for public bills, and sponsor of a bill or porte-parole d’un projet de loi for government bills.
That is something to think about, just a suggestion, so then we would know that the auteur or author of a bill is the person who drafted it, and so forth. So this is a suggestion, we can come back to it, but that is the answer to the question we all had.
Senator Mégie: Madam Chair, did you also consult the Office québécois de la langue française to see what they suggest? That is not a legislative body, of course, but just to get another idea to help us continue our discussion.
The Chair: We will do that, thank you very much.
[English]
We will continue our deliberations on the English version of the amended rules, the amendments proposed by Senator Tannas, who amended the amendment of Senator Woo.
Last week we were at Chapter 9, “Standing Votes.”
[Translation]
I will read the article.
[English]
The article on standing votes is about the determination of the duration of bells. That is good for our ears, especially when we are in our offices or at chamber and it resonates and we cannot work.
The rule reads as follows:
9.5 Except as otherwise provided, the ordinary procedure for determining the duration of the bells for standing votes shall be as follows:
(1) The Speaker shall ask the Government and Opposition Whips if there is an agreement on the length of time the bells shall ring.
(2) The time proposed by the Whips shall not be more than 60 minutes.
(3) With leave of the Senate, this agreement of the Whips shall constitute an order to sound the bells for that length of time.
(4) In the absence of an agreement or leave of the Senate, the bells shall be sounded for 60 minutes.
The amendment reads:
(1) The Speaker shall ask the whips and the designated representatives of the recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups if there is an agreement on the length of time the bells shall ring.
(2) The time agreed to shall not be more than 60 minutes.
(3) With leave of the Senate, the agreement on the length of the bells shall constitute an order to sound the bells for that length of time.
The other changes were more stylistic with respect to the first or main part, which is to get the agreement of all the groups and liaisons.
Senator Gold: The government’s position supports the inclusion of all representatives, liaisons, or whips of all recognized parties and groups, but, again, to remind us, to ensure consistency with what we have already agreed to in previous sections, I propose again that, wherever applicable, we spell out all the applicable titles for whips and liaisons to ensure that there is consistency and alignment with the Parliament of Canada Act and to add the applicable titles for the government whip position.
I also think, if I may, colleagues, that it would be helpful to include in a revised rule a provision that a leader or facilitator can designate a senator to fulfill the role of whip or liaison in that regard if the whip or liaison is otherwise absent. I would suggest some language for consideration to be integrated:
If a whip or liaison is absent, that whip or liaison’s leader or facilitator may designate a senator to act for this purpose.
The Chair: That would be number 5 or number 2?
Senator Gold: I’ll leave it to the clerk. I look forward to the views of everyone else on whether to include all whips or liaisons, not just government and opposition, but we support the inclusion of all on this issue.
Senator Batters: First, I don’t think it’s necessary because if there’s no agreement with all of those who are present in the Senate, then it goes to a 60-minute bell already. Any member of the Senate can stand up and say no to an agreed-upon time frame. This would make coming to an agreement probably unworkable when you are having to — as I said before, already we have, what, five groups that would potentially have to agree to this. If we extend it to the maximum number of groups which could potentially be designated parliamentary groups in the Senate, just by virtue of having 9 or more members in such a group, we could now potentially have 11 people trying to come to an agreement. Why not just leave it as it is? Already, there is the ability for any member of the Senate to say no, rather than trying to impose an unworkable arrangement to try to come to an agreement with a big number of people.
Senator Wells: Senator Batters, I hadn’t thought about that question, that any senator can challenge that. It doesn’t have to be a whip. In fact, it could be more than 11. It could be 100, but I don’t think it would be taken to that extreme. In the times that I have sat as whip, there’s always been agreement, even if it’s just government and opposition necessary to agree — or necessary to suggest, because it’s the agreement of the chamber. There’s always been outreach to the other groups. In practical terms, whether this should pass or not is not my point, b there’s always been the attempt to reach out to all groups in the Senate to come to an agreement, whether it is 15 or 30 minutes or an hour or whatever it is.
My other comment is on the suggested amendment. It says the time agreed shall not be more than 60 minutes. Actually, the default time is 60 minutes, so any time agreed would be less than that. I wanted to point out that for clarity. Thank you.
The Chair: Maybe we should eventually rephrase it.
Senator Busson: Just for the sake of argument, and being the 21st century when these rules were made, communication was more difficult, transportation was more difficult, and things were less instantaneous with the receiving of messages around bells and votes, et cetera. Is there any appetite to discuss something less than 60 minutes for default? Perhaps 45 minutes? We usually know when there is going to be a vote in the evening if we are not within 45 minutes of the chamber. I am just wondering if that might be something we might want to discuss.
The Chair: Interesting question. Thank you, senator.
Senator Woo: I just remind colleagues that the intent of this discussion is to bring about equality of all recognized groups. If there is a decision to be made on the length of bells and if members of one group or another are given that right, all groups should be given the same right. If it is felt that this is redundant or too unwieldy, we could take away that right from all groups as well, but I don’t think that is the direction we want to go in.
My second point is a technical one. We have excluded point number 4 from the original in the revised proposed revision. In the original, there is the time proposed by the whips, but if that is not agreed, the default goes to 60 minutes. In the revised, point number 2 says the time agreed to shall not be more than 60 minutes. What if there is no agreement? Is it conceivable that there is no vote? I know this is an extreme interpretation, but the new version doesn’t explicitly recognize that there could be no agreement on the length of bells and what would happen in that circumstance.
I think Adam has a good answer?
Mr. Thompson: I do. The proposed amendments only amend rules 9-5. (1), (2) and (3) and would leave (4) untouched.
Senator Woo: So subparagraph (4) still stands?
Mr. Thompson: Correct.
Senator Woo: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Briefly, Senator Wells was saying that, in general, the groups are consulted on the duration of the bells.
Actually, that is not done systematically, senator. Ultimately, it is the result of consultation. I simply want to support what Senator Woo said since we are talking about equity between groups and consistency with amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act. To my mind, this amendment is essential.
The Chair: I heard the word “equality” twice. Is it equality of the groups or equity between groups?
Senator Saint-Germain: It is equity between groups.
[English]
Senator Batters: On the point raised by Senator Busson about potentially having a lesser default time — and, of course, that would only be the default time, not the maximum time or other sorts — I guess what they’re trying to propose here is the default time if there’s no agreement.
