THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 7, 2023
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:34 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: Welcome to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
My name is Diane Bellemare, I am a senator from Quebec and chair of this committee.
We will go around the table to give senators a chance to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters, from Saskatchewan.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson, British Columbia.
Senator Marwah: Sabi Marwah, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette, from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene, Nova Scotia.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold, Quebec.
[Translation]
The Chair: We will begin our first meeting of 2023 on this very cold February 7.
I would like to begin by giving the floor to Senator Saint-Germain.
[English]
Senator Saint-Germain: I move that the Honourable Senator Woo be elected deputy chair in place of the Honourable Senator Lankin.
[Translation]
The Chair: There is a proposition on the table. Is anyone opposed? No, then the proposition is adopted.
Welcome, Senator Woo.
Before we get into our agenda, we will review the topic of equity between groups in order to draw our conclusions.
We will begin our meeting with committee mandates. However, before we begin, I have a few brief items to address.
First, we have received — I have not shared this with you yet — a letter from the senator and Chair of the Committee on Internal Economy, Budget and Administration, Senator Moncion, about CPAC. I will read the letter:
[English]
Effective January 30, 2023, when Senate Chamber proceedings are suspended or interrupted — for example, during the evening suspension or the ringing of the bells before a vote of the Senate — CPAC may abbreviate the suspension or interruption represented in the rebroadcast on their TV channel as directed by the Senate.
[Translation]
We have been heard and the broadcaster agreed to shorten the periods of time when we hear music or bells. Mr. Thompson, our clerk, confirmed that this decision was currently in effect.
Also, as discussed during the last meeting of the steering committee last week, we studied the fourth report on the changes suggested by the clerk. The fourth report indicated that the steering committee had the authority delegated by our committee to review the report and finalize it. It will be tabled in the chamber this week. We are pleased with this accomplishment.
You also received two reports from the Library of Parliament — we will come back to that — addressing questions that were raised during our work on equity between the two groups. One provides a history and addresses the use of “porte-parole” in French and the other has to do with deferred votes. Again, we have a report explaining the context of this rule on deferred votes.
We will begin our study on the first item on the agenda, equity between groups. Before giving the floor to senators, I would like to remind you that we discussed this issue further at the steering committee.
The last meeting ended with the non-acceptance of some of the amendments and an unwillingness to more forward with the points we agree on, hence the further discussion of this issue at the steering committee.
We created tables and you have received them. Tables 1, 2 and 3 sum up the items discussed. First, Table 1 includes elements on which we reached a consensus. Table 2 includes all the elements of the Rules on which we did not reach a consensus. Table 3 includes elements on which we did not reach a consensus; we are leaving them be, but we are modifying the titles.
To simply sum up these three tables, Table 1 represents the consensus and the consensus on the titles only; Tables 1 and 3 represent our amended Rule with the titles as suggested by the Government Representative Office. Table 2 represents the items on which a consensus was not reached.
We prepared a proposition that I would like us to discuss today to follow up on our discussions and, in a way, to end our debates.
You received the proposition and I will read it:
[English]
Whereas, the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (“Committee”) studied, in the fall of 2022, the changes proposed by Senators Woo and Tannas to ensure equity between recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups;
Whereas the Committee had intended to operate by consensus;
Whereas the Committee has agreed that equity does not necessarily mean equality;
Whereas the Opposition in the Senate considers that its role as opposition comes with certain rights in terms of the Senate’s operating rules and procedures;
Whereas discussions showed that a majority of Committee members were willing to accept several proposed changes but that members of the Opposition were opposed;
Whereas the Chair of the Committee agreed at the beginning of the study on equity between recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups to proceed without taking votes;
Whereas several proposed modifications did not reach consensus;
Whereas the Committee discussions have reached their limit;
It is proposed:
1) To proceed with a report which identifies three tables of modifications, which are: Table #1 Elements with consensus, Table #2 Elements without consensus, and Table #3 Elements without consensus — modifying titles only;
2) That that the report, once adopted by the committee, be tabled in the Senate and be discussed by all leaders and facilitators.
What I propose is we do a report. The report is not done yet. In this report that will be tabled in the Senate, we will ask at the same time, of the leaders and facilitators, to present a strategy if they want to, or to leave it to the Senate as a whole. I am here to propose that, because that was the bare agreement we have reached when we discussed this in our steering committee.
Senator Greene: Thank you. You said it’s a “bare agreement,” and I certainly agree. In fact, I would like to apologize to the committee on behalf of people on the Rules Committee who wanted to move forward in a much more direct way than we have.
We have not wasted time, because it is never wasted time to speak in the Senate, but I am very disappointed that we have not achieved more.
The Chair: It’s up to you now to amend this proposition.
Senator Greene: If it’s up to me, there are a number of places I could amend it. I don’t think you mean that.
It’s a case, to some extent, of the tail wagging the dog.
Senator Batters: Yes, we did briefly discuss a lengthier report like this at our steering meeting last week. Last night this one came in after-hours. I was flying so I just briefly saw it. What I would say about it is that it is, for the most part, reflective of what happened.
