THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 29, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET], with videoconference, 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. We will begin by introducing the members around this table. My name is Diane Bellemare, and I am the Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
We will go briefly around the table, so that everyone can introduce themself and identify the province they’re from.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin, British Columbia.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
Senator Greene: Steve Greene, Nova Scotia.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia.
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Woo: Senator Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Marwah: Sabi Marwah, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
The Chair: Thank you all for being here today. Today, we are going to review the motion we have called the “Tannas motion”. As you know, you had the document for some time so you could hold consultations with your respective groups. Today, we are going to go through that document to see whether, following the consultations, there are points on which we can agree.
We had also said at our last meeting that we might hear witnesses in the committee for one hour. Nonetheless, having regard to certain factors and the times allowed, the steering committee could not agree on the list of witnesses we might hear. We will therefore not take that route, unless you decide otherwise, following the discussions we have after reviewing the proposals in the document on the motion about equity between groups.
Before starting the discussion on the committee, I would like to draw your attention to the letters we received in response to requests that the committee made to internal economy and to the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators. We have received responses from Senator Moncion, the chair of the Internal Economy Committee, who informs us that she recently met with the president and CEO of the Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC), Christa Dickenson, and I quote the letter:
[Translation]I have discussed the practice of including suspensions during rebroadcasts and the discussion was very productive and instructive. The matter is therefore progressing well and I will be pleased to keep you up to date in the coming weeks.
The second letter we have received is from Senator Seidman of the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators (CONF) telling us that that committee has examined the question concerning the time that a person named in a report has to make representations to the Senate. CONF considered this question at its meeting on November 16 and supports the idea of amending the Rules to respond to it. According to the committee, a provision should be added to the Rules to require that any report produced by CONF about a senator be put in the first agenda item so it is called on each sitting day.
In fact, in the 42nd Parliament, CONF had recommended in its seventh report that the Rules be amended to ensure that a report from that committee in relation to an inquiry report is called on each day the Senate sits until it is disposed of.
We are awaiting a reply on this subject and we will eventually be able to proceed with deciding on a rule in the report that responds to the clerk’s requests.
In addition, the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators and the chair, Senator Seidman, invite us to review certain things concerning them, and I quote:
[Translation] To conclude, CONF would remind your committee of its letter of June 6, 2021, concerning the third report presented by CONF in the second session of the 43rd Parliament. In part 2 of the report, it was recommended that your committee consider and propose potential amendments to the Rules in relation to the composition of CONF consistent with the principles expressed in the report.
That was also among the points in our long list of subjects to be discussed. I would remind you that it will eventually be on the agenda. Last, we have received a letter from Senator Boehm, the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, asking us to change the name of the committee and add “development” at the end. The name of the committee would then read as follows: “Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Development.”
We replied that we have received the request, we are undertaking a complete review of the committee structure, and we will be able to make that change, because it means preparing a report, as we have already done, and we will do it when our work is completed.
That concludes my introductory remarks. As you know, Senator Lankin, a member and vice-chair of this committee, is in a unique situation in view of the tragic events in her family and the death of her husband. She will be absent until next year, for a few weeks. I would therefore invite Senator Saint-Germain to move a motion to that effect to replace her on the steering committee.
Senator Saint-Germain: The motion I am proposing is as follows:
[English]
That in the absence of the Honourable Senator Lankin, the Honourable Senator Woo be authorized to act as a member of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.
[Translation]
The Chair: Does everyone agree with the proposal? We will make this temporary change.
[English]
Now we’ll go back to our possible amendment to the Rules of the Senate following the motion that was put in front of us by Senators Tannas and — Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: My apologies, chair. I wanted to go back to your opening remarks regarding the letter that requested the additional comment of development. I didn’t pick it up when you said it. Could you tell me who that letter was from?
The Chair: Senator Boehm.
Senator Wells: Okay, thank you. Sorry.
Senator Batters: Before we go into the different possible amendments, we received a short background document from the clerk with the questions that had been raised during the last few meetings along with some of the answers. There were some questions that didn’t have answers to them. I wanted to be able to discuss a few of those points, if we could, before we get into the other subjects because some of them have bearing on some of these amendments.
The Chair: Okay. Do you all have this document that we sent a few days ago?
Senator Batters: Yes, it was emailed out to all committee members.
The Chair: Yes, so it was sent yesterday. This document was prepared through our own initiative so that we had those questions when we met and then could make the answers clearer. We thought it could be interesting to have.
Go ahead with your questions, Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Two of the questions are quite related. The second one on here deals with the French term used for “sponsor of the bill.” It has a question posed by me, in which I ask, “What do other parliaments do? For instance, what does the French parliament do?” But my question was actually about the French word for “critic,” which currently in our Rules is listed as “porte-parole.” However, we’ve all been indicating it’s probably not a good term for that.
There was also a question after that where Senator Mégie is listed as asking, “Did you also consult the Office québécois de la langue française to see what they suggest?” Again, I don’t think the problem is as much with the French word for “sponsor” that’s currently listed in our Rules; the problem is really with the word for “critic.”
The Chair: That’s a good question. However, the word “critique” is also a word that’s good in French.
Senator Batters: Oh, yes, I agree. But the question is about what other parliaments do, like the French parliament. I was curious to know about that and also about the question Senator Mégie proposed. For sure, my question was about the word “critic” and not about “sponsor.”
The Chair: We did not do this verification because the question was probably during the meeting, and we didn’t do that. We could go and look at that. However, I think, as you know, France’s upper chamber sometimes uses words that are different from the French used in French-speaking Canada.
Senator Batters: I’d imagine so, but I’d like to know what they are. If we could find out, that would be great.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like to clarify something on that point. In the National Assembly of Quebec, each of the parties — obviously it is an elected chamber — has a critic for bills. The government always has a sponsor, who is a minister, and a critic is named by each of the parties in the National Assembly of Quebec.
The Chair: What I propose, colleagues, given that we are going to review the text, and given all these items that Senator Batters was talking about, is that we discuss them again after the points, in the order in which it appears in our table.
[English]
As I said, I suggest we go through our document point by point. There are some items where we have to decide on the terminology. Instead of having this discussion now, when we go through our document, we could go — we have the appendix and the terminology.
Senator Batters: Except that when we received the question-and-answer document, I just wanted to actually get answers to the questions that we asked.
There are a couple of other things that may or may not come up in our discussion but are on the subject of, for example — it’s on the second page of this question-and-answer document — deferred votes. Senator Wells asked about the genesis of that issue. He asked, “Where did that come from and why was it used?” The answer indicates where it initially came from, but it doesn’t indicate why it was used. Simply giving us a date of when the rule was first adopted doesn’t mean very much if we don’t know the answer to why it was used. I wondered if the clerk or the Library of Parliament analyst had any information to answer this question.
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: Senator, my research is ongoing. A review of the Companion to the Rules of the Senate really just provided a timeline rather than motivation, so I am now going through the original debates and deliberations of the committee. There’s quite a bit to dig through, so I’m not yet in a position to provide some of that context. However, I will come back to it as soon as I can.
Senator Batters: Okay. The last one I had — perhaps that’s the same answer; I’m not sure — is the question I asked on November 1. It’s the last point on this question-and-answer sheet. It’s about committee meetings during adjournment. I asked, “. . . why did this come about . . . perhaps Adam can give us more historical facts on it.” The answer is really just the dates of when different things happened and when the current wording was adopted 10 years ago in 2012. But I really wanted to know why that came about. In order for us to meaningfully debate these issues, we can’t just simply receive a date without any context of why that happened — and having that type of information. It’s now a month after since that question was asked.