What we also need to remember is that, yes, we may have quicker communications, but previously, the Senate Chamber was in Centre Block, with all of us having our offices quite close if you had to get there very quickly. Now, in this Senate building, some of us have our offices half a kilometre away, so it’s not always workable to get to places very quickly. As well, sometimes we are sitting in a committee and there is a desire to quickly finish off things at a committee before getting to a bell. As far as the difference between 45 minutes and 60 minutes, it’s not a huge amount of difference, but I think it also needs to be taken into consideration where the committee rooms are and where our offices are. I think leaving it at a maximum default of 60 minutes seems to make sense here.
As well, regarding Senator Woo’s comment about, again, talking about how we’re trying to have all of these different things, he would like to have the equal powers of the groups, but, of course, every time you do that, you are potentially taking away important powers of the opposition. This could be something that is key in a particular debate, holding the government to account on a popular piece of legislation.
By taking away certain powers from independent senators and those who don’t sit in a group, or even those who might disagree with their group from time to time, you are imposing them on groups. The Senate was always designed to have the power with an individual senator. One or two individual senators can do quite a considerable amount in the Senate. That has always been meant to be an important part of it rather than having everything left to the power of a group.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I got part of the answer from what Senator Batters said.
That said, I still have the same question: what is the basis for deciding that the bell will ring for 60 minutes, 30 minutes or 15 minutes? Initially, I thought that when it was an important or controversial bill, we took the time we needed to discuss it with our members, in each group. On the other hand, sometimes it seems random and that people just want to interrupt.
From what Senator Batters just said, I understand that sometimes the groups might be meeting, and we want to let them finish their meeting before returning. That is part of the answer.
Are there other criteria for determining how long the bells ring?
The Chair: That is an excellent question. Perhaps the clerk can help us.
Mr. Thompson: No.
The Chair: Senator Cordy, do you have an answer?
[English]
Senator Cordy: There are a lot of reasons for why you want 15, or 30, or 60. Fifteen is because it’s something where everyone has said, for example, “We want bells, but let’s get the vote over with quickly.” Thirty would be, “Well, we need a bit more time.” Sixty usually is because at least one group or caucus wants to have a meeting to review things or to answer any questions asked by people within their groups, which occurs most frequently. Sometimes it is to delay. That would never happen, would it? Sometimes it is to bring us to midnight so that once we have the vote on whatever it is, then the Senate is over. There are a variety of reasons.
The key is that one person can have a 60-minute bell. We have talked about that quite a bit in the past. There was a point I remember when somebody didn’t agree, so it was 60-minute bells. Everybody thought that couldn’t happen. Well, yes, if you read the rules, it can happen. It’s a good idea to be on the Rules Committee and learn what the rules are and why. There are often good reasons for 60-minute bells, such as groups would like to meet and go over things with their caucuses. Sometimes, there are not so great reasons.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Looking at the proposed changes, it seems to me that their sole purpose is to achieve a degree of consistency with the other rules of Parliament.
It is true that a senator can disagree, and the bells then ring automatically for 60 minutes. As to Senator Gold’s suggestion, in some cases the designated representatives are not present, and the leader or facilitator must quickly designate a representative.
So I would suggest that we also adopt Senator Gold’s suggestion, since rule 9-5(1)a) refers to designated representatives.
In other words, I don’t think anyone here wants to change that fact that, in the end, if it is not agreed that the bells will ring for 15, 30, 20 or 25 minutes, the bells ring for one hour. That is not what we want to change; we simply want the rule to be consistent with all the others.
The Chair: If we try to establish criteria, why should that mean taking something way from the opposition or not? With the rule providing that anyone can object to the agreement between the government and the opposition — it only takes one person to object — the fact that there are groups does not take anything away from the opposition, On the contrary, it may guarantee that no one will object.
I suggest you consider this perspective to determine what is practical and what is not.
[English]
Senator Gold: I think all the points have been made. Sixty minutes is the ceiling. I would support that. I would not impose criteria. These are strategic, tactical and prudential decisions that groups are entitled to make. Anything less is a matter of consultation. I won’t repeat what I said before.
Senator Batters, I think your point about disenfranchising non‑affiliated senators has been answered by Senator Cordy. Regardless of being part of the group, you can always have a veto. You can always insist on 60 minutes if you oppose whatever has otherwise been agreed.
Senator Wells: We are talking about three things here: who, how long and the process.
I think we can take care of the “who” in sub 3 of 9-5, in the original wording, where it says “with leave of the Senate,” the agreement or disagreement of the whips. I think we can say “this agreement of the Senate,” because that empowers each individual senator and not any group or any designate from a group because every senator has the power of a whip in this question. I think consolidating it into the hands of a whip or a liaison actually reduces the independence of the senators. That’s on the who.
I think we have addressed the “how long” in 60 minutes being the default time. Anything less would be on agreement of the Senate — not the whips but the Senate as represented by whoever might speak for all, recognizing that at any time any senator can stand up and say, “No. I want 60 minutes.” The process is exactly that.
When I think about any changes that we might make, it would be in 9-5(3) that changes the word “Whips” to “the Senate,” which would require the full agreement of the Senate as represented by the whips or liaisons. I think the rest of the changes would be superfluous because the default time is already 60 minutes.
The Chair: What would you say in sub 1?
Senator Wells: I would say, “With leave of the Senate and the agreement of the Senate.”
The Chair: No, that’s sub 5.
Senator Wells: It’s 9-5(3).
The Chair: But what would you say in sub 1?
Senator Wells: It could be the whip. To me, it doesn’t matter who is represented. If the other groups in the Senate want to act as a caucus and focus all their decisions to their liaison, then I don’t have any issue with that. However that is worded, it doesn’t matter. That doesn’t remove the fact that anyone is empowered to make a challenge on that.
Senator Gold: Thank you, Senator Wells, for that, but the issue here is who gets consulted. In that regard, it is important to be congruent with the Parliament of Canada Act. It is not a question of whether you want to act like a caucus or not. Parliamentary groups all have somebody who has the role to consult and to work with their counterparts. I think this is normal and healthy. Yes, it is true that, at the end of the day, someone can get in the way of an agreement that may have been reached for a bell less than 60 minutes. That’s a separate question from the consultation. It is healthy, I think, for groups that have organized themselves, have mandates from those groups, to decide and to have input and to say, “I’m sorry, we need 60 minutes,” or, “We don’t need any time,” or what have you.
