THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 5, 2023
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:36 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), to consider possible amendments to the Rules and to consider rule 12-18.
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I’m Diane Bellemare, chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
We’re meeting again today to carry out some of our ongoing work on the committee’s structure and mandates.
Please introduce yourselves.
[English]
Senator Cordy: I’m Jane Cordy. I’m a senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Busson: Bev Busson, from British Columbia.
Senator M. Deacon: Good morning, Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you for being here. Today we’ll be looking at the latest version of our first report, which summarizes what we’ve heard over the past few weeks. We’ve been working on this for quite some time.
What we’ll do... I know that our clerk will suggest some corrections. I was thinking of proceeding paragraph by paragraph. We’ll take a look at each paragraph.
[English]
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: Senators, we just had the draft reviewed by Shaila Anwar and committees for some fact checking and clarification. I will try to identify some items as we go through the report, but there are others that may require a little more revision before final approval. I’ll try to flag them as we work our way through the document.
[Translation]
The Chair: The paragraphs in the document are numbered. We’ll proceed paragraph by paragraph.
Are there any changes to the table of contents, Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson: Not to the table of contents.
The Chair: Okay. On page 2, the introduction, are there any changes to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3?
[English]
Senator Wells: On page 1, the list of abbreviations. I don’t know if this represents or is supposed to represent all the committees or just the committees that appear here. If it is to represent all the committees, I would add Audit and Oversight to that.
Mr. Thompson: Senator, we will take a closer look at the full text, but I think it is only the committees that were addressed and we did not hear from the administrative committees, so that would be Audit, CIBA and Conflict of Interest.
Senator Wells: CIBA is here, though.
Mr. Thompson: Yes, because they would have been referred to as far as the resource and conversing and things like that.
Senator Wells: I will continue. I don’t know if it was covered in any of the meetings that I didn’t attend, and I don’t recall if I brought it up when we were speaking with any of our witnesses, but it might bear consideration to note that Audit and Oversight is the only committee that has non-senators on it. So if we’re talking about committee structure, Audi and Oversight can also sit when the Senate is sitting so there are some things around that which might bear note in the report.
[Translation]
The Chair: Please turn to page 2 of the French version and page 2 of the English version. Do you have any comments on this page and on paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6? If not, let’s look at page 3, paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. On page 4, paragraph 14? Yes?
[English]
Senator Batters: With respect to paragraph 17, I was going to suggest when I read through this that might be a good place to put in about the significant difference between the Senate and the House of Commons as far as the sitting times and that sort of thing, but I do see that it is referenced later in the document. I think paragraph 122 or something like that. Because we’re talking about the structure of committees there, it might be a good time to just provide a brief reference to that later discussion about two significant differences.
The Chair: Not on 13.
Senator Batters: I’m saying that paragraph 17, I thought that might be a good place to put a small reference to the significant time difference of the sittings of both the Senate and the House of Commons chambers, and I do see that comment is included later. I think it’s paragraph 122 or something like that. But because this is a section very early in the going and one dealing with the structure of committees, it might be a good idea to put a small reference to a later point.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Does anyone want to comment on page 4 and on paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18? If not, I’ll give the floor to Mr. Thompson, who has some comments.
[English]
Mr. Thompson: First, I’d like to flag paragraph 14. The Rules provide for 18 standing committees. It’s actually 17 standing committees plus the Committee of Selection which is neither a standing nor a special committee. We’ll just clarify that.
Furthermore, at paragraph 15, we would just need to correct the number of Senate committees, which is six, and clarify that their creation is also provided for in the Rules.
The Chair: Subcommittees.
Mr. Thompson: Yes, that’s correct.
The Chair: It’s six, yes.
Mr. Thompson: On paragraph 20, we might look at reformulating that paragraph somewhat just to clarify that the Senate is not an equal size to the House of Commons. We don’t share all resources, but there are certain services that are shared, and just specify that.
The Chair: You don’t have the specific wording?
Mr. Thompson: I do not have the specific wording on this one.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Batters: On that point, I actually thought that was a concern that I had raised before, being about the disproportionate favour given to the House of Commons committees. I didn’t think that there was really a problem with how this was structured. Sure you can put a little bit more context, but I don’t want to be watered down because that is an important point, that the Senate committees are an equal parliamentary chamber. That is absolutely and we don’t want to water it down. Just because they have more members, it doesn’t mean that we are of lesser importance. I don’t want any watering down to be done so it takes away from that point.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: The Senate is an equal parliamentary chamber could also fit in there. That sort of says it all, Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Right.
Senator Ringuette: How would paragraph 17 read if we had the Senate as an equal parliamentary chamber?
[Translation]
The Chair: We’re talking about paragraph 20. We don’t have the linguistic specificity of each paragraph yet. We received these comments recently and our clerk plans to make the changes a little later.
Senator Mégie: We were talking about paragraph 17, which concerns the different structures of the Senate and House of Commons committees.
The Chair: And paragraph 20.
Senator Mégie: And paragraph 20, because in paragraph 20...
The Chair: Paragraph 20 talks about the importance of making it clear that the Senate is an equal parliamentary chamber.
Senator Mégie: Okay.
[English]
Mr. Thompson: Senators, perhaps I could suggest some wording that doesn’t water things down. It clarifies that some members of the Senate Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, or RPRD, are concerned that parliamentary resources for shared services disproportionately favour House of Commons committees and stress that as the Senate is an equal parliamentary partner, resources should be better shared or better apportioned.