Mr. Thompson: Certainly, when you asked that question, I did provide some additional context. The prohibition on committees meeting when the Senate was adjourned for a period of longer than a week goes back to — I believe — 1906. Then, around 2002, we began having committees that were meeting on Mondays that, when we’d have a break week, would fall within that period of longer than a week. Committees were going to the chamber to get permission to sit on those Mondays, since they fell within that period. There was a motion from the government that attempted to give a sessional order for that. It was referred to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee reported back, and that led to one of the first sessional orders that modified that, allowing committees to meet on a Monday when the Senate was scheduled to meet even if that period did fall within an adjournment of longer than a week.
A similar sessional order was adopted for a number of sessions following that, sometimes saying broadly that committees can meet on those Mondays. Other times, it came to specifically naming the particular Monday committees, which were generally National Security and Defence, Official Languages and Human Rights. I believe the last time such a sessional order was adopted was 2016. Those sessional orders have not been adopted since, and it has been left to individual committees to get that permission either through an order of the Senate or through the additional process of getting permission from the Leader of the Government or the Leader of the Opposition.
Senator Batters: Thank you for all of that historical context, but when it says that the current wording was adopted in 2012 —
Mr. Thompson: “The current wording” just refers to when, in 2012, there was a full rewrite of the Rules from top to bottom. There was a restructuring and renumbering of everything. That date in 2012 represents when this version of the Rules was adopted by the Senate. The content, if I recall correctly, was roughly the same as what was rule 95(3) prior to that. It was then translated into what is now rule 12-18(2).
Senator Batters: Thank you. If I could get those other answers later, that would be great.
The Chair: Maybe we can now go through the document. I won’t read; I’ll just signal the title and ask you if it’s okay after your consultation with your different groups.
Rule 2-4, process of elections. Agreed.
Adjournment extended, rule 3-6. Agreed.
Extending time for Senators’ Statements, which is rule 4-2. Agreed.
Tributes, rule 4-3. Agreed.
Oral questions, rule 4-8.
Senator Batters: Is it 4-8 we’re on right now?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Batters: I read this over, actually. I think about 15 years ago or so, we actually had another cabinet minister who was a senator in the Senate, Michael Fortier, and he was the Minister of Public Works at the time.
I just wonder if it might be timely, given that we’re making these changes, to give some indication in here to incorporate that. We could have a situation where you’re able to ask questions in Question Period to the government leader but also if there’s another cabinet minister.
Mr. Thompson: Senator, the change that’s proposed only affects 4-8(1)(a). And 4-8(1)(b), in fact, already does address another senator who is a minister on a matter relating to that senator’s ministerial responsibility. Just for completeness, 4-8(1)(c) also includes a committee chair on a matter relating to the activities of the committee.
Senator Batters: That sounds great. Thank you.
The Chair: Ordering of Government Business, rule 4-13?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: No notice required, rule 5-7. Agreed.
The next item is time limits for speakers; rule 6-3.
Senator Batters: No.
The Chair: There is no agreement.
Senator Woo: Chair, should we not take a vote on these issues?
The Chair: I don’t think so, personally. I think we should go through those items, and then we have to go back to the Senate with those items, because even if we take a vote, it’s meaningless because it has to be voted by the Senate. Why would we do that?
I personally think our work here is not to push things like that. It’s to discuss things and then go back to the Senate to have a vote on it.
Senator Woo: Your views are noted. Thank you, chair.
Senator Gagné: I was wondering if, instead of “any leader or facilitator,” all the titles of the leaders should be spelled out as we have agreed to do with all the other rule changes. Instead of “any leader or facilitator,” should we spell out all of the applicable leadership titles to ensure consistency?
The Chair: I think this is what we did for consistency with the Parliament of Canada Act. This is how we’ve decided to do it.
Mr. Thompson: Senator, if I could, this discussion began reviewing the proposal from Senator Tannas and Senator Woo, and there were a number of those elements that the committee had agreed to, incorporating the language that you decide. In this particular case, there were also a number of substantive changes being proposed, so I’ve included that proposal untouched as there are multiple elements that are on the floor for discussion amongst the committee.
I’m not sure how the committee will want to handle that, given there is the aspect of the titles as well as some substantive things related to the time limits given to individuals. Without agreement on how to structure that, we’ve got two parallel issues being considered.
Senator Gagné: Okay. Could I also intervene pertaining to the term “spokesperson”? It’s my understanding that there was a consensus around replacing “spokesperson” with “designated senator.”
The Chair: Yes. That was put at the end of the terminology, and that’s correct, we did. In the end, on page 28 — before I get to you, Senator Batters — there’s a simplified table of titles that I thought would be useful to have. We could maybe agree on that and have a discussion if we agree on those titles. If we want, we could go there now because it’s in the —
Mr. Thompson: Senator, I wanted to point out that there was that discussion about a designated senator. There is a definition now proposed that is very broad that just defines it as a senator designated for a purpose. In the context of this rule, however, the proposal for a spokesperson was to give every party or group a representative who would have additional time for debate, so I do think that there is a little bit more on the table than just a designated representative or designated person.
The Chair: In other words, this rule encompasses title and substance. Because it encompasses substance, we decided to put that aside.
Now, for the titles, at the end of it there’s a table, as I just said. Maybe we’ll go back to it. We have the English version and the French version. Maybe we should try to discuss it.
Senator Gagné: Sure.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much. With respect to that point, certainly on the substance of it, there was no consensus that we have such a thing as spokespeople for bills. That’s basically allowing potentially up to 10 people or something like that to be designated as spokespeople. There was certainly not consensus on that. There might have been a consensus as to a word that would be used to title that particular position, should it exist, but there was no consensus to have that.
Really, this is all part of that same amendment. So as a result, yes, the whole part of this issue should not be gone forward with.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much. Going back to your decision around time limits, I totally agree that the process of finding consensus on things that we agree on is a way to make sure that we move along.
For clarification, I would like to have you comment, at least just for my own knowledge, whether or not the things we don’t have consensus on — you mentioned that they would go to the Senate. They are going to be in the report as not agreed upon and voted in the Senate as a whole.
The Chair: What I proposed at the beginning in French is what we should do now is go through this and then we have a discussion on what we will do, instead of going through what we will do article by article. Will we decide to have a report on where we agree? Or will we decide to have no report and to table a report in the Senate just describing what we did in the last weeks? “Tabled” means we won’t adopt a report; we will table it as a matter of information. That’s one option we can decide to take at the end when we conclude.
I thought that maybe after consultation they would have some movement. I know we consulted the Progressive Senate Group, and Senator Cordy could tell you, but there was a kind of consensus in our group to go back to the original spirit of the Senate where unlimited time would be given to all leaders or facilitators. We could maybe ask those who did the consultations, each group, how they reacted to that. Did they move on that or not? This is what we did in our caucus. Senator Cordy, do you want to add anything?
Senator Cordy: I agree with your comments, absolutely. We had a really good discussion about it at our last caucus meeting or group meeting. Following up on Senator Busson’s question, will we have two or more reports to the Senate, one where there is a total agreement by everybody on the committee and a second one where it might be the majority but not unanimous? Then the Senate would make the decision on whether to move forward with the Rules. I would hate for all of our work to just be in limbo and that nothing is moving forward, because I think we’ve done a lot of really good work over the past year, and I would like to feel assured that it’s not for naught, and that we, in fact, will be moving forward.
Senator Woo: First of all, to report on the Independent Senators Group’s consultations, there’s very strong support for all of the items in this proposed set of rule changes.
On Senator Cordy’s excellent suggestion about getting a gauge for this committee’s feelings on the proposed changes, would it not be helpful, then, for us to take a straw vote on each of the items to give an indication of the amount of support there is for a particular item, even if there’s no consensus and even if this committee is not going to propose that the change be made? For us to be able to get this kind of feeling for where this committee was heading, we would need some indication of the amount of support, for example, on this very item we’re discussing now, on the critics and designated senators and so on.
Senator Batters: First of all, just with respect to what Senator Woo was suggesting, I would have been surprised if there wasn’t strong support, being as this document was taken from your motion when you were the leader of the Independent Senators Group and then since modified by Senator Tannas soon after that.