First, regarding the paragraph that talks about a majority “. . . were willing to accept several proposed changes but that members of the Opposition were opposed,” that doesn’t showcase the fact that the opposition actually did accept many proposed changes — in fact, an entire table’s worth — that are attached here. That makes it sound like we only opposed and we didn’t agree. There were many areas where we did agree upon changes.
As well, I think it’s important to note that the parts in table 3, which are listed as elements without consensus modifying titles only, the reason that those particular parts didn’t meet with our consensus is because — though those particular phrases that are listed here might only be dealing with modified titles — they are in sections on which we did not find consensus, particularly time allocation and agreements on timing for deferred votes and major areas. Though those particular parts happened to have titles in them, it was the substance of the rule that was the problem with reaching consensus in that area, because there are very important issues that the opposition feels strongly about that, in the Westminster system, need to be considered.
One of my last comments is this is the type of thing that I did propose a couple of times at the last meeting, to say that, yes, there are areas where we don’t agree but there were substantial areas where we did, and I proposed we move forward like that. At that meeting, the committee wasn’t willing to come to an agreement to proceed in that fashion. I hope that, with a little bit of time, we could do that today.
The last point is it’s also being proposed that this report, if it’s adopted by the committee, would be tabled in the Senate and be discussed by all leaders and facilitators. I would have a concern there, because it makes it sound like it’s the leaders and facilitators who come to the overall decision about how to change rules in the Senate, and it’s actually not. It’s the Senate’s role to do that. That particular process would create a big majority, potentially, against one opposition leader. There are several senators right now who are non-affiliated; it would leave them entirely out of that discussion process.
Senator Wells: Having received this after six o’clock last night, I only read it this morning when I got to the office.
In the section that says, “Whereas the Committee had intended to operate by consensus,” we actually had agreed to operate by consensus. The wording of that, if the essence of it is going to remain, should reflect what we initially agreed to, which was to operate by consensus.
I’m going to move to the section that begins with:
Whereas the Chair of the Committee agreed at the beginning of the study on equity between recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups to proceed without taking votes . . .
Obviously, we weren’t going to take votes, because we agreed to operate on consensus. I wanted to point that out, because it’s in reference to my first point.
I’m going to move now to the section above that last one, where it says:
Whereas discussions showed that a majority of Committee members were willing to accept several proposed changes but that members of the Opposition were opposed . . .
I think it’s inappropriate to have that in there if our agreement at the very beginning was to agree to operate on consensus. Now, with this proposition and the provision within it, it’s not saying there is no consensus; it’s saying that this is the dividing line between those who are for and those against. You’ll recall that we didn’t take very many votes on who might be for and who opposed. We spoke about it, and we agreed — or you, as the chair, agreed — that there was no consensus. Now there is a dividing line being driven here, which I think is inappropriate for this proposal.
The Chair: Okay. We’ll take that into account.
Senator Wells: I just had one more. I wanted to agree with Senator Batters regarding the discussion by all leaders and facilitators. You may know that not all senators agree with the leadership of their caucuses and groups. So to Senator Batters’s point, this should be discussed by the Senate and not cooked and agreed to ahead of time either by certain members of this committee or certain members of the Senate.
The Chair: I won’t answer all those comments because I think it’s worthless in the sense that the issue is not there.
Senator Busson: Actually, the comment I was going to make is that I basically agree with this approach, given the fact that we worked very hard — as previous speakers said — to reach consensus, and that’s not going to happen.
I wanted to make the same suggestion that, happily, my colleagues Senators Batters and Wells made about the fact that it should be the Senate as a whole rather than facilitators. They have already covered that, and I’m happy to agree with them.
The Chair: Good.
Senator Omidvar: I’m new to this committee, so forgive me if I ask for clarification that everybody already has. Let me also start by agreeing with what has been suggested by Senator Batters about the wording in the last phrase of the last sentence.
If — and that’s to be debated — we continue with the clause that says this —
Whereas discussions showed that a majority of Committee members were willing to accept several proposed changes but that members of the Opposition were opposed —
— it leaves it up in the air as to who the opposition is. I would clarify that to say, “members of the official Opposition were opposed.”
Now I’m hearing that “official opposition” doesn’t exist. Okay, well I learned something.
I know I’m going to be nitpicky about language here, but language is important. I’m not going to push this point, but the phrase that says, “Whereas the Committee has agreed that equity does not necessarily mean equality . . .” is slightly passive aggressive, Madam Chair. I would simply take out the word “necessarily” because we know that equity does not mean equality.
The Chair: Maybe I should just comment on the second part of the proposition about why it’s to be discussed by the leaders and facilitators. The discussion that we had in the steering committee about the proposition was to have — this is what we discussed at our little steering committee. That’s the rest of the discussion.
The proposition was that we try another path by having the leaders and facilitators, with the Speaker, talk about those ideas and try to arrive at a compromise and bring it to the Senate as a whole — not that they would decide for the Senate as a whole. That’s what I thought anyhow, but I can see from the reaction you have that it was not a path to follow. However, within steering, you know, it was not possible. That role was not possible to exploit because the Speaker didn’t want to go ahead with that. That’s not its role. So we decided to put it that way. However, now it’s not clear, so what will happen will happen. We’ll table it in the Senate.