Senator Wells: On the definition of proportional, we’re an equal chamber. Is that proportion one to one or is it based on the number of members in each chamber? Just be aware of the different possible —
Mr. Thompson: That’s why we’re getting away from the word of proportional. You can argue that different ways, so better or more equitably shared.
Senator Wells: I don’t know if there’s a cost associated with the Senate of the shared services or if that’s some sort of general pool for Parliament, but that could also have a bearing on how we look at proportion, because I know in other circumstances —
Mr. Thompson: Senator, I can understand. It differs on the specific service. Some are done with a service-level agreement. Others are done by the traditional 70-30 funding split.
Senator Wells: Let’s just be aware of what the proportion can mean.
Senator Batters: Instead of using the word proportionally distributed, my comment was more on the lines of wording it to note that it should be more equitably distributed, not proportionately because we may take considerably more than a third of the amount of the cost.
Senator Cordy: The difference in numbers and everything else.
The Chair: Let’s go to paragraph 21. Senator Omidvar? No?
Paragraph 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34.
Mr. Thompson: With paragraph 33, it was suggested that we might want to elaborate on what, exactly, an order of reference is and make reference back to the Rules. It’s more than just the studies. Bills — all of these things — are orders of reference. So, expand on that definition and provide additional context. We can prepare some new text for that.
The Chair: I agree. I think that will be interesting because people don’t exactly understand the scope of an order of reference. It’s important to have precise language.
Senator Wells: As long as it’s not limited by what the Senate might direct on any given day. It would have an order of reference mandate, which I think should be very general. At any time, the Senate could refer legislation, or something like that, that might be outside the mandate.
Mr. Thompson: Absolutely. I don’t think we would be necessarily referring to the mandates as we redefined them when we amended the Rules earlier this year, but it is those orders of reference which are any order of the Senate that directs whatever subject matter, be it a bill, a study or, in the case of the National Finance, the estimates.
The Chair: Paragraph 34, 35, 36,37, 38, 39, 40, 41.
Mr. Thompson: On paragraph 41, I think we should just add a note that the Rules already provide a cap on the size of subcommittees, which is 50% of the members of a committee including the ex officio members. In the case, say, of Veterans Affairs, with National Security and Defence and Veterans Affairs having nine members plus two ex officio members, that’s 11. There will already be a cap at six. We should probably remove the mention of seven since that’s not presently an option, but add a note about the maximum size of subcommittees so that it’s clear.
Senator Batters: That would be as the Rules currently exist.
Mr. Thompson: As the Rules currently exist. That’s it. As part of the broader study, if we were to recommend changes to the size of committees, that would change —
Senator Batters: Why not put in an indication that, “as the Rules currently exist, this is the maximum.” That doesn’t preclude a change if it’s deemed necessary.
Mr. Thompson: Absolutely.
Senator Cordy: I’m also wondering if we should put in a caveat that all senators are able to participate in committees — not full participation because you can’t vote, but you’re able to sit in on them.
Senator Batters: I think that would be an excellent thing to note — not just a small note, but in one of these paragraphs because that’s an important note to make.
Senator Ringuette: We suggest that we add it on paragraph 37.
The Chair: Thirty-seven?
Senator Ringuette: Yes; where we talk about the 12 members. ! [brief exchange between chair and Senator Ringuette is missing here]
[Translation]
The Chair: We’re looking at paragraph 43.
Paragraph 44? Paragraph 45? Paragraph 46? Paragraph 47? Paragraph 48? Paragraph 49? Paragraph 50? Paragraph 51? Paragraph 52? Paragraph 53?
Paragraph 54. Mr. Thompson?
[English]
Mr. Thompson: We’d like to add something to this paragraph making reference to the schedule of committees that is agreed to by the whips. It’s not just rule 12-18 that limits committee meetings. They are allocated a specific number of times over the course of a week. This is just to fill out that context as far as when committees are permitted to meet.
The Chair: Paragraph 55.
Senator Ringuette: It’s not the whip that decides really, Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson: The sitting schedule? It is agreed to by the whips under the Senate Administrative Rules, or SARs, that there is a schedule of meetings prepared. It might be the whips acting under the direction of the leaders, but the leaders might be to whom the authority is done. Practically speaking, however, I believe it’s the whips who negotiate that.
[Translation]
The Chair: This brings us to paragraph 56.
Paragraph 57? Paragraph 58? Paragraph 59? Paragraph 60? Paragraph 61?
[English]
Mr. Thompson: On this item, reference is made to amending —
The Chair: Which paragraph?
Mr. Thompson: Paragraph 61. Reference is made to amending the Rules. This could also be done through sessional order. I don’t know if that should be included as a potential solution — okay.
The Chair: Okay. Actually, in the sessional order, do we have a blanket?
Mr. Thompson: Currently, we do not have a sessional order in relation to rule 12-18(1). That has been done in the past but it is not in effect currently.
The Chair: Perfect. Paragraph 62, 63, 64. Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: It was paragraph 63 that I was referencing earlier.
The Chair: Okay. Yes.
Erin Virgint, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Would you prefer that we move that paragraph in its entirety up, or just add —
Senator Batters: I’ll leave it up to you to see what works better, but I think there should be a reference in the earlier one to this paragraph.
The Chair: Okay. Paragraph 64.
Mr. Thompson: On paragraph 64, in the last sentence, in recent years a sessional order has set an early adjournment time for Wednesdays. It isn’t just so recent. It’s been going on for almost 20 years now, I think.
Senator Batters: Maybe say that.