As far as what our committee has done for work on this, we had three meetings about this; some of them were fairly short and, aside from Senator Tannas, we didn’t have any other witnesses to debate any of these topics with. Senator Tannas, when he was here, actually decided against a few of his most contentious issues after having heard questions and debate about those issues, yet we’re still going forward with some of those different things in our discussion and didn’t take Senator Tannas’s comments in that direction.
So certainly, chair, when you left me a message about how this meeting would go, it was your suggestion that we would have any issues that were not agreed upon and consensus from this committee, as is the way it should be from the Rules Committee. Rules should be changed by consensus, not by majority vote, in all places, of the Senate of Canada where we actually value the rights of minority groups and should value the role of the opposition.
To simply have a vote where everyone other than the opposition votes in favour of something is not a good way to change the Rules. Instead, what you had proposed when you laid it out to me was that we would have a debate, see where we could reach consensus and then come to a report early in the New Year about the remainder of the thing. It should be an actual report where these things are debated. Perhaps we can get some answers on some of the remaining questions we were just discussing earlier in this meeting with the clerk, and other issues, and have some more time to look at these issues rather than just a quick three meetings, snap votes and change rules that have existed for this many decades.
Senator Wells: I would agree with Senator Cordy about finding places where there is consensus that would allow us to move rapidly towards an end point where there is consensus.
With regard to Senator Woo’s suggestion that we have straw votes or something that records our opinions, it seems to me that we’re doing that. As we go, we’re saying, “Is everyone in accordance with this?” If we all say yes, then that’s where we find accordance.
If one or two say, “No, we don’t have agreement,” to me, that says it either needs more discussion, more evidence or input or things on debate; and if we go to that point, where we’re going to be calling votes, straw or otherwise, then I would seek to have more time to consult with our caucus or other experts that would have an opinion on this. I don’t generally do things based on feeling. I do things based on evidence and debate. That’s where I think that will go if we needed to find a decision where there’s not accordance and agreement or consensus.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Very briefly, I think there are enough amendments on which we have a consensus to at least be able to report to the Senate.
On the items for which we have not reached a consensus, I don’t think we are going to be able to come to a consensus in this committee. I therefore propose that we inform the Senate of the failure to reach a consensus and that the debate on these issues take place in the Senate.
The Chair: I think that is a good suggestion. It is what we do at present, or at least it is what I am trying to do with you.
[English]
This is what we try to do by going through, point by point, where we have consensus or not, and then we will table a report or propose a report — that is for us to discuss when we will have the report, but in preparation, we could table a report with the whole list of where we say the committee agrees to do that and disagrees on the others, and then we can have an observation on the disagreement.
So if we agree, this is what we’ll do, and I don’t see the need for a straw vote, because this is what we do, in a sense, when we say we agree or not.
Senator Greene: Can you outline the process that you’re working on right now?
The Chair: The process is that we go through rule by rule, because people consulted with their groups or caucus to see if they still agree or if they now agree on the different items. So on this rule that we are looking at, the rule on the speaking time, there’s no agreement, so we will report that: on this rule, that there’s no agreement.
At the end of today, Mr. Thompson will prepare a report, that I don’t think, because it’s December, will be ready for the last meeting of December, but it will certainly be ready for our first meeting in 2023. We’ll be able to agree on the report that we will table.
Senator Greene: In other words, are you considering two reports, one with the items that we agree on and one with the items we don’t?
The Chair: Depending on the discussion that we will have after that — or maybe if you want to have this discussion now, personally, I thought we would have one report, but we could have two reports if we want to have those items that we agree on voted — one report.
Senator Greene: By consensus, you’re assuming — it could mean unanimity — consensus could mean unanimity or it could mean something else. It’s very hard to understand what consensus actually means.
The Chair: And I know that, Senator Greene, but this is for the Senate to decide, not for the committee to decide. For the committee, I’m sorry, we have to go through unanimous consent because of the kind of rules that we are debating.
I know that consensus is not unanimity. But the way we proceed, because there’s no vote, sometimes it’s a consensus that’s very strong and sometimes it’s a consensus that’s not so strong.
Senator Greene: In the case of where we are having trouble reaching unanimity, are we going to make recommendations?
The Chair: That is going to be debated in the Senate.
Senator Greene: I know it’s going to be debated in the Senate, but are we going to make recommendations to the Senate?
The Chair: I don’t think so, unless you want to do that. If we’re not able to reach consensus, it’s going to be very hard to identify the wording of the rules that we propose to the Senate.
I will remind you that on October 18, Senator Woo proposed a process to go through later on. He said that maybe we could have a little informal committee, and he proposed that he would be willing to take on the responsibility of calling an informal committee to make a motion in the Senate on the issue that we don’t agree.
That’s up to you, but I think the work of the committee was to look at that. When we had that discussion in October, we said, “Let’s give it a try in committee to see where we can go and to clarify things. And for those issues on which we cannot agree, it’s not our problem.”
So we will table a report, and then I think it’s about political issues. Our committee is not there to replace the leaders’ meetings. When it’s political, I don’t think it’s for our committee to decide on those issues.
Mr. Thompson: Senators, I don’t wish to enter into the debate, but I wanted to flag something. The discussion of rule 6-3 provides an example of that. While there are certainly substantive proposals in here that there is not consensus on, there is also the question of titles. Were there to be a report to proceed only dealing with those changes that there is consensus on, it could lead to inconsistencies with other elements of the Rules that do have those elements that there is still discussion and debate on how exactly they should be structured and operate.
I wanted to flag for you to please keep in mind consistency throughout the Rules. If there are going to be changes made to titles in some places, those should be made throughout to ensure consistency throughout the Rules.
Senator Woo: I agree with the approach you’re taking, and we have to move forward. I hope we continue immediately. But there’s a feeling in this room, I think, that there are some items for which there’s no consensus — no unanimity, to use Senator Greene’s word — but there’s a lot of support. I’m hoping the report will be able to reflect that, on some of these items which centre on the issue of the meaning of the opposition, there was a lot of support for those items to be changed, even though there wasn’t unanimity. It’s important that the report reflect that mood of the committee, even if it is not an item which the committee fully endorses.
Senator Batters: On that particular item, there was a lot of support, perhaps, but from members not of the opposition. When you’re taking away powers of the opposition and changing rules that have existed for more than 100 years, I think it’s quite important to get consensus with the opposition members too.
Senator Martin: I’m here for the first time since this discussion began, but I thought it fitting to share my prior experience when we were in government. There was one rule change that was agreed upon at the committee level. It would change fundamentally a certain proceeding in the chamber. It didn’t get adopted, and that was because the independents at that time — there were two senators — and one of the senators, who is retired now, had great opposition to it. She wasn’t on the Rules Committee.
I’m looking at all the agreement we’ve reached already and I thought this is moving very quickly. Because back then, it was one rule change; and at the end of the day, it didn’t get adopted because it would have disrupted the chamber.
I thought it might be fitting to say that we’re making good progress, colleagues. I’ve heard what everyone has said. I thought that would be fitting to share today.
Senator Greene: I want to remind the room that opposition and being opposed to something are not the same thing. You can have opposition from any corner. We must not go into the area of partisanship, because that is not opposition.
Senator Dean: On the same point, I think there’s an implicit assumption on the part of some in the room that the interests of the official opposition are resident just in the individuals and collective who happen to have that title at this moment. Under the concept of not just the new Senate but the Senate that has emerged and that is developing at pace, this discussion today is absolutely reflective of that, if anybody needed a reminder of it.
We all have an interest in the powers of the opposition in the Senate. I have absolutely as much interest in that, Senator Batters, as you do. Yours is contemporaneous right now, obviously. Mine is perhaps medium to longer term. That’s an interest that is shared in a more independent and less partisan Senate by everybody in this room and by our senatorial colleagues outside of this room.
I just wanted you to know that I have an interest in this too, and so do my colleagues. That’s understandable. That is our right and that is our place in history at this point in time. I think it’s important for all of us to acknowledge that.