I would stand by my initial comments, which are let’s put the titles in, let’s be inclusive and equitable, let’s draft it appropriately; and, if you all agree, give to the clerk the ability to address the issue of someone standing in for a whip or liaison. I think that achieves the purposes, and no harm is done.
Senator Black: Rule 9-5(1) could say that the Speaker shall ask the whips/liaisons/whatever the Government Representative title is, or the designated representative of recognized parties. I put the “or” in there.
Senator Gold: I would leave it to the clerk to figure out the best way to draft this. Our job is largely to agree on the principles, if we can. Drafting by committee is usually a mistake.
Senator Batters: Just hearing the sort of language we’re going to have to put into this to include everyone already illustrates that it probably would not be a healthy and workable solution to have whips/liaisons/designated representatives for all the recognized groups. Again, I point out how many people you would potentially be having to have a consultation with for something as simple as determining what the bell should be. How many times a day is that going to potentially happen when we get into some busy times? We have not had busy times recently, but sometimes in December and June, when we’re having several votes a day, all of a sudden we’re going to need a minor summit to determine the length of bells. We already have that provision, as Senator Wells said, and he’s often acted as whip for our particular caucus, where a particular whip or liaison for one of those groups could already have that consultation and often do. Or, if they’re not getting that consultation, they can simply indicate that they want an hour bell.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: I don’t want to get bogged down in the details.
[English]
I look at what we’ve agreed on, and we’ve always agreed with the language. The issue is not changing the default that any one senator can say 60. The thing here is being consistent. I’m repeating myself, and I understand that. Madam Chair, let’s agree and move on.
The Chair: I suggest that we draft something in the spirit of what the consensus seems to be. You’ll have to consult. We will have a week of consultations with all of your groups before we have something that we will present to the Senate. I think that’s the discussion for now, and we will move to something else.
We are now on “Deferral of Standing Votes.” I’ll read the change that is proposed. It currently says:
Except as provided in subsection (5) and elsewhere in these Rules, when a standing vote has been requested on a question that is debatable, either the Government or the Opposition Whip may defer the vote.
The proposition here is to enlarge this thing, and it would say:
Except as provided in subsection (5) and elsewhere in these Rules, when a standing vote has been requested on a question that is debatable, a whip or the designated representative of a recognized party or recognized parliamentary group may defer the vote.
Senator Batters: On this particular one, I think that this takes the previous discussion to a much more significant level. In my view, only government and opposition should be able to defer votes. That’s a very significant tool. I think it’s necessary to have the two groups that have the most skin in the game: the government, who is trying to pass a piece of legislation, and the opposition, who is trying to hold the government to account and perhaps try to have a different result. If you all of a sudden allow all these different groups, which right now could be five or even more different groups, the opportunity to defer a vote, it provides a very unworkable situation. As well, this is an important tool of the opposition, and delay is a legitimate tactic in a parliamentary institution and in the Senate.
Senator Gold: Let me preface this by saying I want to hear everybody before I get more prescriptive in my suggestions, but whatever else we do, let’s ensure that all applicable titles be included.
May I make the observation that it would help our discussion to understand what the rules are, for example, in the House of Commons, where they have lots of experience with other groups. What are the deferral powers for recorded or standing votes in the House of Commons? What powers do their whips have in that regard? This is an important issue, and we should be well informed, so I would look to the clerk, perhaps, to provide us with some context, or at least at the other place. I look forward to others’ views on this.
Senator Cordy: I agree with Senator Gold, because I don’t know what it is in the House of Commons. I should, but I don’t, and I think that would be helpful. If we could just defer — could I use the word “defer”? — rule 9-10 until later when we have that information, that would be helpful for me. We’ve been talking about changing the rules about equality —
The Chair: Equity.
Senator Cordy: I’m sorry — equity. I’ll write that down, so I will reuse it. If we’re talking about equity, this would be a case where every recognized group should have the right to defer.
Senator Woo: Are we opening up a whole different set of discussions by examining aspects of the rules that go beyond equity? I prefer the word “equality.” That is what we’re trying to do; it’s more than equity. If that’s the decision of this committee, then many aspects of all the rules we can investigate go well beyond whether one group has special status over another.
The Chair: I say that, because in our first discussion — and I think Senator Saint-Germain proposed it — I thought it was okay to distinguish between equity among groups and equality among senators. Those are the two different things. I think “equity,” in a sense, is more in line with what we are doing.
Senator Woo: That’s a small part of my comment, and we don’t need to get bogged down in semantics. But behind the term “equity” or “equality” is the fundamental difference that we’ve seen come up time and again in this discussion. It’s becoming a broken record. I’m sounding like a broken record. I’m hoping we can find a way to cut through it or decide that we can’t solve this issue. The question fundamentally is whether some groups have special status over others, whether we believe that all groups should have similar rights when it comes to matters of decision-making in the chamber and beyond, or if some groups have greater rights. It is, of course, easier to make decisions with a duopoly. Authoritarians have great power to make decisions quickly, and it’s messy when there are many groups in the Senate having to be consulted for decision making. If this is the Senate of the future, and if in fact the Parliament of Canada Act has entrenched the rights and the status of groups other than the government and the opposition, then we should reflect those changes in our rules. I wouldn’t say it again, but I think that should be the fundamental question that we are dealing with in our deliberations.
Senator Wells: One thing I would like Adam to also look at is the genesis of the deferred vote. Where did that come from and why was it used? I recognize it is used, but I don’t know the genesis of it. I think that would be helpful to our discussion.
The other thing is it’s important for us to recognize that our system was founded more than 150 years ago — not just by accident, but by design — on the Westminster system, which has as its foundation a government and an opposition. That’s not to the exclusion of other groups, not at all, but the system is founded on that basic principle. I don’t think we should lose sight of that. Over our 156 years, we’ve always been able to modify our practices based on the situation in front of us. I think it’s really important that we remember that.
Senator Batters: I want to point out, too, that there’s always this reference to, oh, the Parliament of Canada Act. Now changes allow a certain equality between groups. However, the Parliament of Canada Act continues to — even with these new changes — recognize that there are differences in special status accorded to different groups. The government has a special status. The government leadership positions are paid more money. The opposition has a special status. Their leadership positions are paid certain amounts of money. They have certain powers listed in there. Even in the changes to the Parliament of Canada Act recently brought in by this government, they didn’t accord to all recognized parliamentary groups the leadership salaries and that sort of thing that they would receive, only to a certain limited number. Even if the Senate had nine groups that each had nine members, so they would actually be considered to be a group, they don’t receive those types of leadership salaries and that type of thing. According to the Parliament of Canada Act changes, there’s only a certain set number of groups that receive that, and the same thing with some of the other different functions that are provided under that statute. We already have recognition of these differences, and I think to just say that because of the Parliament of Canada Act, all groups need to receive equal powers, it not only doesn’t accord to the Westminster system that we’re based on but also the rules that have recently been passed.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I think it is worth noting that the people around this table have worked for more than four years without any time allocation, and I do not think it has affected the quality of their work.