Mr. Thompson: We will adjust the wording, so it doesn’t sound like it’s such a new innovation.
The Chair: Paragraph 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75. I sound like an auctioneer. Paragraph 76, 77?
Mr. Thompson: In paragraph 77, as well as in 79, reference is made to the dinner break. While I know that’s what we all call it colloquially here, it’s an evening suspension. I would like to change that to reflect the wording used in the Rules.
Senator Ringuette: — it’s going to be clear for everyone.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Saint-Germain: Regarding dinner breaks, I cannot remember which witness said that, but some suggested that we have only one-hour dinner breaks. Is that somewhere else in the report? I have not seen it. It was suggested. I just don’t remember who suggested it.
The Chair: We will check. Is 78 okay? And 79?
Senator Batters: On paragraph 79, I think if it’s called “evening suspension” in the Rules, that’s how we should refer to it. If you want one occasion of putting in brackets “dinner break,” I think that would be better.
My more important point is on paragraph 79. One of the other things that happen frequently during evening suspensions are caucus meetings. So that should be put in there as well.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: Provided that only one group has a caucus.
Senator Batters: Caucus and group meetings as is stated elsewhere.
[Translation]
The Chair: Paragraph 80? Paragraph 81? Paragraph 82? Paragraph 83? Paragraph 84? Paragraph 85? Paragraph 86?
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Madam Chair, I think all senators agree that Senate committees should prioritize legislation or government legislation?
The Chair: Good point. I think it’s both — it’s first the government —
Senator Batters: I think the reason it was put in like that is because maybe some people were talking about legislation of all types as compared to studies. I think that’s the reason that it was voiced as that — government legislation that has to be —
Senator Omidvar: And that is that.
Senator Batters: Yes.
Senator Omidvar: Some members of the RPRD are of the view that Senate committees should prioritize legislation and others believe that studies make a significant contribution to the — of leadership. Did we not hear the other point of view as well?
Senator Cordy: I believe we did.
Senator Omidvar: This is kind of misleading as far as I can see.
The Chair: In paragraph 82 it says:
According to some witnesses, special studies are a crucial part of Senate committee work. Some members commented on the impact that special studies can have in terms of connecting with Canadians, raising awareness on important issues and, at times, promoting legislative change.
So it is there. But —
Senator Omidvar: Perhaps we should merge them —
The Chair: — we are a legislative body, so the priority is legislation.
Senator Wells: Because it is not a directive and just says “should,” I think that leaves some safety for a committee to determine its own agenda. I think we all generally agree. I know there have been times in the past where legislation wasn’t addressed at committee, and in that circumstance that I’m thinking about it was a good thing. It was on abortion, I believe, many Parliaments ago. I’m nervous about a directive versus a suggestion, or a “should” versus “must.”
The Chair: And it says “some members” are of the view. It is contextualized in terms of what we heard.
Senator Cordy: It is not a recommendation.
The Chair: It is not a recommendation.
Senator Ringuette: That is our raison d’être. To review legislation, it is our raison d’être.
The Chair: Exactly.
Senator Ringuette: But I do agree that some committees are putting forth excellent studies that have influence on public policy.
The Chair: And it says that in paragraph 82, so it is balanced. This is a critical thing, so I think it is expressed in a good way. If we want to have a debate on that, then that’s another thing.
Senator Omidvar: [Technical difficulties] it would be better contextualized if we merged 85 and 81.
The Chair: Eighty-one.
Senator Cordy: Or put them one after the other —
Senator Omidvar: No, no, 82, I’m sorry.
The Chair: Eighty-two.
Senator Omidvar: Eighty-five and 82.
Senator Cordy: Or even put them one under the other. They could be separated, but right beside one other.
The Chair: Yes, perfect. We will change 85 to 83, and 83 becomes 84.
[Translation]
Paragraph 85? Paragraph 86? Paragraph 87? Paragraph 88? Paragraph 89? Paragraph 90? Paragraph 91? Paragraph 92? Paragraph 93? Paragraph 94? Paragraph 95?
Mr. Thompson?
[English]
Mr. Thompson: On paragraph 95, there was the suggestion that non-committee members be permitted to travel with a committee when necessary. We would like to add in a note that would require a rule change in order to implement. The recommendation was made and should be reflected here, but currently the budgets approved for committee travel only allow members. Just to clarify that there would be a rule change required to implement that.
Senator Wells: I don’t recall when that came up, but obviously it did come up, but we would have to have some discussion around how that substitution — if it is a substitution or an addition — how that would be made. Would it be done by a caucus or a group? Would it be done by region? Or by all the other variables that we have?
Senator Ringuette: I agree. When necessary, okay. It’s never necessary for a non-committee member to travel with a committee. It’s by interest. It’s not a necessity. I think we could remove “when necessary,” because it’s not the case.
The Chair: Ms. Virgint, the Analyst, wants to add something.
Erin Virgint, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Perhaps for precision we can add the word “regional” in front of “representation,” because this recommendation was made to ensure that there is a regional representation on certain committee trips in the region that they’re going to.
Senator Ringuette: But it’s not necessary. It is a de facto composition of the committee, and we’re addressing that in previous paragraphs, the regional representation. I would remove “when necessary” because it is not necessary. For instance, if there is a committee that comes to my area, I don’t have to travel to be part of the committee, without voting privilege but to be present. So I don’t see why we would say “when necessary,” because it is not.