Thank you, Senator Greene, for prompting me to add to your comments.
Senator Ataullahjan: As someone who is very new to the committee, I’m kind of learning and trying to follow everything. I think that the things we don’t agree on should be taken to the Senate, because it will impact every senator’s life and the role that senators have. I feel that we have to let every senator have a say in it. It’s just a few of us who take a decision here.
I’m new to this committee. I wasn’t here some time ago. I didn’t know these discussions were taking place. Let’s face it, we lead busy lives and sometimes we don’t know what is happening in another committee. I think we owe it to all the other senators to be part of this decision.
Senator Batters: To respond to Senator Dean: First of all, I think that I bring at least a medium-term view to this. I’ve been in the Senate almost 10 years — in government for a few of those years and then in opposition since. While I definitely agree that opposition comes from many quarters — including sometimes even in the government’s own caucus, and certainly from independent senators, as we’ve seen throughout the last many years, not just the last seven years — it is actually the role of the official opposition to oppose the government.
When we’re considering all of these rules, when you have a parliamentary system, it’s probably the role of the opposition that is the most important of all: to hold the government to account. That opposition, yes, can come from others, but it is the actual, official role of the opposition to oppose the government. That is necessary in order to have the best Parliament that we can have. Certainly, the Prime Minister should not be in a spot to be able to appoint their own opposition, and that’s the reason for the role of the official opposition.
The Chair: If I may say, from the perspective of the chair — and then we will move on — that shows that maybe we would have appreciated having witnesses to talk about the opposition. However, that was the role of the Modernization Committee and it’s not our role for the moment.
Let’s move on. We don’t have an agreement on this rule, so we will put it aside.
Senator Gagné: If I understand correctly, we’re dealing with rule 6-3. Are we going through (a), (b), (c) and (d), or are we just putting everything aside?
The Chair: No. This one rule has all those substantive titles. But for the titles, there’s an opportunity later on in the paper to go back to it.
Senator Gagné: What about the speaking times?
The Chair: There’s no agreement on that.
Senator Gagné: Okay. It was my understanding — and I just want to check — that, last week, there was a consensus around —
The Chair: No.
Senator Gagné: Hold on, I’m not finished — around the fact that we would retain the unlimited speaking time for the Government Representative. Is that correct? Was there a consensus there?
The Chair: Yes, there was a consensus on that.
Senator Gagné: I just wanted to confirm that. Thank you.
The Chair: There was a consensus on that, and it is still in the Rules. It has not changed.
Senator Gagné: I know it’s not changed, but there was a consensus that if ever there are rule changes, that that would be —
The Chair: It could be indicated in the report.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
The Chair: So when we revise the report, we’ll underline it to make sure that we don’t forget anything. Thank you for that, Senator Gagné.
We turn to rule 6-5.
Senator Batters: Agreed.
The Chair: Is there agreement to allocate time, per rule 7-1?
Senator Batters: No.
The Chair: There’s no agreement on that. Do you have some comments to make about the consultative process?
Senator Batters: I don’t think, given the discussions at the last couple meetings, anyway, that will be a surprise.
The next few, rules 7-1(1), 7-1(2), 7-2(1), 7-2(2), 7-3, 7-4, those are all part of the same time allocation issues, and there is no consensus on those.
The Chair: So it’s the whole of rule 7. All of the elements of rule 7, on agreement to allocate time, will be put aside.
Next, we have rule 9-5, regarding the ordinary procedure for determining the duration of bells.
Senator Batters: No.
The Chair: No consensus. The next item is to do with the deferral of a standing vote.
Senator Batters: No consensus.
The Chair: No consensus on that. Next is rule 9-10(4), “Vote deferred to Friday.”
Senator Batters: On this, I just have a question. This one, it looks fine, except the definition of the government liaison. As I look at that definition — and we can go through it later — I don’t think the definition is strong enough at this point. I have some questions about that, but, yes, we can look at that later.
The Chair: Okay. Next is rule 10-11(2), “Notice of motion to refer the subject matter of a bill.” Is that okay?
Senator Batters: Agreed.
The Chair: Next is rule 12-3(3), “Ex officio members.”
Senator Batters: No consensus.
The Chair: No consensus on that. I thought we had agreed on that.
Senator Batters: No. There was agreement that the additional ex officio members would not have a vote. As I recall it, actually, Senator Gold, the government leader, indicated that he wanted to consider the government retaining a vote. That is my recollection of that.
The Chair: I thought we agreed that nobody would vote, except that the Government Representative could have all the information.
Senator Batters: It wasn’t only about information. If we look back at the transcript, I’m sure he also said that he wanted to at least consider the possibility of the government potentially retaining a vote. As well, as I look at this, having all of these people, as we’ve discussed here before, a parliamentary group could be as few as nine senators and we could potentially have 10 different groups with leaders who would come to these meetings.
As I considered that this past week, already we have many committees where senators have a very short time to be able to question witnesses and if we had, potentially, that many leaders coming to meetings all of a sudden, which were potentially very controversial — so if all of the leaders wanted to come to those, then that would lead to a lot more people in that committee to question and propose amendments and all of those kinds of things. All this would do is take away the ability to vote for ex officio members, but they would still be able to propose amendments, question witnesses and debate. Then that would, of course, really, further dilute the opposition. There are some committees where we only have two opposition members on a committee. If, all of a sudden, a committee is flooded with 9 or 10 different group leaders, that role would be even further diluted.
Senator Dean: I have a question for the committee. As we close out the discussion on this item, to return briefly to balance, I just have a question to ask on rule 9-5. I don’t want to interrupt the flow of this discussion to do it.
Senator Greene: Senator Batters, I support you on this point.
Senator Batters: Thanks.
Senator M. Deacon: I’m trying to clarify. I thought I had rule 12-3 sorted out in my little noggin here after our last meeting, but I would appreciate clarifying what was said. What did we agree upon? I have a different memory. I’m okay to be on an island, but I want to be really clear on the intent of this room on rule 12-3.
The Chair: Maybe Mr. Thompson can go ahead, and I will add my thoughts if I think they are needed.
Mr. Thompson: There was certainly some discussion. Senator Batters’ recollection about comments from Senator Gold, as I recall, is quite accurate. He did muse openly about wanting to retain that vote, it being the only vote that government members would have on committees. That said, there was not a formal decision made. There was some general discussion and direction, and I drafted some wording flowing from that, but it’s up to the committee to determine whether what is before you is what you want. If there’s consensus, great, and if there isn’t, we can perhaps move on or go back to the drawing board with how you’d like that structured.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you so much. With that, at this moment, to clarify, we do not have consensus on rule 12-3 at this moment?
The Chair: That’s right.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
The Chair: We can go back to Senator Dean.
Senator Dean: Just very briefly, holding in mind what seems to be the importance of ownership of holding the government to account, and the sort of propriety that is implicit in that, I’d ask a question of Senator Batters. How does that relate to bells and who has input into the question of how bells are rung and when and for how long? If you could enlighten me on that, I would be appreciative.
Senator Batters: Sure. As I indicated at one meeting on this topic, at least, this particular one is more of a situation where it seems completely unworkable to have, as I say, potentially 9 or 10 different group leaders — government leader, opposition leader, all these other group leaders — who could all be involved in the agreement then to try to negotiate the bell. Already, we have a situation where, if there’s no agreement, one senator can just stand up and say no, and then you have a 60-minute bell. We already have a situation where if there’s no agreement, regardless of whether there’s an attempt to find consensus with all of the different leaders of groups, then we already have a 60-minute bell. It doesn’t seem necessary to change it to come up with that system.
As I have voiced before, it would be potentially completely unworkable for the whips to try to be only negotiating with the government and opposition whip. Obviously, there’s always some consultation with the others, but to try to come up with agreement on a bell, you can take as long to do that as the bell would last.
Senator Saint-Germain: I don’t like to work on hypotheses, but I have two given this observation.
