THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 15, 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: My name is Diane Bellemare, and I am the Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. I would ask each of my colleagues to give their name and the province they’re from.
[English]
Senator Busson: Hello. Bev Busson from British Columbia.
Senator M. Deacon: Good morning. Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.
Senator Black: Rob Black from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan from Ontario.
[Translation]
The Chair: Our objective today is to study amendments to the Rules in response to the letter from the clerk. We have already spent half of two meetings considering amendments proposed at two subsequent meetings: one held on June 14 and the other on September 27.
To refresh your memory, the clerk sent us a set of amendments to the Rules because some rules were outdated or inconsistent — perhaps not inconsistent, but they were duplicative or ineffective in today’s electronic environment. It’s a set of rules, some of which are more important than others.
We’ll carefully review the corrected document that was sent by Adam Thompson around November 10. The idea is to see if we agree with the proposed amendments. Some of them will require us to revisit the issue, but that can be done in another context, at another time, if deemed necessary.
In terms of the amendments that will be agreed to in committee, they could be consolidated into a report that we will submit to the Senate. We’ll get started without further ado. We didn’t think it was necessary to invite Mr. Heyde and Mr. Lafrenière today. I think Mr. Thompson is able to shed a lot of light on this, so we can get right to it.
As I did at the other meetings, given that we are going into detail, I’ll refer mainly to the English document, but we can come back to the French document from time to time, since there are amendments to the French version of the Rules.
We’ll start with the first element.
[English]
The first item was rule 2-8(c), which prohibits smoking. If you recall, because there is no smoking area anymore, it’s in our habits, so the intent was to take it out of that rule, even though it’s a public rule in governments everywhere.
Are you okay with removing it?
Senator M. Deacon: I’m not fighting for its inclusion; I am just asking at this table where the conversation — it continues to come up, and it came up again this morning in another meeting around smudging and the use of tobacco in the Senate of Canada Building.
It is not smoking as we know it, but I know this has been an issue, and I don’t know where that gets addressed — if it is at this table in this area. I know there is an undertone around it that continues.
Senator Ringuette: [Technical difficulties] in the Senate chamber and in Senate committees, as an extension —
Senator M. Deacon: Yes. I would still hold the same question, because it wasn’t just a building and an office. It came up in any location in the building.
I just wanted to clarify. I don’t want to get sidetracked, but just —
Senator Saint-Germain: This question is addressed by the Internal Economy Committee’s Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan.
Senator Ringuette: Okay.
The Chair: Because it is addressed in the Internal Economy Committee, the administrative rules and so forth, then there is no point to have it in our Rules in the Senate.
It’s a good point, Senator Deacon, because we have all sorts of electronic cigarettes and so forth nowadays.
We will remove rule 2-8(c).
[Translation]
The second point concerns the notice of inquiry. There’s no change in French, but a correction needs to be made in English.
[English]
In the English version, it was not clear that the words “raise an inquiry” was the proper way to phrase it, so it was proposed to change it to “initiate an inquiry.” As I said in French, there was no problem with it.
Do you agree with changing that? Thank you.
Point number 3 concerns rule 5-5, regarding notice to consider messages from the Commons.
Here, if you recall, the point was that there was a notice of one day for amendments that were received from the House of Commons on proposed bills, but there was nothing else in the Rules about how many days’ notice with which we should treat other kinds of questions coming from the other place.
The idea was to add something in the Rules under rule 5-5(j); right now, it says “any other substantive motion,” but it was not clear enough, so the clerk proposed:
(j) to consider a message from the House of Commons not related to a Commons amendment to a public bill; or
(k) any other substantive motion.
As I said before, these are the things that would require one day’s notice.
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee, Senate of Canada: Yes, that’s exactly it. We are just elaborating and explicitly identifying this, as it is an item we do get questions about regularly. While it would be included within the existing text of any other substantive motion, just for clarity’s sake, it specifically and explicitly enumerated it in the list.
The Chair: Do we have agreement? Okay, thank you. It is a point of clarity. As you will see later on, there are other points that necessitate discussion.
Item number 4 deals with rule 10-3 — introduction, first reading and printing of bills. In the Rules, we have the word “printing,” and we proposed to change it to “publishing.”