Senator Woo: I also support removing the reference to leaders and facilitators. If you needed an additional phrase, you could say, “to be discussed by all senators,” but I think that’s superfluous.
With respect to the two clauses referring specifically to the opposition, it’s anomalous that we would single out the opposition in this way, particularly with the fourth clause that reads:
Whereas the Opposition in the Senate considers that its role as opposition comes with certain rights in terms of the Senate’s operating rules and procedures . . .
If we’re going to say that, we should also say that the opposition believes these certain rights — in terms of operating rules and procedures — should not be extended to other recognized parliamentary groups. Because that is the essence of the position. It’s not just that the opposition asserts it has rights and privileges, it asserts that those rights are exclusive to them.
So if we’re going to make a mention of the unique position put forward by our colleagues in the opposition, we should articulate their full position. This clause only articulates half of it.
The Chair: I thought it was important to have this point because in all our meetings, when we discussed the reason why we did not arrive at an agreement, it boiled down to this. So if you want to leave the wording there or if you want different wording, let’s discuss it. My English is not 100% perfect, so with the wording of those clauses, I sometimes need some help.
Senator Woo: Your English is excellent. I would then propose the following wording. We can leave the phrase as it is, but I would add, after the words “operating rules and procedures” the following: “. . . that should not be extended to other recognized parliamentary groups.” That is actually the essence. It’s not simply that the opposition claims certain rights and privileges. They claim them exclusively. That is the point. This is where we disagree with them.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like to make two comments. The first comment is procedural in nature, to justify my support for no longer deferring, in the proposition under recommendation 2, to the discussions between leaders and facilitators.
I believe that this committee must report, as all committees do, to the Senate. Strategic and tactical issues may be raised during meetings of leaders and facilitators and with all due respect for the role, I do not believe that at our committee, in any case, we can defer to the Speaker of the Senate nor involve him in this since he has not had the opportunity to speak to our work.
My second comment is on the nature of the report that this committee must present to the chamber to refer all of it, as we must do procedurally. I believe that, in no case, we are to infer that this report is on our mandate to consider equity and the recommendations to be made to ensure that equity and proportionality are important principles in the governance of the Senate, therefore within the framework of our rules. It will be important to make clear that this report is on updating and modernizing the terms tied to the new composition of the Senate with three newly recognized groups outside the government and the opposition. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Batters: First of all, at steering committee last week, Senator Bellemare provided us with a draft of this same document. It was a bit longer. We had a discussion about it. We received it that morning. I certainly didn’t agree to clause 2 about the leaders and facilitators at that time. We heard what the proposal was. We discussed it and wanted to think about it further.
When I thought about it further, it seemed like, first of all, the Rules Committee does not report to leaders and facilitators. It’s our job to deal with the entire Senate. I always thought of that small group of senators who are non-affiliated who would have no voice in these potentially important rule changes.
The Senate has always been about the individual senator having power. In some ways, many of these rules would potentially take away those individual powers, as I’ve pointed out many times in the last several meetings we have had about this.
With regard to Senator Woo’s comment about potentially expanding that one paragraph about opposition, I actually believe that those comments, first of all, move us further away from attaining consensus in this and are also somewhat superfluous. By saying that we consider that our role as opposition comes with certain rights in the Senate’s operating rules and procedures, I think it is already implied what that means as far as other groups in the Senate.
Also, if we are going to have further discussion about the opposition in the Senate, then I would want to include something about why we believe that, and that goes right to the heart of the Westminster system — some reference to that — so it doesn’t just look like we are proposing this opposition because we’re trying to be obstinate about this. We’re actually doing it with significant principle and based on hundreds of years of history. I think it would be better to leave that particular paragraph alone rather than try to add those changes to it.
Senator Wells: I’d like to speak to a couple of things. When we began this, we knew we would agree on some things, disagree on some things and that some of those things would be set aside. I think we would determine where we would find consensus. It was stated in our initial meeting on this that we agreed to operate on consensus. I think we have done that. We have found significant agreement on many of these items. It says “agreed to” on my note. There are some things that we didn’t agree on.
My point is that it is okay to disagree. We don’t have to find home on everything we do. It is okay to disagree and it is okay to take time for things that we consider where we might find consensus — not just the low-hanging fruit, which is easy, but also things that we discussed at length during our committee time. It took some time and we found consensus. There were some times when we didn’t find consensus. We agreed at the very beginning to proceed on that basis.
As I read this document, it’s trying to force things through where there was no consensus. We had agreed we would work on consensus. Where there was no consensus, we would park it and address it at another time, or perhaps address it in the chamber on a motion, or something else aside from this committee during this study on the Rules in front of us.
The Chair: I may add that I’m sorry if this document is interpreted in such ways that I was not intending to express. But it is good to have this discussion, and everything is on the record. That’s the point.
Senator Greene: As a small comment to address Senator Wells, it seems to me that we have found consensus so often that it’s akin to waving a white flag. I don’t think we should continue as a committee. I think we should drop all these issues and move to mandates or something like that.
The Chair: I agree with you.
Are there other comments?