[Translation]
In the event that there were 10 groups of nine senators, we can understand that very few of those groups will have more than one senator per committee, and even, in some cases, that they will have to divide the committees among themselves. In a democratic system, I think the majority must be consulted and be heard. Why would we then give one group of nine senators all the powers over the other groups?
I think we should stop having these kinds of discussions and continue our work, and we will see in the Chamber about the other aspects that affect all of the senators, on which we have not heard ourselves. However, I think we really have to continue making sure that these rules are modernized and brought in line with the contemporary Senate.
Please, continue.
The Chair: Thank you for that comment. We are now at point 12.5.
[English]
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: “Service fee proposal,” rule 12-8?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Rule 12-18: “Meetings on days the Senate is adjourned.”
Senator Batters: No consensus.
The Chair: Next is “Communication of request,” rule 12-24.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: “Tabling response,” rule 12-24?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: “Appointment of committee,” rule 12-27?
Senator Batters: No. No consensus.
The Chair: Appointment of committee?
Senator Batters: No. Practice is one thing, but the rule — it’s a significant change adding all of the different leaders and facilitators into that particular one.
The Chair: So on the Selection Committee, you don’t agree? Appointment of committee?
Senator Batters: It’s not the Selection Committee.
Mr. Thompson: Senators, just for clarification, that is not for the Selection Committee; that is for the nomination of members of Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators.
Senator Batters: That’s great, but we’re talking about rule changes here, and this is adding in a requirement to have all of the leaders and facilitators of recognized parties and groups added to seconding that motion.
Again, it could be unworkable. What if you have a situation where they’re not able to get that? Then, potentially you could be holding up the entire Ethics Committee from getting its membership comprised if one leader or facilitator doesn’t agree with that.
Senator Woo: The Ethics Committee would be unworkable if members of other groups that form the majority of the Senate are not willing to agree to the members being on that committee.
Senator Batters: This is not a majority.
Senator Woo: It beggars belief that you would not agree to this —
Senator Batters: It’s not a majority situation.
Senator Woo: — but your position is noted, and I think we should move on.
The Chair: We’ll move on, and we will note there is an objection by the group —
Senator Batters: Chair, it’s simply a matter that it would then be a requirement that every single leader or facilitator would have to agree to that motion. I wouldn’t want to see the formation of the Ethics Committee held up because one leader, for who knows what reason, may not agree to the formation of that committee. So we want to make sure —
Senator Cordy: Chair, I think we said that on those kinds of things we would discuss further, and that we would continue with the things we agree on.
The Chair: So there’s no agreement.
“Tabling by Government?” That is rule 14-1(1).
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Tabling ordered by Senate? This one is rule 14-1(2).
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Rule 16-1: “Message on Royal Assent?”
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Now we are at the appendix: “Except where otherwise noted, proposed text has been provided by the GRO.” These things have been tabled in preceding meetings.
On the definition of “public bill,” is it agreed?
Senator Batters: I have a question about this.
On this one, I’m wondering if this needs to state that a non-government bill needs to be introduced by a senator. It doesn’t specifically say that. I don’t know, Mr. Thompson, if that is something that needs to be said, because it says “or a non-Government bill.” It’s very precise as to who would need to introduce a public bill that may be a government bill — that’s very precise — but then it says “or a non-Government bill.” It doesn’t have that same precision, and I’m wondering, Mr. Thompson, if it needs to have that level of precision.
Mr. Thompson: I’d like to reflect on that a little bit more. I have an instinct, but I hesitate to speak without thinking about it. I’ll discuss that with some of my colleagues and get back to you.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
The Chair: Maybe it’s time to talk about the wording, because in this proposition, there’s a different translation about the sponsor, the critic and the introduction of a designated senator. Maybe it’s time to look at the table on page 28. If you agree, that would clarify the discussion.
At the end of page 28, there is a table where there is a proposed French version. Actually, in English it’s “sponsor.” In French, it is parrain, which is a gendered word and very old.
Because people are sometimes not the author of a bill, it’s better to use a general term that includes the possibility to be the author. “Sponsor” does that; you can sponsor a bill because you’re the author, or you can sponsor a government bill, but in French, the word auteur doesn’t have this universal category. Auteur means you are the one who wrote the bill.
An interesting translation would be promoteur. Instead of parrain, you will have promoteur. It’s easy and more gender neutral than parrain and marraine, which are old words.
“Critic” in French is porte-parole. It does not mean critic. That’s not a good translation. It exists in French, the word being critique, which is the translation of “critic.” It’s possible that we could use critique. Actually, when we talk about that, we don’t say, “Who is the porte-parole?” We say, “Quel est le critique?” We do use critique all the time.
“Designated senator” is a new category that was not included previously. That’s easy.
Senator Batters: I’m just looking at those question-and-answer sheets that we were provided with. There was a little bit of discussion in here about the word “sponsor” of the bill. It indicates in here that in France, it is auteur —
The Chair: Which means the one who wrote the bill.
Senator Batters: Yes. And it also looks like that for the National Assembly of Québec, as well.
The Chair: Because they don’t have a Senate, and those who propose are also the author.
Senator Batters: It is probably the Ministry of Justice that is the author, but yes.
Then, it’s same thing with Senator Mégie’s question on the Office québécois de la langue française.
Is the word you’re proposing for sponsor, promoteur, used anywhere? Do we know?
The Chair: It is a translation. If you look in the dictionary, it is a translation of “sponsor.”
Senator Batters: Do we know of any other parliaments that use it?
The Chair: I don’t know. We’d have to look at the countries that are officially bilingual to see what they use, but I don’t know.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I think that in French, “parrain” and “marraine” are also fine. “Promoteur” does have a different connotation. A parrain can even, after hearing their colleagues in committee, propose an amendment themself. I think this could stay as “parrain” or “marraine” of a bill in French. I agree with Senator Batters.
The Chair: What are we going to do in the case of senators who, eventually, have no gender?
Senator Saint-Germain: First, the feminine is marraine and not parrain.
The Chair: Yes, but persons who have no gender?
Senator Saint-Germain: What do we do at present with a sponsor who has no gender? What is a promoteur who has no gender, I would like to learn?
The Chair: It’s a promoteur.
Senator Saint-Germain: So what is a parrain or a marraine?
The Chair: In any event. We now know that there are “iels”. There is no “il” or “elle”, there are “iels”. “Promoteur” is more neutral. That would be my feeling, but we will have to do a study of the meanings if we keep “parrain” and “marraine”, but I find that very old fashioned.
Senator Gagné, could the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages give an opinion?
Senator Gagné: I’m not certain about that. This debate has been going on for years in French. It is always difficult to reach an agreement. You raise a good point regarding the gender-neutral term.
I know that as a woman, we don’t really like the masculine taking precedence, but that was the grammatical rule. We do have to note that in Appendix 1, it says, and I quote:
In the French version of the Rules, the masculine gender is used throughout, without any intent to discriminate but solely to make the text easier to read.
I don’t know whether we still want to follow that rule, but that passage does appear in the Rules. Personally, I am less fond of “promoteur” and, as Senator Batters said, “auteur”, we can have auteur and auteure, but we often have this challenge. The author is often the Minister of Justice, and that’s someone else.
I don’t know. I think we are going around in circles on this subject. That’s my view.
The Chair: Thank you. We will leave this item aside with the items for discussion to be continued at another time.
[English]
Senator Batters: On the issue of critic, I agree with your comment that the word critique seems like a good word to use. In the section dealing with the critic of a bill, there’s actually one part that is perhaps unintended. When we’re looking at the definition of critic of a bill, included in here it says that the critic would be designated by the leader or representative of the government or deputy leader if the sponsor is not a government member, or the Leader of the Opposition or the deputy if the sponsor is a government member. The problem with this particular definition as it exists and is proposed to —
The Chair: We are not yet at the definition. We were just talking about the translation of titles. I know there’s a problem with that writing.