[English]
There is a fundamental principle that has not changed since 1867. This is a democracy and the will of the majority shall prevail. Another option on this deferral of standing votes would be that the majority of the recognized group could allow for this deferral, if we want to find an alternative, rather than to give one group this power or prerogative. This might be an alternative.
Senator Gold: Under the heading of “broken record,” I want to make the point that the Westminster model is a flexible model and that there are differences between the elected chambers and upper chambers. We see this around the world, and we’re not unhinged from our tradition, nor is the Westminster tradition a one-size-fits-all model. We’re demonstrating that in the Senate, and that should guide our deliberations on rules as well.
Senator Busson: Again, at the risk of sounding like another broken record, I think it’s worthwhile remembering or recounting that in this new and improved Senate, where the senators are independent, they’re not less likely to hold the government to account than any other group or designated party. The way I view it is that this isn’t a take away. It’s just an augmentation so that the other groups have an opportunity to add their say to the accountability of the government.
[Translation]
The Chair: That is an interesting perspective.
[English]
Senator Greene: I can feel an opposition, at least as much or more, about something when the so-called opposition can feel it, so I can be a member of the opposition without being a member of the “opposition.”
Senator Ringuette: Senator Greene has just said what I was thinking. At the end of the day, individually we’re all being asked to be a critic. That being said, I would also concur with Senator Gold that the Westminster system has shown over time to be very flexible in meeting the desired changes by the different chambers. If that is not the case, the Speaker of the House of Commons in any of our Commonwealth country would be subject to being beheaded. That being said, again, Madam Chair, I would ask that we again adjust the titles.
In regard to the purpose of deferring votes, what I have witnessed through the years is that sometimes it’s an issue that the vote is called on Wednesday at 3:30 and people are expected to be in committee at 4:30 and it would be an issue of chaos. Sometimes it’s because it is a Thursday afternoon where some senators for different reasons had to leave early to get to their area in order to participate in public events. And sometimes it’s just to reflect on the issue of the vote.
Again, I would say this is not an issue of providing special status to one or the other group. I think this is an issue of getting along and recognizing and being consistent in the language that we use. Madam Chair, I believe that at the end of the day on this discussion, all the whips and the designated representatives should have the equal opportunity, depending on where the members of their group are in a time frame and on an issue they’re being asked to vote on. I believe we should include all the titles that we have in the act of parliament and again, move on. This is not creating chaos in how we work.
Senator Batters: Going back to an earlier point, yes, it is certainly possible and desirable, I think, for all senators to view that they hold the government to account. That’s an important part of our job. But we also need to remember, when we’re determining what groups and caucuses receive which powers, that right now, there are some groups in the Senate who have the majority of their senators who are named by the current Prime Minister. To allow the Prime Minister the ability to appoint his own opposition I don’t think that is a workable solution in any sort of parliamentary institution. We just need to remember that. That’s the reality right now. It’s great that all senators would view that they have an important job to provide that sober second thought and hold the government to account, but to have the opposition, that’s why it’s there. That is their sworn obligation.
[Translation]
The Chair: We heard your message clearly, Senator Batters. I just want to remind everyone that this is the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. The rules are here to stay; as you know, it is very difficult to change them. Nonetheless, we have moved from a bipartisan system to a system with various groups. So we have to review the rules and, if we change them, we must not focus on the present. We must always look to the future, because governments change and opposition parties change. The rules should not be designed on the basis of an opposition that sometimes uses them to extend, prevent or delay debate and discussions. We have to take a broader view, considering that sometimes one party is in opposition and at other times the opposition and the government change. We must have rules that enable us, as senators, to serve our role of sober second thought and carefully analyze a bill that we oppose in a timely manner.
I just wanted to make that point.
I have a suggestion. I would like us to quickly run through the various points in our series of proposals to identify those that pertain to style, to practical matters, or to changing the role of the official opposition in some respects, or making the rule more equitable in others.
It is clear that we will not reach consensus or unanimity here on all the changes. That reflects how a report might be received in the other chamber.
For now, let us review what we can do here. I have a suggestion regarding our report, as to how we could proceed.
Senator Ringuette, would you like to say something?
Senator Ringuette: Madam Chair, you have pinpointed exactly what we have to keep in mind in reviewing the proposed amendments. If there is a different government in three years, there is no guarantee that one of the other groups that we have now would want to be the official opposition. So we have to make sure all groups are included in our rules.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Woo: Chair, I think your suggestion is very helpful. It seems to me that the two major themes running through our discussion today and the previous meeting are, first of all, Senator Gold’s helpful suggestion that we spell out the titles in full to be consistent. I haven’t really heard anyone object to that, so if we could say that’s a given, that would be very helpful.
The other issue, the broken record issue is, of course, whether or not there are some changes in this portfolio that should not be touched because a few members of this group believe that they dilute the rights of the opposition and, therefore, should not be violated. It would be helpful if Senator Batters told us which of these clauses are, for her, non-negotiable because only the government and the opposition should have those rights. Then it becomes very clear to us how much we can get done, and by default, all of the other clauses can be changed to put in place the equity of Senate groups simply by putting a reference to the leaders or facilitators of other groups and so on and so forth. It should be a fairly straightforward and automatic process, but we need to know up front which items Senator Batters, and perhaps others, deem to be unacceptable in order for equity to be introduced to our rules.
[Translation]
The Chair: That is one approach, but I would rather look at each point separately so we are clear on what we are doing. I know we will not reach a consensus today, but I would like us to have a conversation next week, when we return. We have to understand that we have two problems. One is the transition to a Senate with multiple groups; the other is preserving or changing the powers of the official opposition in the interest of equity. Those are two different things.
As a senator — and I think this is our duty as a committee — without conducting long-term studies, I think we should have a good meeting with clerks of upper houses, who have to manage several groups and the opposition, simply to find out how they go about it and to begin a discussion of that. I would like in particular to hear from a clerk from the French Senate and a clerk from the House of Lords. That might be a good way to have a conversation, just to set the record straight, while also keeping an open mind. That is something I would like to discuss at the end.