Senator Batters: It’s not a major point on that, but I think the reason that the two words “when necessary” were included is because sometimes on certain committees, even though you may be going to a certain region, your committee might already be comprised of members who are from that region, so you don’t need to do it. But if there is a time where a certain committee is going to an area where they don’t have anyone from that region on the committee. We’ve seen a few references throughout this report to different committees who have had a tough time having senators from a certain region of Canada because of different travel restrictions or things like this. I think that’s the reason, though, that those two words were included. But I don’t think it’s critical.
[Translation]
The Chair: Nonetheless, there should be a note stating that this requires a change to the Rules.
[English]
Mr. Thompson: We’ll review the transcripts again and prepare a new paragraph for you to consider.
Senator M. Deacon: Just to concur with Senator Batters, the question about critical, is this something that we need to spend a lot of time on, is it necessary? I have to say that we have trips and committees that travel domestically and travel internationally. In the last year at committee we have talked about, if we had planned better, we would have invited senator so-and-so as we’re going to this region because it would have made the experience deeper and richer with their familiarity. I want to make that quick comment because I’m substituting for someone else today, but we regret, in a pretty significant environment, of not giving this some thought. Thank you.
The Chair: Okay. Good point.
[Translation]
We’re looking at paragraphs 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 and 113.
[English]
Mr. Thompson, you have something?
Mr. Thompson: Yes, so the final sentence in paragraph 113: “As such, it was recommended that committees avoid using minority reports.” I want to reword this paragraph somewhat, as the Rules of the Senate already prohibit minority reports. The Rules says that reports shall contain the conclusions of the majority.
First, I will just clarify, that differs greatly from the House of Commons where minority reports are a routine and regular part, that the majority will come up with a report and other parties are invited to append their own dissenting report. That happens very consistently. That said, our committees have, not uncommonly, found ways to include some of those differing opinions. It could be in the narrative of a report, saying some senators found X, Y and Z, just to include that those things have been included, and on some very rare occasions, I’ve seen a committee agree to allow an appendix that was prepared by one or more senators who had a completely different view to ensure their opinion was included. It is a more uncommon thing. When we do it, it is a more subtle approach, usually. I just wanted to clarify that somewhat.
Senator Ringuette: Are you saying that we should remove that sentence because it is not even in our —
Mr. Thompson: I’m going to go back to former Senator Andreychuk’s testimony and read exactly what she said, but I will want to reformulate it.
Senator Wells: It is explicitly stated in the Senate Audit and Oversight Charter that there can be minority reports.
Mr. Thompson: That is an excellent point, senator.
Senator Wells: It is explicitly stated in the Senate Audit and Oversight Charter that minority reports are permitted.
Senator Batters: I have also sat on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee where we have not had a minority report, but we have had significant parts of a very major report — I’m thinking of marijuana — a very lengthy study where we had a lot of minority observations and things like that, majority observations, minority observations. I do recall Senator Andreychuk saying something quite similar to this. Maybe it could be worded such that committees avoid using anything that could be similar to a minority report, or something like that, because I believe — my recollection of her fairly recent testimony was that she said something quite similar to this, but you might just want to word it in that fashion.
Mr. Thompson: [Technical difficulties] Senators Wells, because the Audit and Oversight Committee’s ability — that’s something exclusive to it. While we found ways to do it in our other committee stuff, in the House of Commons, it is a right that they exercise quite regularly.
Senator Saint-Germain: I don’t find that we are on solid ground there. It’s only one witness, and, as such, it was recommended that committees avoid — avoid — using minority reports. Committees are masters of their destiny. They may select that, when it is not unanimous, they have either a majority and a minority report, or observations that would be presented to the Senate. I do believe, as a senator, when I’m not a member of the committee and I receive the report in the chamber, it’s important to see what happened. Was it unanimous? What were the observations, if so, and so on. By the way, when we vote in the committee, there is a kind of minority report. Those who don’t vote with the majority, it’s a kind of a minority view on a specific amendment. One witness —
The Chair: I think you are right that it is important to have the possibility to express our views at some point in reports. We are there for democracy.
Senator Batters: Yes. It would probably be helpful if Mr. Thompson reviewed the transcript of that, because it wasn’t just one senator. It was a senator who had been here for about 25 years and had chaired many, many committees, and I thought that was actually a good piece of wisdom and some good analysis behind it. Perhaps it can be slightly modified from what it says right now, but it’s worthwhile to include.
[Translation]
The Chair: We’re looking at paragraphs 114, 115 and 116.
[English]
Mr. Thompson: With paragraph 116, senators, “Increased use of videoconference can save resources by decreasing the need to travel,” it will save some resources, and video conferencing has its own resource requirements, so I don’t know if we want to adjust the wording of that somewhat, but it would certainly save significant travel costs.
[Translation]
The Chair: Paragraph 116? Okay. We’re looking at paragraphs 117 and 118.
[English]
Senator Busson: I am not sure where this might belong, but I looked through the whole hybrid meeting reference, and I believe somebody in one of our meetings talked about not just about offering more flexibility in paragraph 118, but specifically when dealing with people who have perhaps a chronic condition or an illness that precludes them from attending in Ottawa, or someone who needs extensive medical treatment, like a hip replacement, or something like that. Hybrid meetings would facilitate their participation in meetings of their committee. It was a specific reference. I can’t remember who said it, but it is important, not just for flexibility, but for people to be able to exercise their right to attend committee.
[Translation]
The Chair: We’re looking at paragraphs 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 and 129. Mr. Thompson, did you want to say something?