Senator Cordy: Thank you to the clerk, Adam Thompson, for all the work you have done on this. We started the study wondering how long it would take, and here we are many months later still dealing with it.
For anybody who is saying we should take our time, I go back to Senators Greene and Massicotte, who held meetings in Room 168 in Centre Block, and that is no longer there. That tells you that quite a bit of time has passed. We have been trying to get things through and we’ve been working on consensus. We’ve been saying, “Let’s just take the things we agree on and forget about everything else, even discussions of it in the chamber.”
I think it’s time to act. As others have said, I think the report should be discussed by all senators, not just leaders. There are a lot of people who are not on the committee and who have spent tremendous amounts of time. Senator Massicotte would be an example, but there are also others in the chamber. Senator Woo — who is not a leader but a former leader — has done a lot of work in terms of trying to reach consensus. I’m sure they would have wise words for everybody.
I disagree with Senator Wells. I don’t think that having a report that reflects the discussions we’ve had at committee is forcing anything on anybody. In fact, I think what it does is give the Senate Chamber — and we forget, when we are sitting at committee week after week after week having all these discussions, that our colleagues have not been as fortunate, we’ll say, to have taken part in all these discussions.
I think that if we were just to present a report with everything we had consensus on, it really would not be a reflection of the comments we have heard around the table and the witnesses we have had in front of us to talk about modernizing the Senate. I think that by saying, “This is what we have reached consensus on and this is what we haven’t reached consensus on,” it gives a better sense of the work the committee has done over these past number of months.
I would disagree with just taking the parts on which there was consensus, because I think that would be unfair to our colleagues in the chamber.
This is modernization of the Senate. We have been talking about it for far too long. It is time to take some action, to get things done and to show our colleagues that, in fact, the Rules Committee has been working extremely hard, very seriously and passionately, about looking at modernizing the Rules in our chamber.
Senator Woo: To add to Senator Cordy’s comment, this report does not force anything on anyone. It simply states the record of what we did and didn’t agree on. The problem with focusing just on the items where there is consensus is that it would be unfaithful to the objective of the committee, which was to work on equity among groups. Where we were able to reach consensus are items that do nothing to improve the equity among groups; they simply change titles. It would be highly misleading if we were to focus only on those items, since our mandate was to do something quite different.
I hope Senator Wells can be assured that the draft report and the intent of the draft report Senator Bellemare has prepared in fact, I think, reflects what you would want to see accomplished, which is that we worked hard; we could agree on some things and we could not agree on some things; and we are preparing a report that will be tabled not for decision — there are no recommendations and no action items in the report as such — but a factual statement of where we landed.
On the point that Senator Batters has raised with respect to the statement of what the opposition considers to be its role and its rights, if we are to retain that clause without the addition that I proposed previously, then I would ask that we add another clause stating the position of the other non-partisan recognized parliamentary groups. It would read something along the lines of:
Whereas the other recognized non-partisan parliamentary groups consider that their role requires them to have the same rights in terms of the Senate’s operating rules and procedures as the opposition . . .
That is the crux of the decision. That is where we failed to come to an agreement.
Senator Marwah: There are two points I wanted to make. The first one is that I must agree with Senator Cordy. If we take a report forward that just focuses on what we agreed upon, it does a big disservice to our colleagues in the chamber, who then have no idea of what we debated and what we disagree on.
I think a report that has a balance of the items we agree on and those that we don’t agree on is a fair approach to advise other members of the Senate.
Second, I know Senator Wells. We have agreed on many things before, but tabling a report that says, “Here is what we agree on and what we do not agree on” does not imply the forcing of a consensus on anyone. In fact, it implies that we are not forcing a consensus but are showing what we agree on and what we don’t.
Senator Ringuette: I would like to say that I agree with Senator Greene. I’m really disappointed. In hindsight, I would not have agreed to move forward on consensus. That would be the Westminster system.
I find that this committee has been extremely reasonable in its discussions. This committee had a mandate to move on equity between parties and groups. We have not achieved that goal. We have not achieved that goal. If we had not agreed on consensus, we would have. That is something to bear in mind for certain colleagues.
I would support Senator Woo in adding a new clause with regard to other groups, because that would be truly reflective of the mandate that we had and the mandate that we did not achieve.
That’s what I have to say.
Senator Wells: I’m not sure where it went off the rails in senators assuming that I said that we should not report on things where we didn’t agree. That is not at all what I said. I know from Senators Cordy, Woo and Marwah, they believe I said that, but I did not. I wanted to correct the record on that.
What I said was that we are not going to reach consensus on everything. I think we should report on everything. Here is where we reached consensus; here is where we did not reach consensus.
My issue was with identifying members of the opposition as those who blocked consensus; that’s inappropriate for a committee such as this.
The other thing, which is the section that says, “Whereas discussions showed that a majority of Committee members were willing to accept several proposed changes,” it sounds like they were dragged into being willing but, of course, the Conservatives are unwilling, as we always are. That is not at all reflective of what actually happened. For the most part, we didn’t take votes, so who knows who was willing?
We all had opinions. Sometimes those opinions changed. Sometimes they remained firm. We didn’t take votes, so we don’t know who was willing and who was unwilling. I think it is inappropriate to highlight. If we agreed to discuss things and to moving forward on consensus, then let’s stick to that principle.