I noticed that Senator Greene had his hand up.
[English]
Senator Greene: Senator Woo’s proposition or idea of proceeding is an interesting one, but for some reason that leaves me uneasy, and I don’t quite know why. That’s where I am.
[Translation]
The Chair: I also feel uneasy and would rather proceed point by point.
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like to make a procedural suggestion so we have enough time to discuss the issues that are truly substantive as opposed to those where we are simply making amendments in keeping with previous ones.
I think we are spending too much time discussing each of the amendments and repeating what we just said. There is clearly a majority in favour of amending the titles in keeping with the Parliament of Canada Act. I respectfully suggest that we stop rehashing every point and focus on the strategic elements.
I thought we had agreed that there was no reason to hear from outside witnesses, but if there is, I would point out that the French Senate operates completely differently from the Senate of Canada and is not part of the Westminster system. So, personally, I see no reason for that.
Secondly, if the majority feels that we should have those outside consultations, I suggest we do so quickly, and virtually.
[English]
Senator Batters: First of all, on a couple of these points, Senator Bellemare, if the translation was correct — and it may not have captured exactly what you were trying to say on that. I wrote a note that you had recently said, “We need to decide whether we are going to preserve the opposition.”
The Chair: [Technical difficulties]
Senator Batters: Okay. That’s what the translation said so it may have been wrong. I’m glad to hear that, because I don’t think that’s something, hopefully, we are going to be debating here at the Rules Committee. Hopefully, that’s a given.
Senator Saint-Germain, when you were just saying in your point to look at the strategic goal here and wanting to simply not have any witnesses, not have any further discussion about all of these types of amendments, but let’s have a majority vote, I guess majority vote of senators, many of whom have been appointed by the current Prime Minister. I think that is absolutely not what the Rules Committee should be doing.
We are dealing with a motion here that was barely debated in the Senate of Canada. It is not like it was passed in the Senate or even debated to a significant extent. It was barely debated in the Senate. Then it has been put to us that we should take this up and use that as a basis to debate it. We had Senator Tannas come for one hour of discussion on a couple of pretty major points. Senator Tannas agreed during that debate that he was backing down at certain points. Then we were still discussing them and viewing those as open issues. Then we had a discussion for a relatively short time — I think one hour last week — and now we are into about another hour here.
With only that level of discussion, would we really be saying without any actual witnesses to discuss, and we haven’t heard what’s the genesis of this particular part, what does this mean, and what does the House of Commons do on this? We really need some more actual evidence and discussion and not just a little bit of chatter between our committee members here. We need to have some real — and frankly, we haven’t had a steering committee meeting for months. That’s the kind of place I think we need to be dealing with some of these issues to determine how we can best capture what we need to be debating here and determining for the best of the Senate.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Saint-Germain: Very briefly, to Senator Batters’s point, my point is that we have many consequential amendments and we are losing time. It is a procedural suggestion that we agree without further discussion for hours on consequential amendments so that we have time to further discuss the amendments that would be more challenging, according to you and to the other members. This is the only point that I made. As for consultations with external witnesses, we had agreed that those were no longer relevant because expertise is within this chamber, and we are the masters of our own destiny. If we go there, I suggest we have virtual consultations through virtual or hybrid meetings.
The Chair: Thank you. We will proceed on the other elements of our objective today. I would stress that the discussion to go point by point is relevant in my view because it enables us to see what is a matter of practicality and what is a matter of, I wouldn’t say ideology, but it is a matter of opposition versus government. We have a task to do so, we had better do it, but we’ll do it more quickly, as suggested by Senator Saint-Germain.
We were discussing the deferral of standing votes, and 9-10(4) is the same thing, Vote Deferred to Friday.
Senator Gold: It’s not the same.
The Chair: It’s not the same, okay. Senator Gold, it is a bit of an extension, as Senator Batters would say, but you say it’s not the same so go ahead.
Senator Gold: I’m sorry, and I didn’t mean to interrupt you. I wanted to get something on the record. Again, I’m open to the discussion here.
Rule 9-10(4) is about further deferral to a Friday. The current rules give the power to the Government Whip only — not to the opposition and not to other groups. I want to suggest that there is a case to be made that at least with regard to government business — not necessarily public bills, but certainly with regard to government business — that power should remain exclusively within the Government Whip or liaison, because at the end of the day, we have a responsibility. The government has a responsibility to do its best to make sure there are enough people in the chamber to vote on a government bill. That interest, I think, transcends which government is in power or who appointed which senators. I think other considerations would apply for non-government business. Again, I want to put that on the table before we move on to another point.
The Chair: Is there consensus on that issue? I think there is. Okay. Thank you very much. I think it’s Government Whip —
Senator Gold: Again, we did that in the very first meeting.
The Chair: Exactly.
Senator Gold: I’m interested in the view that there is an argument still. The outstanding issue is what about further deferrals for public bills or non-government business? That’s still an open question.
The Chair: That remains. That’s right. What is your feeling, that we stay as it is even for non-government business? That’s the status quo.
We go to Chapter 12 — “Committees, Ex officio members.” That’s voting rights. It reads as follows:
12-3(3) In addition to the membership provided for in subsections (1) and (2), the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition or, in the absence of either, their respective Deputy Leaders are ex officio members of all committees except the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight, and the joint committees.
The proposition is to add something, as we have discussed:
12-3(3) In addition to the membership provided for in subsections (1) and (2), the Leader of the Government, or the Deputy Leader if the Leader is absent, and the leader or facilitator of each recognized party and recognized parliamentary group, or a designate if a leader or facilitator is absent, are ex officio members of all committees except the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight, and the joint committees. The ex officio members of committees have all the rights and obligations of a member of a committee.
Senator Gold, do you have something to say on that issue?
Senator Gold: I reserve the right for the balance of my time. I really want to hear what other people say. We had an initial discussion of this, if I recall, when Senator Tannas was here.
The Chair: Yes. We did.