Senator Batters: Right.
The Chair: But we are not there yet.
Senator Batters: Oh, I thought that’s where you were. Sorry about that.
The Chair: No. I was just on the translation of the titles.
Senator Batters: I see.
The Chair: What I understand is that, for the moment, we will keep parrain and marraine as the translation for sponsor, and we will keep porte-parole as the translation of critic. We won’t talk about “designated senator” because there’s no agreement on the definition of that. We will go to the definition later. On the translation, we will keep the old nomenclature.
We are now on page 19 — “Critic of a bill” — so we are at your point. I understand that there’s a problem now because, in fact, for non-government bills, it’s not the government that decides who is the critic. It was the practice at the beginning of the new Senate. At that time, I was in the position of Senator Gagné and I was receiving calls asking, “Can I be the critic for that individual senator bill?” It was very hard to decide.
The practice now, as I understand it, when we have a private member’s bill — an S- or C-bill with a three-digit number — the practice in scroll would be to look at the opposition to be the critic or — I was wondering: Has it happened that the critic of a bill that was, let’s say, proposed by the Independent Senators Group — ISG — was a member of the Progressive Senate Group? Has that happened?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes. I remember one on which Senator Boisvenu agreed to be the critic on a bill tabled by an ISG senator. I just don’t remember the bill —
The Chair: Yes, but that was Senator Boisvenu from the opposition.
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
The Chair: Has it happened that the critic of an S- or C-bill with a three-digit number where the sponsor was not the opposition?
Senator Martin: We had a C-bill in the Commons where Senator Dalphond was the sponsor.
The Chair: Senator Dalphond was the sponsor, but who was the critic?
Senator Martin: Oh, the critic, sorry. The critic was one of our senators.
The Chair: So it’s always you, the Conservative caucus of the opposition, that is the critic of any bill, except when it is tabled by yourself, of course.
Senator Wells: Right. So I think in most cases, and in my time serving as deputy leader, those discussions came up at scroll from time to time. But I know there are some bills where if the author in the House of Commons or the sponsor in the House of Commons is, in our instance, a Conservative, we would probably have a Conservative sponsor in the Senate, and there would be someone else as the critic. In fact, there’s a bill coming before us where it’s a Conservative private member’s bill in the House; I’m sponsoring it in the Senate, and an ISG member is the critic.
The Chair: Right. That makes sense, and we understand that, but if a bill is not sponsored by the Conservative caucus, who will be the critic of this bill? What I have been seeing is that we always say the critic will come from the opposition. Is that the rule or the practice? Because it’s not the rule.
Senator Batters: I guess I would say that’s in keeping with the role. There have been times in the last number of years where that could deviate, but that should be the default. That seems to be in keeping with the formal role of the opposition.
Actually, what I had noticed about this particular possible amendment is a larger problem than this, given the current scenario, where many times — almost always, frankly — the sponsors of government bills aren’t technically government senators. They’re independent senators, many times, yet this particular amendment states, “if the sponsor is not a government member.” Well, the only government members technically right now are Senators Gold, Gagné and LaBoucane-Benson. Further on, it says that the critic would be designated by the Leader of the Opposition if the sponsor is a government member.
So again, there are only three senators in the current scenario. That certainly was the case for many years prior to the last seven. Perhaps the clerk can look at that language and advise as to how that can be better worded, because we wouldn’t want to give a loophole here. If the sponsor happens to be someone other than those three, and if it’s a government bill and they are sponsoring for the government, then it should be a member of the opposition who is the critic for that bill.
The Chair: On that issue, there are two things. There’s the designation of the critic to have proper writing for the practice or the intent. There’s also the recognition to have a critic from other than the opposition.
Mr. Thompson: Senator Batters, I think you’ve made a good catch there. I know in the definition of “sponsor of a bill,” that same issue exists in the current language and has been addressed. When we get to that item, perhaps we can take a look and maybe bring some of that language back into this definition. It did address the question of “government member” and redefined it as “the sponsor is designated by the Leader or Representative of the Government,” leaving it a little more open-ended. We can probably work something similar to that into this definition as well.
Senator Cordy: When we look at that, Mr. Thompson, we have to keep in mind the comments of Senator Greene and Senator Dean that you can be a critic of a bill and not be in favour of a bill just because you’re in the ISG, or the Canadian Senators Group — the CSG — or the progressive group. I think we have to keep all of that in mind in a modern Senate.
Senator Woo: To elaborate on that, for many of us, the term “critic” has been preserved because the opposition likes that term and wants to maintain it. That’s perfectly fine. Our intent is for the designated senator to be totally equivalent to the critic and, therefore, to have all of the powers and privileges that the critic has.
Mr. Thompson, when you revise this wording, it should not privilege — I know Senator Batters will disagree with this point — the opposition and should give equal possibility for the designated senator as another kind of critic to also play that role in the Senate.
Senator Batters: Yes. As we’ve discussed at length, there’s no consensus on that particular part of the point. Thank you.
The Chair: I know.
Senator Wells: Thank you. I have a question for Senator Woo. What does “another kind of critic” mean? If you’re either for it or against it, or against it unless there are amendments, what does it mean to have “another kind of critic?”
Senator Woo: It is as Senator Dean mentioned. You can oppose a bill without being the opposition. There are many ways to oppose a bill. It doesn’t have to be tied to the group that calls itself the opposition. If, in fact, there’s another way of opposing without being the opposition, then that person who is called the designated senator should have all of the privileges that are also afforded to the critic.
Senator Wells: Of course, as you know, every senator is permitted to speak on a bill, for it or against it, so I don’t see how an additional designation would alter that.
Senator Woo: It would, because the critic, in your understanding, has additional speaking time, gets to go first and a number of other things, which other senators do not have. If we in fact agree that designated senators in groups other than the opposition also have the right to oppose, then they should also have the same rights of the so-called critic. That’s the logic of equity of Senate groups.
Senator Wells: I understand that. Thank you.
The Chair: Okay, we will move on to page 20: “Deputy Leader or Legislative Deputy of the Government.” I think we’re in agreement there.
Regarding page 21, it was proposed by Senator Tannas in this motion to have a “Designated representative of a recognized party or a recognized parliamentary group.”
Senator Batters: That doesn’t have consensus because I don’t know what the role would be for that. You can have a definition but if there’s no role for it —
Mr. Thompson: Senators, we can’t really look at this definition in a vacuum. It has multiple contexts and multiple impacts, as there are a number of points already in the Rules, as well as in Senator Tannas’s proposal, where senators can be designated for particular purposes. We discussed one this morning when we were talking about debate on a particular bill. This definition would not de facto give each party or group the authority to do that. That’s linked back to the rule on speaking times and would be one of the purposes set out. It’s also in another rule that we’ve discussed this morning, where senators can be designated for purposes of consultation in relation to service fee changes and things of that nature.
I wanted to flag that. As Senator Batters notes, it speaks to the broader thing where there is not consensus of speaking times.
The Chair: Okay. So we’re now on “Government Business” and other issues. This is a question of the title of the Parliament of Canada of Act. That’s on pages 21, 22 and 23.
Senator Batters: This is at the bottom of page 22 and goes on to a significant part of page 23. Yes, liaison.
Mr. Thompson: Sorry to interrupt, Senator Batters, but is there consensus on the other elements, which I know are really cross references leading up to that point?
Senator Batters: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: Perfect.
The Chair: We are now on the issue of the liaison, where you have an issue.
Senator Batters: Yes. On this, where it would end using the words “as appropriate,” that one sentence seems kind of redundant to say “as appropriate” there. Primarily, my question is about the last sentence of the proposed change there, which would say, “The Government Whip or Liaison may be responsible for outreach on Government Business in the Senate.” What does that mean, “outreach on Government Business in the Senate?” We don’t have that definition included as part of the whip definition. I just don’t understand what that means. If it’s not a commonly understood definition and part of the job, I don’t know why we would include it as part of that definition.