Senator Batters: I wanted to bring up, as I pointed out last week, that a change also needs to be made to that subheading; currently the subheading is “Introduction, first reading and printing” of bills and we need to change that to “publishing.”
The Chair: Yes, “publishing.” Absolutely.
[Translation]
In French, it’s “publication,” and we’re saying, “Dépôt, première lecture et publication,” instead of “impression.”
We’re moving on to point number 5. This one may require a little more discussion.
[English]
Item number 5 is with regard to the timing of deferred votes. If you recall, we had a long discussion on June 14 on this issue, and it’s coming out because it’s not clear. In the Rules it says that a deferred vote will happen at “5:30 on the next sitting day.” So when the next day is a Friday and we finish at 4 p.m., then we have to ask ourselves what we will do. One thing we do is to report it again on the next day. It could be a Monday or a Tuesday. If it’s a Monday and we start at six o’clock at night, then it’s not 5:30. If it happens on a Wednesday, when we finish at four o’clock, then we have to interrupt committees and get back to the chamber to vote. So there are a lot of problems with this rule nowadays. I will let Mr. Thompson explain the proposition because it’s still a double proposition and not as clear as we may want.
Mr. Thompson: Senators, there are two elements that are addressed in these proposed amendments. One is a deferred vote on a day when the Senate sits later than the time normally prescribed; normally we would sit at 2 p.m., in which case a vote at 5:30 is completely reasonable. However, as you know, when we sit on Mondays we often sit at 6 p.m., which causes some conflict. We’re not entirely sure where to fit it in. We have often worked that into the adjournment motion so that there is a process and it is clear when it would happen. We have explicitly put that into the Rules in this case.
The other issue is with the Friday sittings where we would adjourn at four o’clock. Again, we have that dissonance between our sitting schedule and the time for a deferred vote. When we discussed this on June 14, there was a desire on the part of the committee to have some sort of consistency as far as when deferred votes happen. But that is a little bit challenging with our Friday sittings in that they start so early in the day. The approach that we took for dealing with Fridays is that, rather than consistency with a particular time of day, we went with a consistency at a particular point within the sitting. For that situation on Fridays, we would be proposing 12:30 p.m., which would be three and a half hours into the sitting, which would correspond with the three and a half hours into a normal sitting from 2 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. So it fits into that context and would clearly be within the normal sitting time and before the ordinary time of adjournment on a Friday.
I would note, however, and as you’ll recall in the past couple of weeks, we have had some broader discussions as far as deferral of votes. I’m in your hands as to whether you would like to consider making these particular changes or whether you would like to roll this into the broader discussion in the context of equity and how to approach a deferral of votes.
Senator Ringuette: I appreciate the complexity when it’s deferred to a Friday or a Monday. Maybe the issue is that in our thinking we keep the issue of putting it forth on a time frame on the clock. Maybe we should be putting it forth in regard to the Orders of the Day. Maybe the deferred vote should be happening on sitting days after Question Period because we always have Question Period on any given sitting day.
The Chair: Rule 9-10(4) does refer to that under the heading “Vote deferred to a day the Senate sits after 5:15 p.m.”:
When a standing vote has been deferred to a day on which the sitting of the Senate starts after 5:15 p.m., the vote shall take place following Question Period . . . .
Senator Ringuette: We should be consistent on that, if I may suggest. So we would eliminate this issue of sitting days and 5:30 and so forth. We would be adding that deferred vote after Question Period where most senators who wish to attend then want to be in the chamber for Question Period. I think that would be — anyway.
The Chair: I understand. Because in that discussion we had in June, there were a lot of people that were in agreement with the fact that maybe the vote should take place after Question Period, just before Orders of the Day.
Senator Busson: I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague. Especially on the Friday sittings, I have attended some Friday sittings that don’t go until 12:30. Again, that’s a waste of everybody’s time. I think if we’re consistent with Question Period, it’s almost a certain time of the day within five or eight minutes. There is no uncertainty about after Question Period, so I would certainly put my support behind that suggestion.
Senator Cordy: I’m fine with Question Period also. Remember that there are days on which we do have ministerial Question Period which is later in the day. It could also be that the vote is held just prior to Orders of the Day. So that would be after Question Period on a regular day but it would also hold better on days that we might have ministerial Question Period which could be at any time, whenever the minister is available.
The Chair: I understand.