Senator Gold: I’m not sure what I said, but I’m really in listening mode right now. I would like to weigh in once I get a sense of where the room is.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Batters: On this issue, and I would need my memory refreshed as well, I believe Senator Tannas was recognizing that it could be problematic to have this number of ex officio members take part in committees, because already in our committees we have some committees that have 15 members and there is very limited question time available for members. Of course, this particular amendment would allow ex officio members all the rights and obligations of a member of the committee, which means they can vote. On a particular government bill that maybe is not going so well at committee, the government leader could potentially, in the current scenario, get all of —
Right now, when the Leader of the Government is going to attend a committee, he has to give the Leader of the Opposition notice that he is going to attend so that the Leader of the Opposition can also attend. That kind of set-off is available. But if you all of a sudden have five or six different leaders or designates from each of those particular groups available to attend as ex officio members, not only could they completely dominate the discussion time at a committee away from the regular committee members, but also the vote could be substantially altered from what it otherwise might be at that committee. I don’t think that is a good, workable solution, no matter what side you sit on.
Senator Woo: So as to not alter the vote, I believe we should not provide the right to vote to all ex officio members, which was the version of the motion that I had tabled. The only substantial difference between my version of the motion and Senator Tannas’ is that it is offensive to a committee that ex officio members can drop in at the end of a study and cast a vote. I think it undermines the integrity of the committee. While there may be partisan reasons for the vote to exist, which the government and the opposition, in particular, want to use, I think that is a model that we want to move away from.
Senator Wells: I think Senator Batters is correct. This is ripe for abuse if additional members are permitted to drop in on a committee to vote, essentially. We have balance within our committees now, based on the proportions in the chamber. I think that’s fair and reasonable. This creates an immediate imbalance.
While it might be common practice for ex officio members to notify other ex officio members, it doesn’t always happen. I know from recent experience that that is the case. On a bill where I was critic, the ex officio member came in to vote, and my caucus was not notified.
Another thing I hadn’t thought about until Senator Batters mentioned it is the taking up of speaking time from what I’ll call the regular members. To have an ex officio come in and automatically be a regular member does take up time in our limited committee time, which is generally set at two hours.
The other part that comes to mind is that all senators have the right to sit in on a committee, with the limited rights of not being voting members and perhaps, based on the chair’s view, not having priority in speaking. I think that’s fair. If any senator wants to come in and weigh in on a topic, they should be able to, whether in committee or in the chamber, which is the current case.
I think that to have automatic voting rights conferred on additional members is an avenue for abuse that we should be mindful of.
Senator Gold: I’m tempted to make a joke: “I have heard enough; it’s my time to speak.” Not funny and a bad joke.
Colleagues, this is helpful. I would like to make a couple of points.
First, apart from the question of voting — to which I’ll return in a second — granting ex officio status does carry with it some prerogatives: gaining access to committee documents and being able to move motions at committee. It is not only a question of voting, and that is something that I think is of value to the leaders and facilitators or their designates in groups. I do agree that having everyone vote, for the reasons Senator Woo suggested, is not the way to go.
But I do want to make one point, and it is a special pleading for the government. We are the only group that doesn’t have seats on committees. Therefore, it is important for the government representative to be able not only to attend as a regular senator but to move motions, to propose amendments and to make the government’s position known when it is a government bill at committee. I’m not suggesting anything other than that we consider all of these relevant factors, including the disruption if everyone had ex officio status and could vote, but there is a special aspect in that the government representative’s prerogatives need to be factored in when we land on whatever we land on.
The Chair: If I understand you correctly, your position is that the actual wording suits you — not the amendment.
Senator Gold: No. I’m sensitive to the argument that, wherever possible, we should be equitable. I don’t want to be a philosopher here. Equality doesn’t mean sameness.
The Chair: Are you saying that only the government —
Senator Gold: No, I’m not. I’m saying that when we land on what we do with ex officio — I made two points. One, there are advantages, prerogatives, that should be shared equitably in terms of leadership of groups, though it is true that all groups except us will have members on the committee and therefore have access indirectly to the documents. Nonetheless, I wanted to make that point. Second, there is a case to be made for retaining ex officio status, for sure, and even a right to vote, but I’m not proposing that the right to vote be exclusive to — I’m not making a proposition. I’m just trying to provide context for the discussion, wherever we land. I’m open to consensus here.
Senator Woo: Not to put words in Senator Gold’s mouth, but what I heard is that it could be possible to preserve many of the important prerogatives that the government wishes to preserve as an ex officio member on the committee, short of having a vote insofar as having a vote would mean that all other groups have the vote as well, and that would be disruptive at committee. I did not say Senator Gold said this. This is what I heard. I think that could be a path forward for us to consider.
Senator Batters: I wanted to make a quick point further to something that Senator Gold said. It reminded me of the fact that, for the last seven years, we have had a situation where government senators have not been members of committees. That is very foreign to those of us who were here before. A different situation is foreign to those senators who weren’t here prior to that, seven years ago. What used to happen is that, with a government caucus, there were many of us who sat as senators on those committees who were members of the government caucus. They had those particular abilities as committee members. I wanted to draw that to everyone’s attention because that is the choice that the current government has made. It isn’t a requirement, but it is the case that the government doesn’t have senators sitting on committees. It is simply the choice that exists. There could be a different scenario under what existed previously or something that may exist in the future. That is simply what exists currently, but that is not how it was for many years before.
Senator Gold: Further to the point I just made, this government, which I have the privilege of representing, made a decision and a choice to disconnect the Senate from the control of the government at the time and, in that regard, to seek to establish more independence and less partisanship. Yes, the consequence of that is that I don’t have a caucus and I don’t control votes. That is a decision of this government, but it is part of the larger project that we’re engaged in to make this Senate work fairly for all senators and all groups. The future will unfold as the future unfolds, but we are seized with the reality now.
The Chair: Are there any other comments? If not, then we will go on to the next and come back to that in the final document.
As I understand it, with the ex officio vote, there is opposition to everyone having a vote, or not? That’s what I want to know. I understood Senator Woo to say that he withdrew. He said there is no sense to have everyone vote on the committee but that all ex officio have a role. Maybe he can repeat it clearly so we understand the suggestion made by Senator Woo.
Senator Woo: I suggested that all groups and caucuses and government as well have ex officio status on all committees except Ethics and Audit and Oversight, but that they do not have a vote. They, however, would have all the other prerogatives of being a member of those committees.
The Chair: So it doesn’t change the vote. This is what I think makes a consensus.
Senator Ringuette: If that is the proposal, I would certainly agree with that because it doesn’t change the voting structure of the said committee.
The Chair: Exactly.
Senator Ringuette: To reinforce that — and maybe Senator Cordy can also confirm this — in the past, when an ex officio person, whether from the government or the opposition, would attend the committee, they would advise the other person that they were doing so, so as to not disrupt the voting structure of the committee. Do we have agreement?