[English]
Mr. Thompson: Paragraph 129 refers to government responses to reports. We just need to clarify this in that the Rules already do provide that a government response, when it is tabled, is already automatically referred to a committee. I don’t think that the recommendation was that there be a creation of a mechanism; I think it is that committees avail themselves of that mechanism more often. So just to clarify that there already is that mechanism under the Rules.
The Chair: So the wording will be changed?
Mr. Thompson: Yes. I think it would be — committees may deem the substance of a government response as inadequate or inaccurate. In such cases, committees should avail themselves of the mechanism provided for under Rule 12-24, I believe. Twenty-three, because we numbered things, that is right.
The Chair: Okay. Good.
[Translation]
We’re looking at paragraphs 130, 131, 132 and 133.
[English]
Now we are finished with the main part of the report. There is an appendix. The appendix details all the sessions we had, with nominative phrases attributed to specific senators. It is a useful document, but my first question is, do you think it should be in the report or not, and that the report should end with the paragraph 133 and that the appendix would remain a document — or would you like it to be included in the report as an appendix?
Senator Batters: About the appendix. As I’ve previously indicated, I have a number of points as we’ve previously gone through the main part of the report. However, I haven’t had a chance at this committee to go through the appendix. There are a number of points where the main part of the report has now been modified to include a different point of view that was brought forward at that committee. Those remarks have been worked into the actual report. That hasn’t yet been done in a number of spots. In some places it has, but not in all places in the appendix.
If we’re going to include the appendix, I think it is important from a factual underpinning point of view to also include those same types of “some members said this,” because those were the committee meetings where those comments were made. If we want to have the appendix included, then I think we will need to go through it. I have several points where I will want to include those types of comments.
If we don’t want to have it included — if it was more to be able to inform our point of view on the main part of the report — then we won’t need to do that part.
The Chair: I understand. Thank you.
Senator Saint-Germain: If we don’t include the appendix, what would be the status of this document? Would it be available to any senator? Would we state in the report that the summaries of the testimonies are available —
The Chair: — on demand.
Senator Saint-Germain: — on demand from the clerk?
Mr. Thompson: Senator, I think we should start from the base point of what this document was prepared as, which was a summary of evidence to assist you in conducting your work. There was then a desire on the part of the committee to table a report in the chamber so that there is a public record. The Senate has looked at committee structures and mandates a number of times, but those conversations have often happened privately or politically, and there is not a lot informing that public record.
If we were not to include the appendix within this report, it would remain a committee document — available to members. I think it would be up to the committee to decide if you wanted to share it with colleagues.
Senator Saint-Germain: So it would be available to members and not publicly available?
Mr. Thompson: I don’t think so. As much as this meeting is public, the in extenso transcripts of all of these meetings are available for the public to review. They can watch the meetings. These are, I think, working summaries to assist you in your work.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you to the clerk for that clarification. The testimony is available on SenVu. I would have an appendix that outlines the names of the committees and the people who appeared against them —
The Chair: — and the dates.
Senator Omidvar: The one exception I would make is the clerk’s — Ms. Anwar’s — testimony. It is useful to have somewhere in the body of the report.
Mr. Thompson: Senator, just to add to that, this was really prepared as a Library of Parliament briefing note. Before you see a final version, it will be reformatted as a committee report using the standard template that we use, which generally includes an appendix — a list of meetings, including witnesses and dates, so that those reading the report can refer back to it. You will also note that in the footnotes throughout the report, there are direct links to the testimony.
The Chair: And that will remain.
Mr. Thompson: They will remain, certainly.
Senator M. Deacon: I understand that one of our colleagues would like us to consider this appendix as part of the report. There may be some refinements, or modifications to be made. Usually in the committee decisions and reports, I like to be pretty tight and lean on the information and make it really important but not too long. I think the challenge with this document — and I can remember most of these hearings last season — is that the data is really good in the appendix. The information in the appendix really informs this report about the specifics, uniqueness and diversity of our committees. That is why I linger a little bit about making this the least bit challenging to access. That’s the part. As Senator Omidvar said, it will be there, and it will be included. However, I would not want this quite frankly rich content to be another layer for people to find.
The Chair: You say that you find it interesting, and you suggest that we include it?
Senator M. Deacon: Don’t make it difficult to access. Either include it right in here or —
The Chair: — make it accessible.
Senator M. Deacon: This is a particular study of our people and their roles, and their experiences were different from committee to committee. That’s all.
Senator Batters: That’s fine, then. I know we will have our witnesses starting very shortly here today, so perhaps we can just take a bit of time at the next meeting to go through this appendix. I don’t think it will take a great deal of time, but if we are going to include it in any way and have it either publicly available or attached as part of this report, I want to make sure it’s the best document it can be so that it’s actually reflective of all of that.
Senator Omidvar: It is interesting information from lots and a lot of our colleagues. It is, at times, also contradictory. That adds to the richness and variety, for sure, and at the same time, it can add some confusion. People who are interested can always go back and look at the testimony.
I’ve said my piece.
The Chair: As the chair of this committee, having seen other committees’ work and so forth, even though it is very interesting, I think it will not age nicely as the full part of the report. Therefore, my tendency would be to leave it apart and make the corrections that you can send us by writing. Or we can go through it the next time, but it will not be in the report. It could be on demand —
Senator Batters: Even if it were on demand, it would be viewed as part of a report of this committee. Therefore, we need to go through it.
The Chair: Then we will go through it.
Senator Batters: I do want to have it go through this committee, though, because I have made all those comments previously to the analyst. There were some parts she could include and some parts that needed to come to the whole committee. So we do need to go through it.