Senator Batters: I think when we were having this discussion in June and talking about after Question Period, as I recall that was more confined to these other types of days and not necessarily to have the deferred vote to be after Question Period on every sitting day. I’m not sure that there was much discussion about altering it from a 5:30 time frame, as we see because there hasn’t been any change made to that yet. I could be wrong. It was five months ago, but I don’t recall any talk about that. I mean, 5:30 p.m. was generally on sitting days other than Fridays and unusual days, as has been taken into account here. I don’t think there’s usually a problem, but still, being around at 5:30 p.m. would normally be fine if we were going to have all deferred votes taking place at a time after Question Period. I think we should have a bit of further discussion and hear what the ramifications could be to that.
The Chair: Yesterday, I read what we said in June. There was kind of an agreement that consistency was important. There was an agreement. I think it was Senator Wells who indicated after Question Period and just before Orders of the Day would be a nice way to do that. But was there another — no?
Senator Batters: The other point I want to make is that we don’t have many deferred votes. It’s pretty rare, so I’m not sure it’s necessary to have an agreement as to when those would absolutely, consistently take place on regular days. It is quite a rarity. I can’t recall the last time we had a deferred vote that took place at 5:30 p.m. It’s been several months, I would say.
The Chair: In this Parliament, I agree with you, but we had some in the previous Parliament.
Senator Batters: Absolutely. We definitely did.
Senator Ringuette: I am listening to Senator Batters, and I’m trying to gauge your reluctance to having a consistent — we are still going to have the deferred vote if there is a deferred vote. It’s just that it will be consistent. Right now, it’s not. I’m trying to understand why you would be opposed to this.
Senator Batters: I’m not necessarily opposed, chair. I just want to hear a little more about it. We didn’t have a discussion over the consistency of having it at 5:30 p.m. every single day no matter what the sitting day is. My recollection is that we didn’t have that particular discussion previously. So if it’s fine and dandy, great. I just want to know that there aren’t any particular ramifications that we’re maybe not thinking about.
Senator Busson: I just want to add a comment from the discussion. I think it would be interesting to have an overview look at it, I suspect, but Wednesdays are also a problem for a 5:30 p.m. deferred vote. I believe that many committees are sitting, or we’re rushing to a six o’clock meeting by 5:30. It also avoids that confusion.
Mr. Thompson: I would point out that as far as Wednesday sittings go, under the Rules, we don’t stop at four o’clock. That’s done by a sessional order. Provisions have been included with that sessional order to manage the timing of the deferred votes on that day so they would happen at 4:15 p.m. So it’s not something that is fixed in the Rules. It’s done by a sessional order, and we have addressed that issue as a part of that sessional order. However, I think that gets into a broader question as far as managing Wednesday sittings because there has been for some time now a sessional order addressing the early adjournment for committee meetings.
[Translation]
The Chair: What we could do is set it aside for now and come back to it when we discuss other points a little later at another meeting. Okay?
We’re now at point number 6.
[English]
Item 6 deals with amendments to bills. I will let Mr. Thompson speak to this item, which is quite technical.
Mr. Thompson: It is, and I will do my best to explain this again.
This was an issue raised by the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and has to do with the existing Rule 10-10, which discusses the form of bills. It has been left untouched almost since the 1920s when it was first included in the Rules, and it has not kept pace with changes in legislative drafting. Because of that, the Law Clerk’s office has recommended that rule be repealed and that it be replaced with provisions that authorize certain non-controversial or non-substantive corrections to the bills.
What they have proposed — and this new rule was drafted by the Law Clerk’s office — is similar to a provision in the House of Commons that would allow them to make typographical corrections across references — things of that nature. We often find that when we’re doing clause-by-clause consideration in committees and amendments are made, a series of motions are adopted to renumber and deal with cross-references and things like that. This would just put it in the Rules and give them a clear authority to do so and provide a reporting mechanism on any corrections they make. It does not authorize them to make substantive changes — that would still need to be done by motion — but it does authorize certain technical corrections.
The Chair: Is it agreed that we do that? Okay. But we will have to be careful anyhow because there might still be typical errors sometimes.
Is that done after we adopt?
Mr. Thompson: It’s authorized specifically at any stage in the legislative process.
The Chair: Anytime in the legislative process. Okay.