Further down, we say we didn’t reach consensus and here are the guilty parties who caused us to not reach consensus; I find that section offensive. If we didn’t reach consensus, as a committee, we didn’t reach consensus. I think that should be reflective of that.
Second, Senator Woo mentions the inclusion of the non-partisan groups. We could have a full study on what that means. If we are going to do it based upon statistics, we might find some surprising results on what “non-partisan” means; again, there is no objective definition to that, for sure, so that would be inappropriate and misleading to include that.
Senator Batters: First of all, what is now being discussed today, again — to have a report saying here is where we agreed and here is where we didn’t agree — that’s exactly what I proposed twice at the last meeting. I hope we can go forward with that. We certainly shouldn’t be acting like this is something brand new. It isn’t. This is exactly what we were proposing before, but the committee didn’t want to go that way.
Thank you, Senator Wells, for your comments about the word “non-partisan.” The remainder of that might be okay, but to have that word in, it is a debatable word in today’s reality.
As well, the Rules Committee always has, for decades, operated on consensus. If you are going to change the Rules of the Senate, you need to have a consensus of senators. You can’t have a majority of senators imposing those rule changes which, potentially, really affect the rights of the very small minority, even going down to a single non-affiliated senator. You have to have consensus. It has always operated on consensus.
To say that we wish we wouldn’t have agreed to operate on consensus, I think that is just the epitome of antidemocratic to have a large majority imposing on that minority group rule changes to the Senate which take away the rights of a minority. That would never be how this committee or the Senate has operated, and we should never get to that point.
Senator Busson: In some effort to get back to consensus and to recognize that, in this group, we may not agree with one another on different aspects on principles of how the Senate might go forward, we are all acting in good faith.
I would like to propose some wording that might reach consensus and move us to our next item.
I would propose, if everyone might agree or at least have this as a stopping point, to say:
Whereas the Opposition in the Senate considers that its role as opposition comes with certain rights in terms of the Senate’s operating rules and procedures;
Whereas discussions showed that a majority of Committee members were willing to accept several proposed changes but other members were opposed.
The Chair: Thank you. We will take that into account.
I want to say that I am also really disappointed with how things are going.
When we finished our conversation in December, I was of the opinion that we might have decided to have a report with the things we agreed on and leave the other things aside. That was my inclination, to do that. It was my proposition to the steering committee when we met the last time to include those things that we agreed on in the fourth report, or to have a standalone report.
The debate we had in the steering committee was such that I knew I could not go down that road with the full committee, so that’s why you have this proposition now.
I’m disappointed because, for me, consensus doesn’t mean unanimity. However, consensus means that groups get along on that. For me, there is a big difference between individual votes and what groups are thinking.
If we are to change a constitution, small provinces sometimes have a vote and things are not done. That did happen in Canada. I believe changing rules is like changing a constitution. A majority of individuals may not mean that it will function at the end of the day if a group or some groups or parties are not willing to agree.
We did our job. We cleaned the table. We know where there are areas where we can move the rules, and others where we are not.
We can have a debate in the Senate. It’s going to be what it’s going to be, but it will not change the Rules. I’m not sure. Because we are at the point where the debates are political and it is more political than words. When it is political then you need to talk to those who hold the power of policy.
We can have a debate in the Senate. I think it is important we have it. The proposition did not preclude that. It was to try another round of discussion with the leaders. But this will be done at one point or another in time because it has to be done. I don’t know how. Maybe it will not be the wording that we have in the proposed amendments in those documents.
Rules have also been changed, and I don’t want those who listen to us to think that this was the biggest change of all. The biggest change of all was to have groups that are not with a political party to be recognized as groups in the Senate. That was the principal rule that was changed, and I was very happy when it was changed — it was in 2016 or 2017 — because when the independent senators arrived in the Senate, they could not get organized into groups because they were not politically affiliated. So we made that change — that big change — that ensured that the Senate of Canada will not be or have the possibility to not be bipartisan, as it was for more than 150 years.
So we have a lot of work to do still on issues like equity and we’ll talk, hopefully, about the committees. There is work to be done there too to modernize our mode of functioning.
Senator Ringuette: It reminded me of when we finally managed to have the Independent Senators Group recognized in our Rules. I remember it very well now, because I moved the motion in this committee forcing a vote so that it would be included; otherwise it would not still today.
The Chair: Thank you for that. I wasn’t chair of this committee at that time.
Senator Ringuette: No. It was a senator from Montreal.
The Chair: Senator Fraser.
Senator Omidvar: I would like to ask Senator Greene for his perspective on Senator Batters’s statement that this committee has always operated by consensus. What response do you have to that, given the work that you and Senator Massicotte did on Senate modernization?
Senator Greene: I guess we picked our places. Sometimes we operated by consensus but mostly — your specific question is what, exactly?
Senator Omidvar: What was your response to the observation by Senator Batters?
Senator Greene: The notion of bipartisan and partisan groups?
Senator Omidvar: Yes.
Senator Greene: Well, I would like to know which groups are partisan other than the Conservatives. It’s the only partisan group here.