The Chair: I think this is what the GRO — Government Representative Office — is doing.
Senator Gagné: Liaison and outreach.
Senator Batters: What does that mean? Asking other senators how they’re going to vote? Is that what that means?
Senator Gagné: We have a right to liaise with anyone, any senators.
Senator Batters: Sure, as does everyone. I don’t understand why we need to have that in the definition of “liaison.” I don’t really understand what it means and why it needs to be in there.
Senator Wells: Especially if everyone can do it, as Senator Gagné just noted.
Senator Gagné: Can you repeat that?
Senator Wells: Sorry, maybe it was Senator Batters, but everyone can liaise or outreach to any senator on a bill, either for it or against it or an amendment on it. That’s the right of any senator. I agree with Senator Batters. I don’t know why it has to be specifically directed as the responsibility of the liaison.
Senator Gagné: Well, I think it really is a reflection of our current practice. If we gather information, we have discussions with different senators on different subjects. I think it’s a reflection of our practice. Do I have a definition? No, but if it’s the will of the committee to remove this, we can remove it, but it’s a practice.
The Chair: We will put that aside. We’ll see the final version at the end. Thank you.
We are at page 23 now, “Leader of the Government.” That’s agreed. On page 24, do you have any comments on what has been written in more detail for “Leader or Representative of the Government?”
Senator Batters: I have a question. There’s been an addition here to the leader or to the representative of the government “to represent the Government in the Senate.” But my question is on the phrase, “without affiliation to a Government party.” I’m wondering if that’s necessary to state or if it’s somewhat redundant. Obviously, there’s a clear affiliation to the government, because you’re appointed by the government, so is it really necessary to put in, “without affiliation to a Government party?” Because we’re already adding on. The earlier definition — the current one — just says, “acts as the head of the Senators belonging to the Government party,” period. So we’re already adding, “or who is appointed by the Government to represent the Government in the Senate.” I don’t know if we necessarily need to include “without affiliation to a Government party,” because we’re already adding what the current practice is.
Senator Woo: The government can speak for itself. This underscores the independent nature of the Senate and the GRO. I think they would want to underscore this distinction and make clear it’s a different kind of appointment from the government leader.
Senator Batters: Does it preclude, then, someone who might have some affiliation and continues to donate to the government party? Maybe they want to be the Government Representative, yet they donate to their party, they go to their conventions and have other affiliations with that government party.
Senator Woo: In contravention of this rule?
Senator Batters: Why would they be in contravention of this rule? This is a parliamentary institution. Senators should have the ability to donate, just like any other citizen of Canada does. I don’t know why we would put that sort of limitation in the Rules of the Senate.
Senator Woo: That’s an issue of policy that you can discuss with the government.
Senator Batters: I don’t think the government would even want that distinction.
Senator Wells: It’s a really good point. What if it was a Conservative who would obviously be affiliated with a governing party? While it may work in this instance, it may not work in a future under a Conservative government.
The Chair: It does. It says both.
Senator Batters: Senator Gold has donated to the Liberal Party of Canada in the past. Does that mean he’s not eligible, or does it go on for a certain time frame that you have to be without donation for so long? How does that work?
The Chair: Anybody can donate to all parties, Senator Batters. I don’t understand. Just because you donated, you’re a member of the government caucus? I don’t see —
Senator Gagné: I think both are included, and I think it just reflects the government’s current approach to the Senate and, as Senator Woo mentioned, its independent nature.
The Chair: If there’s no agreement on that, I think we have a problem.
Senator Cordy: It’s all inclusive. It’s either/or. I don’t know how you can be against it if it’s this one or this one that is included in the definition. Maybe I’m missing something.
Senator Batters: I would like to explain then how it would exist in this revised change. There could be either a senator who acts as head of senators belonging to the government party, or appointed by the government to represent the government in the Senate without affiliation to a government party.
So you could have someone who is in the position of Senator Gold right now, where he’s not belonging to the government party but he’s appointed by the government to represent the government. As Senator Woo was just saying, his interpretation is that would preclude somebody from having any affiliation to the government party. Why would we preclude that? We shouldn’t have to.
Senator Cordy: It’s the senator belonging to the government party, or who is appointed.
Senator Batters: Maybe someone isn’t belonging to the government party, but maybe they donate to the party, and that’s affiliation. Senator Woo just said that would not be allowed.
The Chair: I think, Senator Batters —
Senator Cordy: We’re playing with words.
Senator Batters: I don’t think we are. I think we’re potentially denying people the right to donate, attend conventions and all of those kinds of things. What else would affiliation mean? And there’s no consensus.
The Chair: We will have that discussion, because I know a lot of people who donate to every party, so does it mean that they are affiliated to all parties, even though those parties have contradictory propositions? We have this description, so we will report we had comments on that.
Senator Batters: There’s no consensus on that description, then.
Senator Saint-Germain: Affiliation means being affiliated with another caucus or a group or the opposition, the ISG, the Progressive Senate Group — PSG — or CSG; non-affiliated means that you’re not a member of a group. We are referring to the Senate business.
Senator Batters: It says a government party, so it seems political party.
Senator Saint-Germain: No, it means government, which is different from a political party. When the Conservatives were in power, it was a Conservative government, and you still had the Conservative Party. It’s the same for the Liberal government. They are members representative of the government, not of the Liberal Party. Although I would agree there’s an ideology that is respected by the government, but it goes over this.
So for me, it is very clear and understandable, and rightly so, that these nuances are made in both cases when you have a government that has a Government Representative Office, or another one that prefers to have a Leader of the Government. I think it’s clear.
Senator Batters: No consensus.
The Chair: “Leaders and facilitators:” Are there any remarks on that?
Senator Batters: For Mr. Thompson, at the end of this particular definition, it goes on to say — the last part of this — “and Leader or facilitator of a recognized party or recognized parliamentary group,” and that’s in quotes, but that doesn’t have a definition, I don’t think, unless it’s not in here, but elsewhere, because it doesn’t in this table that has been provided.
The Chair: It says it was changed a long time ago.
Mr. Thompson: It is in the existing Appendix 1: “leader or facilitator of a recognized party or recognized parliamentary group, the senator who heads a group of senators recognized as a party or parliamentary group under the Rules.”
Senator Batters: Okay, that’s good to know.
So that’s in the current appendix, but “facilitator” itself is not defined in the Parliament of Canada Act, is it?
Mr. Thompson: It is not defined in the Parliament of Canada Act. So that’s just a cross reference for the facilitator.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for offering me this opportunity. “Official opposition” is not recognized in the Parliament of Canada Act. It’s the opposition.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: Maybe just one more point. I would like to suggest that we add, “a government leader or representative of the government.”
The Chair: On which page?
Senator Gagné: That is still with leaders and facilitators. If we want to be consistent, it would be the government leader or representative of the government. Yes, or representative.
The Chair: Or the government’s representative. But the government leader or representative would be okay? Okay.
Mr. Thompson: Leader or representative of the government?
The Chair: Okay. Legislative Deputy of the Government.
Okay. Now we have “Ordinary procedure for determining the duration of bells.”
Senator Batters: That’s the one; there’s no consensus.
The Chair: That will be revisited. On page 26 is “Representative of the Government.” Is that agreed?
“Senator who is a minister?” Agreed.
“Spokesperson on a bill OR Designated Senator?”
Senator Batters: That’s the one we had the discussion about before that can’t be really just done in a bubble; there are other issues on that.
The Chair: So there’s no agreement on that.
“Members of the committee have expressed concern over the use of the French term ‘parrain.’ In the French version, other options were suggested such as: ‘promoteur’.”
Sponsor of the bill is parrain, so we keep parrain and forget about promoteur. And then we’re finished with that.
Mr. Thompson: Senators, just for clarity, on the definition of sponsor of the bill, are you comfortable with the change to the title of the Government Representative in that definition? We would leave the term parrain.