Item 7: If it is agreed, we’ll put it in the column of agreements. This item has to do with the Examiner of Petitions. This is the rule we discussed for quite a long time in June. In fact, it’s very simple: it’s to have the title renamed in accordance with the actual nomenclature of the clerks. What makes it difficult to understand is that the clerk in charge is called the Clerk Assistant. Principal clerks, which we usually think of as being higher in the hierarchy, are, in fact, clerks in committees, and the Clerk Assistant is, in fact, the boss — the chief of the principal clerks.
But the nomenclature here is in accordance with what is done elsewhere in some countries, so for the clerks, it’s better to have the rule change even though it’s bizarre on a common sense basis.
Mr. Thompson: If I could just briefly comment, I know that the discussion back in June had led to some questions as to how the procedural team is organized. I do have some copies of an organizational chart here if anyone would be interested just to explain some of those titles. The Clerk Assistant is what the House of Lords uses to refer to the deputy clerk of the Lords — that is the number 2 position. For many years, we had a clerk and a deputy clerk and then below that were principal clerks. The House of Commons has all of those levels: the clerk, two deputy clerks and then a series of Clerks Assistant leading to principal clerks. For some years now, we have not had a deputy clerk. Just recently, in the last couple of years, we did restructure and some of the principal clerks were named to Clerks Assistant as they were already at a level that corresponded to that similar title in the House of Commons.
So this really is just identifying that the position that was formerly called principal clerk of committees is now Clerk Assistant of Committees. It’s no actual change to authority; it’s the same person who held that responsibility in the past.
The Chair: Okay. There are no questions, so there is an agreement. It is going to be in the column of those things that we agree on.
Number 8 is “Publication of rules respecting notices for private bills.” The recommendation here is to repeal chapter 11. Is that so, because —
Mr. Thompson: It just repeals rule 11-4 and renumbers the other rules in that chapter. To reiterate, this is something that has not been done in some time and, obviously, the Rules are far easier to find now with the internet than they were when they were initially drafted.
The Chair: I understand from rereading the discussion we had in June that it is costly to print in the Canada Gazette so there is a money-saving tag to this change. We thought it would be more efficient to do it electronically. Everything that we do now is more electronic. It is agreed; it is going to go in the column of agreement.
Next is item 9, which is rule 12-2(4) regarding the Selection Committee. Here the proposition is to make no changes. As you know, the Selection Committee is neither a standing nor a special committee, but for some parliaments in the sessional order we considered the Selection Committee as a standing committee. Now the Rules permit that to be done, so we’ll leave it as it is.
Senator Black: I understand or I realize that when we say “For greater certainty,” it spells it out in a different fashion so we are clear. This is saying the same thing twice, exactly. Why is that?
Mr. Thompson: I’m sorry, senator. I’m not sure I understand.
Senator Black: It says, “is neither a standing nor special committee,” and then, after that, “For greater certainty, the Committee of Selection is neither a standing nor a special committee.”
Mr. Thompson: Senator, what you are seeing above the rule number is actually the marginal note. That is a subheading or it’s the marginal note that would appear next to it in the Rules. It is just a summary of what that section is saying.
Senator Black: I understand, but it is saying the same thing.
Mr. Thompson: It is very short and direct so the summary is almost verbatim what the actual rule is.
Senator Black: Okay.
Senator Saint-Germain: If I may, and for greater certainty, it is also and it will remain possible that, further to the leaders’ negotiations, this committee for a special Parliament is considered as a standing committee. Is this clear?
Mr. Thompson: Absolutely, senator. That’s why the clerk raised it, because for a number of sessions that sessional order had been adopted. So the question raised was whether this is something that the committee would like to revisit on a more permanent basis. The committee was clear we’ll leave it as-is and continue to address it on an ad hoc basis as to whatever sessional order the Senate chooses to adopt.
Senator Saint-Germain: I want to add that this committee, for the current Parliament, has a broadened mandate as per this sessional order. Thank you.
The Chair: In fact, if we ever want to debate it again, as you know, we are in the revision of rule 12-7, which is the structure of committees and so forth, so if for any reason we want to talk about it, we could bring it back when we talk about the review we are doing on the structure and mandates of committees.
We agree with that. That brings us to item number 10: “Rule 12-7(17)(e) – Role of Audit and Oversight Committee.” This, as I understand, has been taken care of and does not necessitate any change anymore.