Senator Batters: Sorry, that wasn’t her question. It was about my observation about the Rules Committee always operating by consensus, and that to change the Rules of the Senate has always been done by consensus.
Senator Greene: I don’t think it has.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
Senator Woo: I think we can change my proposed clause on the rights of the other groups. We can take out “partisan” if Senator Wells objects to it and use the official term, which is “recognized parliamentary groups.” So it would read something along the lines of:
Whereas other recognized parliamentary groups consider that they should have the same rights and privileges as the opposition in terms of the Senate’s operating rules and procedures . . .
That should be inoffensive to my colleagues here. It is a factual statement. We could then remove the next paragraph, which I know Senator Wells and Senator Batters object to, because it singles out the opposition as being the stumbling block. We could say something along the lines of:
Whereas there was disagreement on whether the rights of the opposition in the Senate should be extended to other recognized parliamentary groups . . .
That, again, is the crux of the issue. If we don’t bring that out, our colleagues in the Senate Chamber will be misled and they will be in the dark. Here we are not singling out the opposition; we are singling out the issue.
The Chair: Thank you. That’s useful.
Senator Saint-Germain: I have two points. The first is a comment; the second is a recommendation.
The comment is that if I were the opposition, I would thank the current Prime Minister for not having appointed partisan members because so far he has appointed 63 senators and 14 seats are vacant. So there would be a very large majority for the government. I think this is a great change, a democratic one, and the Senate has to consider this new situation. That was my comment, and it is very personal. I’m not speaking on behalf of the ISG when I say that.
My second point is that we need to move forward today, and to agree with very interesting amendments that were proposed. We are tweaking this proposal, but I still insist on the first proposal that we proceed with a report which, while not addressing the equity principle, still identifies modifications that are relevant in order to update the Rules given the nature of the contemporary Senate with the government, opposition and three recognized groups. So this is really important.
I concur with Senator Wells’s comment that we can say:
Whereas discussions showed that a majority of Committee members were willing to accept several proposed changes but no consensus was reached.
Right after, we explained that right from the beginning we agreed that we would proceed without taking votes. So this is kind of consistent and it is not blaming or targeting anyone or even tagging anyone. I don’t like to be tagged.
I think we have enough consensus with these proposed amendments to proceed today, and it is about time that we proceed. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Batters: I just had to respond to that “non-partisan” comment by my colleague. I want to remind that there have been senators appointed by this current Prime Minister who have had significant Liberal ties — former Liberal candidates, a former Liberal premier, current maximum Liberal Party donors, former Trudeau Foundation ties. None of those are bad things. I mean, partisanship is not a dirty word. We are in a political institution. It is absolutely fine that people are appointed that have those types of ties. But we shouldn’t view all of them, just because they have been appointed as an “independent senator,” as having all of those ties that they may have had very recently, or maybe even ongoing, disappear. They don’t disappear.
To the fact there are currently some vacancies in the Senate, those can disappear at any time. Frankly, this government has been quite slow in making some of their appointments, including judges. So who knows when we might see that. But the fact there are currently some vacancies in the Senate does not lead to any sort of conclusion about non-partisanship.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll go on with the rest of our agenda today, Senator Wells. Those comments have been said. I don’t think it is worth it to repeat them, but I give you the floor.
Senator Wells: I’ll give you fresh, new comments. Chair, this is a process comment. We should have the clerk do another draft based on comments here and provide it to us long before the next meeting so we can have a look at it and perhaps have more directed — and I won’t say constructive, because I think all of the comments have been constructive — and more pointed recommendations on wording. That may be a good way to move forward.
Senator Saint-Germain: Respectfully, Senator Wells, I do believe we would be ready to proceed. It’s pretty clear what, on each line, we commented on. I think that we can reach an agreement today. Once again, it is about time that we proceed and defer to the chamber. Once again, I concur with your comments on not flagging or targeting the opposition in this. You’re right. I think that we can proceed.
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: If I could intervene briefly, I think myself and the analyst have heard your comments this morning. I think we can take this document, with your comments, as drafting instructions to prepare a formal report that could be considered and approved by the committee. It could then be tabled in the chamber. We’ll work on that.
Senator Wells, I hear your comments and we’ll get that to you with a great deal of time to review so that we can have the committee’s approval.
Senator Saint-Germain: So that means that you’ll be waiting until March?
[Translation]
Mr. Thompson: Senator, indeed, it will take some time to draft the report. We have the tables, yes, but we need to prepare text that incorporates this morning’s discussion and the proposition that is before you. However, I will have to draft the text that stems from this. I do not know if it will be ready for next week. We have two break weeks after that.
[English]
Senator Woo: I accept the need to properly draft this proposition that Senator Bellemare put together quickly last night. That shouldn’t take too long.
I don’t think there is a need for a report other than having this redrafted, and the table. I’m not sure what else you want to say in the report. I would move that we not have anything more than simply this statement of the summary of the proceedings and the tables, which are ready to go, I believe.
Senator Omidvar: I have a question on a matter of procedure. When this new draft report or whatever you call it is developed or prepared, will steering get to review it first?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Omidvar: Does steering act by consensus or do you take a vote?