The Chair: Therefore, we will make the corrections on the report. Regarding the report, I will ask you if you agree that the steering committee goes through the report so we will be ready to table it when we come back in 2024 — the first report. As well, in February, we will take some time to review the appendix when we come back. We will take half an hour, and we will go through all the comments we have.
Now we have completed the first part of our meeting, and we can invite the two witnesses to come to tell us about rule 12-18.
[Translation]
I want to thank our colleagues Senator Saint-Germain and Senator Tannas for accepting our invitation, both as leader and facilitator of their respective groups, to discuss the implications of rule 12-18. This rule sets the parameters for the committees’ return after a break of more than a week for Mondays. It also sets the timetable for Tuesday committees.
We’ll listen to each of you in turn and then ask questions.
We’ll start with Senator Saint-Germain.
The Honourable Raymonde Saint-Germain, Facilitator, Independent Senators Group: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, everyone. I’ll share my perspective in English. I can then answer questions in either official language.
[English]
Thank you for your kind invitation to appear in front of the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament as a facilitator of the Independent Senators Group.
There are two parts of rule 12-18 which governs committee meetings on days when the Senate sits. The first part, rule 12-18(1), dictates that except as otherwise ordered by the Senate, the Senate committee may meet on days the Senate sits, but it shall not be during a sitting of the Senate. This has significantly impacted many committees over parliaments, especially those that sit on Tuesday evenings.
The Senate has been sitting late almost every week during this Parliament. As such, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry have all had to cancel meetings and, in many cases, cancel witnesses who have travelled from across the country to appear or otherwise who had prepared their testimony and given some time to it. It’s something that’s not really constructive.
In October and November of this year alone, a total of eight Tuesday committees were cancelled because of lack of permission. Not only does a lack of permission impede these committees from fulfilling their mandate, it slows government business as well as some Senate business down notably, and has financial implications for taxpayers with respect to the costs associated with organizing travel and accommodation for those participating at hearings. I do not consider the time that some of our staffers, including the administration managers and staffers, have had to work and to no avail.
In an effort to support the committees to do the business of the Senate and to save money and time, we believe the rule should be amended. As such, we would support an amendment that would delete part of this rule or permit committees to sit when the Senate is sitting in the event a committee is studying government legislation and receives permission from the majority of leaders and facilitators, that is, three out of five.
We as senators have an obligation and duty to study legislation brought forth by the democratically elected government on behalf of Canadians, and an amendment of this nature would ensure this.
Another key remedial would be to have electronic voting so that senators who participate in committees when the Senate is sitting would still be able to vote on the issues put to a vote in the chamber. This would prevent cancelling meetings. A suspension of two or three minutes is then sufficient, and we know that the model in the other place is exemplary to that end.
With respect to the second part of this rule, what we call the Monday committee sittings, rule 12-18(2), which permits committees to sit on a day when the Senate is adjourned for more than one week, signed consent of the leaders of the government and opposition or their designate in response to a written request from the chair and deputy chair is required.
Sorry, I have to correct myself. It’s signed consent of the leaders of the government or opposition.
In practice, this means that the leaders of the government or the Leader of the Opposition may deny committees from meeting on a Monday after the Senate returns from even a routine break week. This causes significant disruption in business and is especially true if legislation being studied is politically contentious and may provoke a government or opposition leader to deny permission for a committee to sit to study said legislation.
As such, this rule has sometimes been used as a political lever. Permission can be granted and just as easily removed by one leader.
The origin of Monday rule was that in the old times, 1909 — we were not born — the Senate didn’t ordinarily meet on Monday. Permission needed to be granted because it was a rare exception when the Senate did work on Monday. So we now have a rule that applied to a different circumstance and time in our history.
In our current circumstance, we regularly work on Monday but have not updated the rule. A simple abolition would be the best-case scenario for our group, even political modification supporting rules answering a partisan dual policy seems to be the only reason for this rule to still exist. This clearly does not reflect our current context. At the very least, it would be important to have all rules and caucuses to have a say.
Dissolving this rule completely, that is both part one and two, would empower Monday committees to meet after break periods and would have no additional impact or consequences on the work of the Senate. This is our preferred and obvious course of action.
In the interim, it is suggested that the shuffle of committees be considered to circumvent the negative impact of this rule. Perhaps committees that do not study government legislation and are limited to internal matters such as Rules, Audit and Oversight, or CIBA be moved to Monday afternoons so that committees studying legislation and issues of national interest be empowered to meet regularly throughout the sitting week.
We can no longer accept that committees studying issues of Security and Defence, Official Languages and Human Rights are subjected to scheduling unpredictability following break periods.
It is also important to note that because of difficulties travelling to Ottawa in time for Monday afternoons, the senators sitting on many committees are from Ontario and Quebec because it is difficult for senators coming from farther away to get there on time. There are exceptions. It’s not only senators from the closest cities, Montréal and Toronto, but there is an issue there. There is also an issue of expertise. I believe that this means we are deprived of important expertise and voices representing more minorities and regions across the country, a key mandate for the Senate and, quite frankly, a valid expectation of Canadians.
The Monday rules also add another level of unpredictability for our senators, especially those who need to come in on Sunday nights. There are additional costs linked to this.
In an effort to address this and remain fiscally prudent, the National Security and Defence Committee had to regularly push their 3 p.m. meetings a number of times to later in the afternoon or evening because members coming from further away could not make it on time if they wanted to leave on Monday. This affected their ability to give extensive study to Bill C-21, firearms, in addition to the fact that they also had uncertainty according to this obsolete Monday rule.