Mr. Thompson: That’s absolutely correct, Madam Chair. For both items 10 and 11, the clerk had raised some issues. However, subsequent to his appearance there was a report from the Audit Committee that addressed both of these issues. Those corrections have now been made to the Rules and no further action is required on the part of this committee.
The Chair: Okay. Item 12 is rule 12-16(1) concerning in camera proceedings. A letter has been addressed to the Chair of the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. I think this is okay, too.
Mr. Thompson: Yes. Madam Chair, you will recall this is an issue that had been raised in a previous Parliament by the Internal Economy Committee. We had not acted on that by the time Parliament had been dissolved. The clerk did raise it. A decision was made that we would send a letter to the Internal Economy Committee to seek guidance from the chair as to whether this was still a matter of concern. The chair replied that they did not believe this was still a matter of concern and that they were comfortable with the authority they currently had under the Rules.
The Chair: Next is item 13: “Rule 12-18(2) – Committees meeting during extended periods of adjournment.” This theme is something we will need to discuss more thoroughly. It is in our list of items, so we will bring it back later. It was in the list of the clerk, but I think it needs more elaboration. We’ll drop it from our list of agreements for the moment, but we’ll bring it back because it is an important rule.
Item number 14, then, is “Rule 12-21 — Smoking in committee rooms.” As we did previously, it is recommended that we repeal this provision. To be consequent with what we did, do you agree that we repeal it from our agreement?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Number 15 is “Rule 12-22(6) — Debate on tabled report.” This is a minor change in the French version, not in the English.
[Translation]
Therefore, it’s a matter of adding the word “déposé” in “. . . d’un rapport déposé est présentée après que le début sur celui-ci a débuté . . . .”
There is a distinction between a report that is “déposé” and one that is “proposé.” As you know, the “dépôt” of a report does not require a vote, but the “présentation” of a report does.
As a result, the French version wasn’t clear.
[English]
So we will correct it in the French version. Is that agreed? Okay.
Item 16: “Rule 12-23(6) — Signing of amended bill.” On June 14, we were okay with modifying and repealing this article.
[Translation]
Could you tell us a little more about this proposal, Mr. Thompson?
[English]
Mr. Thompson: I think the Clerk was fairly thorough when he appeared in June that the practice from this section necessitated a fair amount of work in preparing a report, and we have seen some bills that have had multiple amendments. It was really a bizarre exercise, the cutting and pasting and connecting things. I might be able to pull out an example and show you sometime. But I know when we had to present these to committee chairs that they have been a little shocked at what was required of them to then sit and initial each individual amendment and present this bizarre document. So for that reason we are recommending that be repealed.
The Chair: Because it’s not used, okay. Is that agreed?
Next is item number 17: “Rule 12-25 — Payment of witnesses’ expenses.” It was agreed in June to incorporate a more substantive list of expenses that would be paid to witnesses. It is understood that witnesses don’t receive any remuneration, but sometimes there are some expenses we may reimburse, like headsets and some services that some witnesses had to pay to be able to testify. I’ll read the proposed rule:
The Clerk is authorized to pay witnesses invited or summoned before a Senate committee a reasonable sum for their living, and travelling and such other expenses authorized by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, upon the certificate of the clerk of the committee.
Senator Batters: If the clerk could elaborate, it says “upon the certificate of the clerk of the committee;” what does that mean?
Mr. Thompson: When a witness submits an expense claim, they are reviewed and certified by the clerk of the committee.
Senator Ataullahjan: In the Human Rights Committee, in our last study, we had some witnesses take mental health supports. Would that be included in this too?
Mr. Thompson: I think that is an excellent example of one of those other expenses that is not related to travel or living expenses, but it would now be explicitly included as another expense that is authorized by the Internal Economy Committee. If I understand correctly, they have authorized a pilot in that regard.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Busson: For clarification, to me this suggests these expenses be authorized prior. Is there any prescription around that or is the list so extensive that reasonable things fall into it?
Mr. Thompson: Reasonable things fall into it. I think your assumption is correct that there would normally be a prior approval. There is often discussion between a committee clerk and a witness if there are any out-of-the-ordinary expenses that could be required, and where necessary, permission from the Internal Economy Committee can be sought.