The Chair: We have an agreement. We turn to rule 12-8(2).
Senator Gold: I would like to know the status. Are we parking this?
The Chair: No, we said we have consensus, Senator Gold, on having moved that the ex officio have all the status of members but without the voting.
Senator Gold: I agree with that, but I wonder if I might request that I have some time and that we can come back to this next week.
The Chair: We will come back on everything.
Senator Gold: On the issue of the exchange between Senator Batters and me, there is an important point here. When it’s a government bill and we don’t have a member on the committee, I want to reflect upon whether I might try to make a case for retaining the right to vote on a government bill. I’m not saying that’s my position. I would like to think about this again.
The Chair: Perfect. The status of what we are doing today is to have some indication so we can present you with a document that reflects some kind of a consensus, with choices. We want to have your words, your feelings or your understandings or your opposition or agreement; we want to hear from you on all the suggestions so we can present to you a document that is more reflective of the actual positions of all groups.
Senator Gold: Thank you.
The Chair: Next is rule 12-8(2). This is about the titles. Is it only about the titles Service fee proposals? Is everyone okay that we agree to change the titles?
Senator Batters: Can the clerk explain? Is it just a change of titles, or is there something more to it?
Mr. Thompson: As I read it, if we were to keep consistent with previous agreements as far as just incorporating titles, that would just be it. In Senator Tannas’s proposal, they are all grouped together, as he has done on a number of the other provisions, “all leaders and facilitators.” I could draft something to model what we’ve had with the leader or representative of the government or deputy leader or legislative deputy of the government and leader of the opposition or deputy leader of the opposition and leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group. It is really a matter of titles as far as the consultation on a designated committee to look at service fee proposals.
The Chair: Next is rule 12-18(2), Meetings on days the Senate is adjourned. This is something that we know about because, when the Senate was adjourned, there was a problem especially for those committees that meet on Mondays. At that time, the Rules Committee was meeting on Mondays, so we could not meet when we had a full break week because we always needed permission to sit.
This is how the rule reads:
Except as provided in subsection (3) and elsewhere in these Rules, a Senate committee may meet when the Senate is adjourned:
(a) for more than a day but less than a week, provided that notice was given to the members of the committee one day before the Senate adjourned; or
(b) for more than a week, provided that the meeting was either:
(i) by order of the Senate, or
(ii) with the signed consent of the Leaders of the Government and Opposition, or their designates, in response to a written request from the chair and deputy chair.
The suggestion is to replace subsection (ii) with
with the signed consent of the majority of the leaders and facilitators, or their designates, in response to a written request from the chair and deputy chair.
May I suggest, before we go into the debate, that we could also include, no matter what we choose here, excluding those who meet regularly on Mondays. There are a lot of committees that meet on Mondays, but the Senate is adjourned until the Tuesday. The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages meets on Mondays, as do others. They need a special referral or special permission to meet. Maybe we could change that here at the same time.
Senator Batters: First, on that point you were just raising, Senator Bellemare, I think that was one of the points we kind of set aside for the recent discussions we were having. That was one of the points of potential rule changes that we were discussing earlier. I think that is probably a better place to discuss that, rather than trying to plug it in here.
As you were pointing out before, when the Rules Committee was one of those designated to meet on Mondays, when we were still under a hybrid sort of format, yes, the permission was required. We did have some occasions where that permission was granted and some where it wasn’t. It wasn’t a blanket situation where it was not granted. There were occasions where it was.
As this potential rule reads, it has gone from, previously, to have the signed consent of the leaders of the government and the opposition or their designate — both of them, must have both — to, now, requiring the signed consent of a majority of the leaders and facilitators. The Senate does not exist to protect the majority. The Senate exists to protect the minority. There would potentially be groups other than the opposition all agreeing and the opposition not agreeing, and then we would have that go ahead, so I can’t agree to that. Sorry.
The Chair: Does anyone else want to go on this one?
Senator M. Deacon: If you don’t mind, Senator Batters, at the beginning of what you just said there, not going to plug it in here, not a great idea at this moment, but we should deal with it. Can you repeat that part?
The Chair: It’s because it’s in the other list.
Senator M. Deacon: Oh, it’s in the other piece. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: That is a question that has never been answered.
I am trying to understand the rule that requires permission from the government representative — not “and” but “or” — the opposition representative for committees that meet on Mondays in cases where the Senate has been adjourned for more than a week.
The Chair: It is “and” and not “or.”
[English]
Senator Saint-Germain: With the signed consent of the Leaders of the Government and Opposition.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: You’re right; it is “and.”
Why should the committees that meet on Mondays be discriminated against in that way, as though they were less important? What is the rationale for this rule?
The Chair: Mr. Thompson, do we have any background on this?
[English]
Mr. Thompson: The rule is generally applied when the Senate is adjourned for a period of longer than a week. Mondays entered the committees schedule about 20 years ago with the addition of the National Security and Defence Committee and the Human Rights Committee and with our establishing our own Official Languages Committee which previously had been a joint committee with the House of Commons. Mondays began to be used more regularly for committee meetings. There was a semi‑regular process at that point where there would be a sessional order authorizing committees that are scheduled to meet on Monday to be authorized to meet under this rule. Each committee would seek that authority itself. With three or four committees coming with that request, ultimately there began being a single motion. That carried on for a couple of sessions, and it hasn’t happened in a number of years now.
Senator Saint-Germain: Would you agree that it would be fair and relevant that we exclude the Monday committees from this situation so that they are treated like all other committees? You said a decision was made 20 years ago or so. My understanding is that the rules shall then have been amended accordingly in order for these committees to be fairly treated. I would suggest that.
[Translation]
The Chair: The suggestion from Senator Batters is that, regardless of our decision, this discussion must be placed on the other list, and we must focus our discussion on the Tannas-Woo proposal. That was not part of the Tannas-Woo proposal, so it is best not to introduce it now.
Senator Saint-Germain: I will introduce it then.
[English]
Senator Batters: What I was saying before is that when we came up with a large list of potential rule changes and that sort of thing, that was one of the ones that we had. It’s already on that list. We had a brief discussion about it. It’s something that was scheduled to be an upcoming discussion item fairly soon. However, because we started this, it was put off. I think that’s the better place to do it.