The Chair: We act by consensus in the sense that we don’t need to take votes on those issues. If there is real opposition on some things, we — it’s the first time we do that, okay? It’s the first time we do that. We don’t study bills here. It’s the Constitution of our deliberations that we are looking at.
In our last meeting, I arrived with a proposition. There was no agreement. More than one group was opposing. So, I arrived with this proposition in the spirit that if there is a consensus that emerges out of our debate, we will take it into a new thing.
What is emerging is remarks — notes — and we did agree on certain issues; there are some issues which are irreconcilable. It’s a principle of equality and equity that is not understood in the same way. It’s a political issue. So we’ll dig into it in the Senate because I think you are right in this discussion. We debated those rule changes.
Senator Omidvar: I do apologize for intervening for the first time in this committee. I am just curious about the process. As I see it, there seems to be an emerging consensus on the wording. I’m just wondering, Madam Chair, if you will let me finish, that, in fact, in taking it back to steering, if no consensus emerges on the revised wording, then this report — or whatever you call it — will not find its way into the chamber in a timely manner. That’s the question.
The Chair: I prefer to put it this way. The committee will have the report. I don’t think it has to be worked on with the steering committee. We worked on it here. You will have all the propositions amended as discussed here, from every member, and you’ll have dates. You’ll have until tomorrow to give your comments. We’ll try to build a consensus around that because it will be the best way to proceed. When we come back, we’ll tell you. It will not be steering who will work on the wording on that, okay?
Senator Omidvar: Madam Chair, if I may just include my comments on consensus, please put them into context. Consensus is always terrific when it works, but it is also the lowest common denominator of agreement.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Saint-Germain: Respectfully, I suggest that we go through this proposal line by line, we revisit comments in order to facilitate the clerk’s work, we propose to amend as proposed by the various members and then try to find consensus this morning so that the steering members will only have to edit if some wording is not clear. It will simplify your task, Madam Chair, and that of the clerk and the members of steering.
The Chair: Do you want to do that now?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes, it is a matter of 10 minutes, no more.
Senator Batters: On that point, the clerk about 15 minutes ago said he thought he had sufficient information from this meeting to go forward and prepare it in the normal course, which would be to review what has been said here. He said that between him the Library of Parliament analyst they had sufficient material to be able to do that in the appropriate way. I would like to have the words “in terms of” taken out. I don’t want to talk about that here.
The appropriate way would be when the clerk says that he has the necessary information — I mean, if it’s being viewed as we didn’t have consensus, there was some sort of block at the steering committee and that’s why we had to bring it here, that is not what happened at all.
We had one proposal brought by Senator Bellemare who gave it to us at the meeting last week. We had a discussion about it. We reviewed it. Then there was another proposal — shortened somewhat — that we received last night at 6 p.m. We’re discussing it now. There is really not all that much difference that we’re discussing now. I think we should just do it in the appropriate way rather than take more time today to go through comma by comma at the committee. Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Wells, I will decide because the proper way to write a text is not with a big group. We heard you and you are recorded. We have the recorded text expressions that you used. We will work on that and we will bring that to you in due time.
Senator Wells: I agree, chair. I think it’s in lockstep with the proposal by Senator Woo. We have the three bundles where there was consensus or no consensus. We have the first draft in front of us of the proposal that will go to the Senate. The clerk will take all our comments into consideration and give us another draft in some timely fashion so we can further review it — not by steering, but by the full committee, which is correct. Occasionally, steering is given the task of crossing the t’s, dotting the i’s and fixing typos on instruction from the committee. I don’t think there is any reason to delay unless there are other procedural reasons to delay. I’m in agreement with Senator Woo’s proposal.
The Chair: I think we can do that in a timely fashion. I also think that the main parts of the report are already done, which are the main tables and the wording of a kind of summary of our discussion and maybe dates when we met. That’s about it. That’s going to be our report. There is no more to add to it. People who would like to have more will have to go to the transcript to see what it was all about. Can I conclude on that?
Senator Cordy: The only thing the clerk will be dealing with is this motion, and tables 1, 2 and 3 stand as they are because it’s consensus. That stands, so this is the only thing. We should have it before next week so that we can all look at it and make changes to give to the clerk before our next meeting.
Senator Omidvar: Madam Chair, would you ensure that the word “necessarily” is removed?
The Chair: Yes. You will hear from us in a timely fashion.
Let’s move on to the other part of our agenda. As you know, we don’t have the room after 11, so we have 20 minutes left on the discussion about this. It’s only introductory remarks that I want to make. I wanted to hear from you, but we will start the round table.
[Translation]
At committee, we have tried several times to amend rule 12-7 — which was numbered differently before — with respect to the structure of our committees. Unfortunately, these attempts often failed. We were unable to revise how committees are organized.
It should be noted that the committees we are currently work within are the result of organic changes that have been made over the years. Our committees have never been formed from the top, but always organically. I believe that as we modernize the Senate, it is time to reflect on how we do our work in committee and perhaps even change certain practices and rules.
The key standing orders that concern the study of committee mandates are rule 12-7, which provides structure to our work in committee, rule 12-3, which has to do with the size of our committees. Then we have rules 12-8(1) and 12-9(1), which have to do with the orders of reference of various committees.