Senator Busson: So if something extraordinary happened during their testimony, et cetera, is there is a clause for that as well?
Mr. Thompson: There is some flexibility that could certainly address that related to travel if there were unexpected circumstances that necessitated a longer stay.
Senator Busson: Or a companion?
Mr. Thompson: Yes. I would remind senators that the policy for witnesses often normally allows two representatives for a given group. Most committees by order will limit that to one with the chair being able to authorize a second person, and that has often been used to allow an accompanying person for support.
The Chair: So we have incorporated that into our list of agreed items.
Number 18: “Rule 12-26(2) to 12-26(4) — Tabling of report concerning committee’s financial expenditures.” Here the proposition is to repeal those subsections and renumbering the rule. The reason is there is a federal law that suffices to take account of those financial expenditures. I will ask Mr. Thompson to explain.
Mr. Thompson: This is not in any way to diminish accountability. It is just to acknowledge that other processes have taken over and there are other means by which committee expenditures are reported. It also alleviates some confusion as the reports that were done under this rule covered an entire session. That often caused some confusion and conflict when reports were made on an annual basis and it was not clear how things added up.
The expenditures would still be made public. It is just removing some duplication of reporting and trying to minimize confusion in the accounting.
The Chair: So for the sake of clarity, having looked at the financial reports of committees recently, in fact, it is true that you look at the financial reports of committees and you try to figure out what has been authorized in the Senate because we still authorize financial expenditures and budgets in committees in the Senate. Then we look at what has been spent. Those numbers will still be there in the annual report of expenditures of committees, but what it will not be is monthly, or —
Mr. Thompson: There are still reporting requirements for proactive disclosure in those regards. Those are more the reports that I think have overtaken the utility of this rule where things are reported. I do believe it’s quarterly that those reports are made. However, there would not be that sessional number that doesn’t always —
The Chair: But will we still be able to see what has been authorized and what has been spent when a committee gathers information elsewhere, outside the country?
Mr. Thompson: Absolutely.
The Chair: Is it agreed that we make that change? Okay.
Number 19: “Rule 12-30 — Timelines for consideration of a report from CONF concerning a senator.” CONF, of course, is the Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators Committee.
Here we don’t yet have a proposal. We propose that we wait until the Ethics Committee brings us their suggestions, because the clerks did bring it out in their letter. What happened the last time, if you remember, is we had a problem: We wanted to vote on the report of the Ethics Committee but we had to wait for the senator to talk and the report was never called because Government Business was taking time and it was at the end of the Orders of the Day.
The idea here is to maybe find a way. When we have a report from the Ethics Committee, maybe the rule could say that we bring it before the Orders of the Day, or something like that. But we asked the Ethics Committee to think about it and to suggest to us the proper way to proceed. We haven’t heard from them yet.
Senator Batters: We did write them a letter on this topic and asked for their input but they haven’t gotten back to us yet.
The Chair: Yes, we are waiting for that. I know we have other things on our list to talk about regarding the Ethics Committee. They had a report tabled in the preceding Parliament. I don’t know if that is still something that they want to bring forward, but we’ll see.
Number 20: “Rule 14-1(6) — Electronic tabling of reports.” Here the proposal is to add to the rule the words “in either print or electronic form,” so we would add the possibility to have the reports tabled in electronic form.
Again, I will ask Mr. Thompson to speak to the efficiency of this.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you. The clerk certainly spoke to the efficiency of this back in June. I would add that at the end of June there was a sessional order adopted to allow this for the remainder of the session. This amendment to the Rules would be in keeping with that and would entrench it within the Rules going forward.
The Chair: Is it agreed that we add that to the list? Thank you.
Number 21: “Appendix I — Terminology.” This is a change in the appendix and terminology to be in conformity with the election that we have and the way we nominate our Speaker pro tempore. This is in accordance with that. Do you agree that we make the correction to the appendix? Thank you.
Number 22: “General — Accessibility.” This is a new provision, so I will read it. I had a discussion with Senator Petitclerc on this issue. She thinks she agrees, but we may want to think about it. It is a new rule. As I recall, it’s for the rule in the chamber and committees regarding how we proceed with people who have certain disabilities. The rule would be as follows:
1-1. (3) If a provision of these Rules or a practice of the Senate constitutes a barrier to a senator’s full and equal participation in proceedings solely due to a disability, as defined in the Accessible Canada Act, the Speaker, or the chair of a committee, may authorize reasonable adjustments to the application of the rule or practice.