The Chair: Yes, it looks like people want to keep the old terminology. I would have given it a try. I know that the government now tries to include diversity in terminology, so it would have been in my spirit that, if we had an LGBTQ person or someone who doesn’t identify as male or female as a senator, would they be a parrain or a marraine? I don’t know how they will call themselves, but it’s okay because sponsor is clear.
Now that we are finished with that, we know that there are a lot of things we don’t agree on. There’s some of it we do agree that are not substantive, so what shall we do? At the beginning of this meeting today, I said we could have a report that is tabled or proposed. We could have a report that proposes some changes and another report on the issues that we did not agree on. That’s one thing. Or we could table a report on our whole discussion and say that we have some agreement on some issues of titles and so forth, and we could spell them out; we have other issues where we don’t. If I may, it’s all in the notion of what the opposition in the Senate is, and we could have observations on what people have said about what the opposition is in the Senate.
As a chair, I would have liked to hear from observers of the new Senate in Canada to present their ideas of what should be, could be or is the opposition in a multipartite second chamber, but we didn’t have any agreement on that and I don’t sense any appetite for that. So we’ll probably have that discussion in the Senate about what the opposition is in the new modern Senate, and everyone will do their own research and we’ll ask some witnesses to help them shape their ideas of what an opposition is in a multipartite Senate. I’m here to hear you.
Senator Woo: We framed this study as one looking at how we can improve equality of recognized Senate groups. Where we have landed, which is to say on the items that have agreement, is essentially on items that do not substantially change equality. They mostly update terminology to reflect language that we already use in the upper house.
For that reason, I think we should produce a report that lists the items that we have agreement on, lists the items that we don’t have agreement on, but come to the conclusion that we were not able to come to an agreement on how to provide for equality of all Senate groups, and that the principal stumbling block was on the understanding of what the opposition is.
My own view is that this report should be tabled for information, if that’s the right term, rather than a decision. It’s to inform the Senate of the difficult discussions we had and of the central area of disagreement, which the Senate can then take up for further discussion as a whole.
The Chair: That’s a good summary. Thank you very much, Senator Woo.
Senator Greene: The only thing I worry about with regard to your presentation is that, in my experience, tabling a report is enough to make it disappear. These issues cannot disappear. They’ve got to be resolved in some way or another.
Senator Woo: If I may, chair. That’s absolutely right. My hope was that this committee would have dealt with all of the issues, including the ones that, in fact, provide for equality of all Senate groups, but we have not been able to do that here. I think such a report that is tabled, which clearly lays out where there is agreement and disagreement, and where the point of disagreement is, will inform the Senate as to what next steps it wants to take to try and move the ball forward, if I can put it that way. It will be up to us to make that decision. This report will not do that for us, but it will set the stage for whatever next steps senators as a whole might choose to take.
Senator Cordy: Senator Woo, you spoke about where there is not agreement. I wonder if we could say, “where there is not unanimous agreement,” because certainly, based on the discussion around the table — maybe I’m wrong — I got the understanding that the majority of the senators were in favour and some weren’t.
Senator Woo: Agreed. Thank you for that.
Senator Cordy: Would you say “unanimous”?
Senator Woo: I would very much stress the point.
Senator Batters: I would perhaps quibble with the term “unanimous agreement.” We’re talking about a sizable bloc, on this committee, of opposition senators. To portray it as an extremely tiny number of senators is not really in keeping with the numbers as they exist. I do agree that tabling a report for discussion in the Senate is a good idea. We might want to consider it. We did come to an agreement on a substantial number of items that perhaps it would be beneficial for the Senate to be able to get those rules modified so that they correctly refer to the situation as it exists right now in the Senate and, perhaps, moving forward. I wonder if that might be a good idea to table the items that we were able to come to an agreement about; we could have that as a separate item so that those rules can actually be changed. Because we did have a number of them — I would say probably half.
The Chair: There’s no consensus on that, Senator Batters, as there was no consensus on your points that you really didn’t want. There’s no consensus on presenting —
Senator Batters: No consensus on —
The Chair: — on having any rule change.
Senator Batters: — having any rule changes made for probably half the number of things?
The Chair: This is what I understand.
Senator Batters: Really? That’s too bad.
The Chair: If you want a vote on that, we can put that to a vote.
Senator Batters: That’s fine. I thought that perhaps with all of this work on deciphering — including by the government leader — all the different places that government leader and deputy leader and that sort of thing are mentioned in the Rules — but that’s fine.
The Chair: We will have a report on the questions that were raised by the Clerk of the Senate. That will be ready at the beginning of next year I think, or maybe sooner than that.
Mr. Thompson: We may have a draft for the steering committee to consider. You will recall, after we reviewed the proposed text arising from the changes proposed by the Clerk, there was an agreement in principle and steering was delegated the authority to approve a final text. I hope to have that text to steering in the next week or so for their review. If we can get that approved, it will then be ready for going into the chamber. When that will be, whether it’s before we break for the season or not, I’m not sure.
Senator Cordy: Before we finish, I really want to take the opportunity to thank you, Mr. Thompson, for the incredible amount of work that you have done making all of these multiple changes. Chair, to you and the steering committee, the same thing — it’s been a tremendous amount of work that you’ve all done to bring us to this point.
Senator Busson: Senator Cordy took the words out of my mouth.
Senator Gagné: I just have a point of clarification to make sure that I understand what the report will be reflecting. I know there are sections that we have where there is no consensus or no agreement. There are still leadership titles for government that have to be updated, and I was wondering if those changes will be included in the report. Will that be mentioned?
The Chair: That’s correct. Absolutely.
Senator Gagné: I want to make sure.
The Chair: You will have a report that’s not just a summary; it will include all the work that we’ve done. The wording will be there. That doesn’t preclude anybody after that to take what they want and table a motion to say that this is the report that the committee arrived at. Anybody could bring forward a motion with the things that they want to have changed now, because it would be easier if the titles were changed. That would not be for the committee to do. With this report, it would be easy to take part of it and to propose it as a motion.
Mr. Thompson: That was really what I was going to clarify. As I understand the directions that I’m receiving, it’s to draft a report that is for information only. While it will identify those areas where there was agreement, it will not in and of itself propose amendments to the Rules. As the chair has indicated, it should provide any senator who wanted to pursue that issue with the information they needed to move forward.
The Chair: It’s going to be clear where we had agreement and where we didn’t have agreement. Each section will be spelled out, and if we can reach an agreement on why we didn’t get an agreement, maybe we will write it, but maybe not. We will see when we write the report how far we can go into describing the issue.
Senator Martin: For the purpose of what has been achieved, which is that there are items that we have agreed to, if it’s in a report with the ones that have been approved, then those could be adopted and then it could be changed within the Rules. It could be, in the other report you’re referring to where you talk about informing the Senate that there wasn’t consensus on these items, that could be a separate report that is informative.
I’m only thinking about the work that has been done, because otherwise, unless someone in the chamber moves a motion for all the items that were agreed to, that doesn’t seem in line with what happened typically. That the Rules Committee has come to an agreement on a number of particular items should be in a separate report, which should be unanimously adopted by the Senate, rather than having another step added where somebody would have to then move a motion. That would be my recommendation, but, again, I can see that a lot of work has been done. I’m only here to see if I can encourage the Rules Committee to do two things, rather than have it all in one informative report.
The Chair: We already had discussed that. We agreed to do that.
Senator Martin: Has it already been agreed on?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Martin: All right.
Senator Wells: I’m in agreement with Senator Batters. I think any comment that references unanimous or not unanimous is more divisive. I think we should stick with the terms, chair, that you use, which is that there was consensus or there was not consensus.
Senator Dean: In my mind, I was thinking about the bells ringing and the motion about the bells ringing; it would be a meta situation.
Senator Woo: Like a nightmare?
The Chair: On that, we will meet next week with another agenda that we’ll discuss at steering, which will meet after a small break.
(The committee adjourned.)