Beyond national representation and financial implications, Monday committees are also unable to sit as much as other committees because they are at the mercy of the Monday holidays. As senators are well aware, committees sitting on Mondays also sit once a week compared to the majority of other committees — not all, but the majority of other committees.
Once again, we see here a significant disruption of Senate business of national importance. Some committees are sometimes unable to meet for weeks, hence delaying the work and reports to the Senate.
Another potential solution aside from the abolishment of rule 12-18(2) or rearranging committee schedule may be the consideration of hybrid sittings for Monday committees.
Colleagues, I will conclude by advocating again for the abolishment of an obsolete rule that doesn’t reflect the modern Senate. Between now and then, please consider additional solutions that can be implemented as soon as we are back in 2024 through a sessional order. This will ensure an efficient and effective Senate that works for Canadians. I have no doubt it will improve our credibility to that end. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain. Senator Tannas now has the floor.
[English]
Hon. Scott Tannas, Leader, Canadian Senators Group: I’m happy to be here and have the opportunity to appear before the committee on rule 12-18. I am pleased to be joined by my fellow leader, Senator Saint-Germain.
This rule deals with both committee meetings during the Senate sittings and with extended adjournment. This is the case where the Rules need to catch up with modern times and the new Senate. We’re dealing with rules, in some cases here, which date back to the early 1900s.
Considering the number of senators, which is much less than MPs who sit in the House of Commons, it is important that the primary attention must be on the Senate Chamber. For that reason, it’s important, in my view, that rule 12-18(1) remain in place and that the committee meeting during Senate sittings should remain an exception.
I understand that this is now a challenge for Tuesday evening committees. In the past, we were more open to individual requests by committees. The ability to reach the Notice Paper is severely hampered by a long Order Paper. Unless committees know much in advance, their chances of having their motion to sit considered are slim to none.
A blanket permission for committees to sit on Tuesday evenings, even if the Senate is sitting, would necessitate divided loyalties between a committee and a Senate Chamber. This should not be a choice that senators need to make.
Better management of the Order Paper has historically been the solution to this, with fewer items up for debate at a time. However, this may not be a solution. That may simply be a wish. It may be that in these times, where it worked before, where there was a consensus that was typically driven around the management of an Order Paper to a time, namely, to 6 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. The Senate would then break, and the committees would sit. When I first arrived, here it was very rare that we sat late on Tuesdays.
The proliferation of private senators’ motions, inquiries and bills has been the cause of this problem. It is extremely rare — and, in a majority of the cases that were cited here — that the Tuesday committee meetings were cancelled so we could sit on senators’ individual interests as part of the Order Paper, not government business.
My thinking is that we need to better organize our affairs to make sure that those committees that meet on Tuesdays can meet on Tuesdays and where there are rare exceptions, we manage them properly. That may be a wish. It may be that we need to recognize that we are going to deal for hours and hours regularly with senators’ private projects, bills, inquiries and affairs. That may be an appropriate piece of the new Senate as well, but it needs to be acknowledged that this is what we’re doing. We’re not doing the nation’s business necessarily in those time frames. We’re doing senators’ individual interests, which may be in the national interest, but I think it’s worth pausing and thinking about that before we change that particular portion of the rule.
I’ll leave it to you in your wisdom to find the appropriate solution.
On the second part of the rule, the one dealing with the extended adjournment and the trouble this has caused on Mondays, we’re dealing with a rule that predates Senate committees sitting on a Monday. It makes no sense to have a restriction for any committee to have to jump through additional hoops just to sit on a Monday because the Senate adjourned in the previous seven days. It makes no sense that only two leaders with a veto determine if the committee may sit in a regularly assigned meeting slot or not.
Last session, I was the proposer — Senator Woo and I have kind of alternated on this — to make some amendments to the Rules that included rule 12-18, where we proposed that the signed consent of the majority of the leaders and facilitators or their designates in response to a written request from the chair or deputy chair.
As Senator Saint-Germain just said, rather than two leaders each with their own veto, it would be a majority that could permit a majority regardless of how many leaders there are.
But there is an easier fix, simply that this committee could make the recommendation to the Senate that going forward, Monday be interpreted as actually part of the sitting week. That would get rid of all the questions and all the issues. It’s an interpretation of the Rules that, somewhere, somehow, Monday isn’t part of our week. You could recommend and we could accept in the Senate that Monday is actually part of the week and then we wouldn’t have the problem any more. That’s probably the simplest way to deal with this particular issue.
I want to thank you for taking this on. I think it’s important, and I very much look forward to any questions and to your recommendations.
[Translation]
The Chair: I want to thank you both for your comments. We’ll now open the floor to questions and comments, starting with Senator Batters.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thanks to both of you for being here and for letting us know all of your ideas on these important topics. I have a few questions for Senator Saint-Germain first.
I may have missed this, but in your opening remarks today were you suggesting that senators be able to vote electronically during committee meetings if those were held during Senate sittings like the House of Commons does, or were you just suggesting that senators be able to excuse themselves from the committee to be able to go and vote? I’m wondering if I understood you correctly on that.
I’m also wondering about the need for senators to hear and to be able to participate in the debate in the chamber on these types of important votes?
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for this question. The model would be like the other place. When there is a vote in the chamber, the committees would suspend for, let’s say, three minutes, the time it takes for members of the committee to vote electronically. Then, after the three-minute suspension, they would get back to their work. That also means that in the chamber we’ll have an electronic vote. That’s clear. It’s a matter of efficiency.