I will read it in French:
[Translation]
Si une disposition du Règlement ou une pratique du Sénat constitue un obstacle à la participation pleine et égale d’un sénateur aux délibérations uniquement en raison d’un handicap, au sens de la Loi canadienne sur l’accessibilité, le Président du Sénat ou le président d’un comité peut autoriser des modifications raisonnables à l’application du Règlement ou de la pratique.
[English]
As you can see, because we cannot foresee the future, instead of being specific we usually have to have a discussion with a person who has a disability to see how to adjust things. When we had that discussion, we were talking about “accommodation” and Senator Petitclerc raised that this word is not a good word to use, so we proposed “adjustment.” When I talked to her, she said it looks fine. We may want to agree now or to think it over.
Senator Batters: I have a question. It says in the English version “due to a disability, as defined in the Accessible Canada Act,” and in the French version it refers to “handicap” in the French title of that act. So that is the actual word that is used and that is defined in the act for both of those cases, the English and French versions?
[Translation]
The Chair: That’s a good question, and we’ll check on that right away. I think it is.
[English]
Senator Batters: To change the rule, we should have the right word.
Senator Black: We passed it. We have checked with Senator Petitclerc and we checked with anyone that deals with the Accessible Canada Act on a daily or regular basis.
Mr. Thompson: I just did speak with our Law Clerk’s office in this regard. I know they are involved in some of our own preparations institutionally for the implementation of that act. I would just confirm for Senator Batters that in French the word used is “handicap,” and it is “disability,” yes.
The Chair: I will rely on your wisdom. Would you prefer to wait before we introduce that or do we think it is okay? That is agreed, okay. It is a minimum, of course, yes.
Senator Cordy: I’m not a lawyer. It says: “. . . the Speaker, or the chair of a committee, may authorize . . . .” Should it be stronger than “may” or does “may” in legalese mean you have to do it?
Senator Saint-Germain: On this, I suggest that we keep “may” because we may have, I would say, frivolous requests, and then the Speaker, with his common sense, would be able to have a merging of the new word.
The Chair: Okay. So we’ll leave it at that for the moment and we’ll put that in the agreement column. The report will go to the Senate for recommendations, adoption and then the change to the Rules.
We have finished going through the clerk’s letter. That’s good work. Thank you, Mr. Thompson, for your work.
Mr. Thompson: Madam Chair, if I could, I will just say that obviously the way that things have been presented to you here is for your ease of reference. It is not the form that a final report would take. Perhaps we could get a decision from the committee to agree to those elements and perhaps delegate to the steering committee the authority to approve the final report which would go in.
The Chair: Okay, and we’ll have the steering committee have a look at the details of the report before it is tabled in the Senate.
So that’s the end of the order. Next week, we won’t meet. I won’t be able to chair the meeting. We will meet on November 29. We will resume the discussion on the equity of the groups. You will receive this week — the tentative date is November 17 — a document from Mr. Thompson which brings about the work we did up to now on the amended rules on the equity topics.
I will ask you to discuss with your groups those elements because when we come back we’ll see what we’ll do with that. There are the issues that have not been agreed on yet. If I may say, they are all around the status of the official opposition: What is an official opposition, and what are their privileges, rights and duties? I think those issues involve a discussion on the role of the official opposition. It is recognized in the Parliament of Canada Act, but we are a second chamber so we also have to recognize it in our Rules. The debate now is: What is the role of the opposition in the multiparty group? When it was government and opposition it was easy, but now it has to be asked what the privilege of the official opposition is in a multiparty environment.
I know that some of you don’t want to have a witness to talk about that, but we had that discussion in the steering committee last week. At my request, there was a kind of agreement that we have at least a one-hour discussion with some people that have talked about the role of the official opposition, if we can find them — not on the specifics of the Rules, but on the principle of an official opposition. I will talk with the steering committee to see if we can find somebody that can just answer our questions or give us some broad perspectives on the role of the official opposition. We will discuss that with the steering committee.
Having said that, I will ask that after the meeting, maybe the steering committee could talk briefly today.
I will bring this meeting to an end, unless there are questions. We will see you on November 29, 2022. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)