That being said, the big question is: Is our work in committee adapted to the 21st century? Is the work of our committees less partisan, more independent than before? Are we being accountable to the public with respect to the work we are doing in committee since a lot of money, time and human resources go into committee work?
We had a first round of discussions in the fall, in which Senator Omidvar took part, at the time as Chair of the Committee on Social Affairs. We also invited the Chair of the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. The feeling I got listening to you — and I think it shows in the discussions — is that there is room to improve our committees and further adapt them to the economic realities of the 21st century.
[English]
For instance, it was mentioned that all the issues concerning human capital skills development were not treated. Although it’s a shared responsibility as health, and so on, there are issues that the Senate is in its own right to study. We have to look at our committee structure.
There are other problems that I perceive. I would like you to tell me if these are some problems. First, because of the fluctuation of the size of the Senate, the fluctuation of the workload on senators is such that, personally, sometimes I feel unable to do my job as I want to do it properly both in the Senate and in the committee when I’m overloaded with committee work either because the size of the Senate is not optimal; or maybe because the size of the committee is not optimal; or maybe because the numbers of committees are too large. There are a lot of issues to be discussed. I won’t enumerate them today, but maybe we can divide them into three groups.
First, there is the role of the committee in regard to the Rules of the Senate. Second, there is the functioning of the committees, like their size. Should we categorize some committees that are more administrative? Some committees do a lot of legislative work. Other kinds of committees do more thematic studies.
In order to attack this big issue, I would suggest that we do it this way: Next week, we will have a presentation by Shaila Anwar, who will give us the activities that the committee does with numbers — that is, the number of reports; the number of meetings; the hours of work, on average, for 10 years with the committees; and the amount of money we spent on different issues.
With the help of both the Library of Parliament and the clerk, along with your help, then we will make a list of questions that we could address to the chairs and former chairs of different committees. The methodology to address the issue of committees would be to have our committee chairs as witnesses first.
We met with the chairs of the Social Affairs Committee and Transport and Communications Committee. If you read their comments, a lot of things came out of that. This gives us avenues where maybe we could combine committees differently and arrange the schedule and open other issues like human capital and manpower issues.
I think it will inspire our work. But it will not be easy to do. I hope you read this report that we distributed to you at the beginning of the fall, which summarized the activities of committees and their history. There is a lot of international comparison there also. It’s the work of the Library of Parliament and also of our late colleague Senator Forest-Niesing, who, unfortunately, is not with us, and the informal committee she chaired. There is a lot of inspiration from her work in this document.
Having said that, I want to hear from you because we have talked about attacking the structure of the committees. If you have some ideas right now that you can share, then we’ll take them.
But next week we will come back with Ms. Anwar, and then we will have a draft of questions, just one page of questions that we would like to address in our study.
Who wants to go first?
Senator Ringuette: Madam Chair, I absolutely support that our committees need to be reviewed in scope and in many other orders; however, I believe that before we entertain another major study that we need to clarify the word “consensus.” And as it was stated earlier, the word “consensus” does not mean unanimity. We have to agree on that, because otherwise we are going to put a lot of work and a lot of effort into modernizing the committees of this institution and come to the same result of maybe adding 10% of the recommendations adopted.
Before we move forward, we need to clarify what you expect in regard to consensus. Is it unanimity or consensus?
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Ringuette, I believe that the theme of the analysis of committee agendas is quite different from the consensus problem you have brought to our attention.
In my professional past, I worked with groups that were in complete opposition: unions, employer organizations, corporations, small companies, public unions and private-sector unions discussing problems of growth and distribution. All those years when I chaired those committees there was just one vote — because there needed to be a vote for the government — and it was unanimous.
Consensus is not unanimity of course, but it works. What I can tell you is that in the committee mandates — I have the letter, I have written responses from leaders who all agree that we do this work, and they know that we have to modernize the Senate.
Now, consensus is not individual unanimity. Individual votes, when we use them, are on topics that concern people. At our committee, we do not operate by vote, but I think there is a way to come to an agreement because if I did not have the letter from leaders on this topic, I would not have taken the time to talk to you about it today.
[English]
It is because the letters that all the leaders — Senator Plett, Senator Tannas, Senator Cordy, Senator Saint-Germain, Senator Gold — wrote to me were about the willingness that we work on the mandate, because our committee has the power to define its own orders of the day. We don’t need an order of reference. I would not have started that knowing that some groups were opposed to that study.
Institutionally, I already have a consensus that we do the work. Now, how are we going to operate, to have a vote on such and such? We’ll see when we arrive there. For the moment, I believe — I really do believe — that when you work on the Rules, it’s like when you work on a constitution, and you need people to adhere and who are willing.
This is my view as chair of this committee. If ever it’s a view that is not accepted, then we will see what we will do.
But I really do believe that in the country, among political leaders everywhere and people who don’t believe in consensus, collective action is broken. Collective action needs consensus in a democracy for collective action to happen.
That is going to be the subject of one of my speeches, presently. Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: I look forward to that speech, and I’ll pass on my question.
(The committee adjourned.)