My major point on this, when there was the question about why did this come about — perhaps Adam can give us more historical facts on it — my understanding is the Monday thing might have been a corollary of it. However, I think primarily it was decided in case there was a situation where we had committees and they decided that, “Our study is extremely important. We must meet in the middle of the summer on this particular study.” The government and the opposition would then have to agree to that to ensure the overall management of the Senate time and expenses and senators’ time and expenses would be deemed worthwhile. Also, possibly for tactical reasons as well, if there were particular times when a committee wanted to meet at a certain point, maybe to even deal with something that could potentially embarrass the government, the government would have the ability to say, “Nope, you’re not going to meet.”
[Translation]
The Chair: Are there any other comments? Do we have a consensus? No, someone disagrees. That will be reflected in the document you will receive.
[English]
Appointment of committees, 12-27, reads as follows:
12-27(1) As soon as practicable at the beginning of each session, the Leader of the Government shall move a motion, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, on the membership of the Standing Committees on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators. This motion shall be deemed adopted without debate or vote, and a similar motion shall be moved for any substitutions in the membership of the committee.
The suggested proposition in the Woo-Tannas motion reads as follows:
12-27(1) As soon as practicable at the beginning of each session, the Leader of the Government shall move a motion, seconded by the other leaders and facilitators, on the membership of the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators. This motion shall be deemed adopted without debate or vote, and a similar motion shall be moved for any substitutions in the membership of the committee.
As I read this, it kind of reflects the practice, because people come from each group.
Senator Batters: This one is fine. The only suggestion, going back to our early discussion, is to make sure that “other leaders and facilitators” is defined as recognized parliamentary groups, those types of things. I’m sure Senator Gold would have the same comment about “Leader of the Government” and the wording there. Aside from that wording, yes. Otherwise, it’s fine.
The Chair: Good. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson: There are likely some broader issues with this overall section as far as the appointment of members to the Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, as I think there are still provisions as far as selection of members within caucuses that don’t reflect the current number of groups. I will only touch titles at this stage of the game. If we want to look at other structures —
The Chair: It is in the list.
Mr. Thompson: It is in the list; you are correct.
The Chair: We have other issues on that.
Senator Wells: Because we’re adding in “and” here, I think we all have to assume — or maybe we shouldn’t assume — that “leaders and facilitators” are one individual per group or caucus.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: I think I would structure it as “Leader or Representative of the Government shall move a motion, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and the other leaders and facilitators of other recognized parties or recognized parliamentary groups.”
The Chair: Okay? We are almost done.
Senator Cordy: Is it “or” or is the “and” sufficient?
Mr. Thompson: I believe the “and” is sufficient, but I will take a closer look at that as I’m drafting it.
The Chair: We’re at the end of the changes that imply changes in the rules. We’re now at Appendix 1: Terminology.
We have some things to add with “liaison.” Senator Batters, last time you asked that we have some definition of the liaison because it’s not in there. It’s the whip. We will have to finish it.
Regarding the appendix, we have “Critic of a bill” and “Facilitator of a recognized parliamentary group.” We have “Leader or facilitator of a recognized party or recognized parliamentary group” and “Ordinary procedure for determining duration of bells.”
What was suggested in Woo-Tannas? First of all, for “Critic of a bill,” it reads:
The lead Senator responding to the sponsor of the bill. The critic is designated by the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Government (if the sponsor is not a government member) or the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Opposition (if the sponsor is a government member). While the critic is often the second Senator to speak to a bill this is not always the case.
The suggestion is not only to add but to change some things, such as replacing the words “porte-parole d’un projet de loi” with “critique du projet de loi.”
The thing is, when you have a critic of a bill on a government bill, there’s no problem. It’s the opposition that has to agree to the critic of a bill. But when it’s a non-government bill, the government used to be there to designate a critic, but now in the new Senate — so we will need a discussion. I’ll let Senator Gold explain a little bit more because it’s something of a question for the government representative.
Senator Gold: Thank you for the invitation, but I was going to make a broader point for consideration. There are quite a few things in the terminology, quite a few headings in addition to the ones you mentioned, where the titles have to be added appropriately. There are other areas, quite properly, that are more substantive changes. We’ve given this some thought in our office to some language, and I’m in the hands of the committee. Either we can send that to the clerk or I can read things out.
Let me give you an idea of the range of things that at least technically need to be changed, or even more substantively. At least in our reading of it, the definition of “public bill,” definition of “critic,” quite properly, definitions for the “deputy leader” or “legislative deputy,” definition of “government business,” definition of “government,” or at least in the headings, “government liaison.” We talked about that earlier. “Government Representative” and “Leader of the Government.” There are a whole bunch of things in the appendix. Many of them are technical, and it’s just a question of plugging in “Parliament of Canada Act.” Others are more substantive. I’m not sure how you want to proceed, but we’re happy to share our language on the technical things.
Senator Batters: I remember you saying, Senator Gold, that you had some particular technical language that could be helpful on these types of definitions and improving that. Maybe it would be best if, yes, you submitted it to the clerk, and then the steering committee can look at it and we can get it to members of the committee so that we can have a better, full discussion when we have all seen it in front of us and can compare it and know whether that’s the thing to do.
Senator Gold: I’d be happy to do that, Senator Batters. It’s hard to make drafting decisions without the text in front of us.
Senator Batters: Yes.
The Chair: I agree. I think that makes sense. If all agree, we will leave that for today because it may take time so that everyone understands. It also relates to process. If that is all, let us conclude. At the next meeting, we’ll have our terminology discussion.
We will also have a steering committee, hopefully. It’s very hard to have our people at steering. It’s not me; it’s everybody’s schedule. We’ll meet today and have our steering committee and talk about the possibility — I know some people are clear. We won’t do a study on things, but I think it might be interesting to have an hour or so with clerks from other jurisdictions on the groups discussion and how it works for them. It may open our minds. We’ll have that discussion and have a suggestion for you. We won’t do anything to delay but only to be able to do our jobs correctly in the spirit that the rules are hard to change, and they have to be there for future generations, so we had better be more universal in our thinking. I think it is sound to do that, not in length but at least in depth, for some issues.
Senator M. Deacon: Perhaps with that, because I’ve been hearing this a couple of times, steering might be the way to deal with this. I’ve heard that we are not or have not discussed witnesses. I actually want to understand a little bit better, maybe coming out of the steering committee meeting, what gaps we’re missing that we would benefit having witnesses from and who those witnesses might be. I know we haven’t talked about long and we’re trying to go deep, but I do want to understand that because it’s been said a few times. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
If there are no other comments, we’ll meet after the break week and finish with the methodology. You will have an agenda proposed for this time frame. Have a good day, and thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)