If a senator wanted to participate in a debate in the chamber while their committee is sitting — normally, committees that sit when the Senate is sitting is because they have special permission on government business — this senator can simply ask for a replacement for their committee and be in the chamber when they have to speak on this specific bill or issue. It’s something that is manageable. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Senator Batters: Okay. First of all, in terms of the House of Commons electronic voting, yes, they’ve certainly instituted that. It has been a very costly process. That’s obviously something that the Senate never had. Even for a brief time when the Senate had a hybrid sitting, we never had electronic voting. That would be a costly system to implement.
Another couple of things I was wondering about, you were also speaking about the possibility of having hybrid committee sittings for Monday sessions of those committees. When that was previously allowed, senators had to be either at their home in their home province or at their Senate office. So for many of us who have to travel considerable distances, it still didn’t make it very workable.
Are you suggesting, then, that for those hybrid sessions, senators would also be able to participate via a hybrid format from anywhere? Or would you want them to have it at their home in their province or at their Senate office?
Senator Saint-Germain: Okay. To your first question, I will return the question. How much did the electronic app cost the other place? Do you have the numbers?
Senator Batters: I don’t have it with me because I didn’t think that I needed to be prepared for that, but I know it was quite substantial.
Senator Saint-Germain: Okay. I just don’t buy this point, I’m sorry. I know many MPs from all groups are very happy with that arrangement. I also know that it’s cost-effective because it is saving a lot of money for them and for witnesses, including with the hybrid sittings. It’s not only a matter of the cost of buying the electronic app; it’s the positive impact. You need to have a more exhaustive study. I don’t buy this argument.
Second, if I understood well, you said that we’ve never had electronic voting in the Senate. This is a fact. This is true. On the basis of such an argument, when we never had or did something, we should never act? Would the status quo be forever? I just don’t understand. Perhaps I misunderstood your point.
On your third question, the hybrid mode for Monday committees, it is my third recommendation. I have also personally nuanced that, yes, it would allow some senators to participate in their committees from their home or other office, but it is not the first solution. It is the third one, and sometimes the only advantage would be that they could better manage travelling on Mondays later than their committees or catching very early flights on Tuesday mornings.
I concur with you on this one. It is not the best solution, and it also has some witnesses. It’s not my preferred solution, it’s just one of them.
Senator Batters: I also wanted to clarify, were you suggesting that a committee, like CIBA, would meet on a Monday? Again, for those of us who have to travel considerable distances, that would make the ability for — I used to be deputy chair of CIBA. I would probably no longer be able to sit on it because of the lengthy travel distance if such a committee were to take place on a Monday. For example, it took me 14 hours to get home to Saskatchewan this past Friday. On a good day it’s 6 hours, so 14 hours is definitely excessive.
That needs to be taken into consideration, especially when, as we’ve seen throughout this report, we’re suggesting that for certain committees, we need to make sure that we have good regional representation and things like that. I wouldn’t want to see an important committee — yes, CIBA doesn’t generally hear from witnesses outside of internal Senate-type of witnesses. At the same time, it’s a very important committee that governs the transparency and accountability of the Senate, so we’d always want to make sure that we have it at a time when many senators were able to participate.
Senator Saint-Germain: First, allow me to state that I have been sitting on CIBA since 2017, and it’s a very important committee. I was one of those who suggested and supported the creation of the Audit and Oversight Committee, and I’m a member of that committee as well.
The issue with this suggestion, you will remember that my first suggestion was to delete part 2 of rule 12-18, but these governance committees, when they have witnesses, they’re generally, as you said, staffers and managers, so we don’t have external guests.
The same issue will happen — you’re right, senator — with senators who sit on these committees, but I see that their questions or their witnesses are not for questions of national interest like with National Defence and Security, Official Languages or Human Rights. This is why it would be an option, but it’s not the best-case scenario.
I believe that Senator Tannas and I concur on this. The best-case scenario on this rule — the second part, at least — should be deleted.
Senator Batters: I wanted to clarify, so I have something correct. You’re suggesting that it would be a majority of the Senate group leaders who would have to agree to such a thing? Or are you suggesting unanimity?
Senator Saint-Germain: No, majority, so that’s three out of five.
Senator Batters: One out of five right now.
Senator Saint-Germain: I’m sorry?
Senator Batters: Would you just put majority? Because there are five groups right now, but there can easily be more groups.
Senator Saint-Germain: Majority.
Senator Batters: So simply majority.
Senator Tannas: If it went back to two, then everybody would have a veto. If it went back to the old days of just two, it would be a veto. If not, then it would be a majority.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. My questions are for Senator Tannas.
On the subject of not deleting rule 12-18, you spoke about better management of the Order Paper. How would you describe better management of the Order Paper? It’s always long, and everyone must do what they can. How would you describe this? Do you have any suggestions?
[English]
Senator Tannas: Well, this is the big question, isn’t it? I think we all agree that the Senate having 80 private senators’ bills for consideration is not sustainable. It’s not a responsible use of our time. Everybody has a bill that they believe is important and valuable. Some of us have dozens of bills we believe are important and valuable over time. As it turns out, I’ve got a bill, the first one I’ve done in 10 years, but we’ve had many senators far more prolific than that.
We have to come to some conclusion about what the right balance is. The House of Commons has a very dispassionate wheel that goes around, and it produces what it produces. But we have to come to grips with this if we are going to balance the work that we need to do in the chamber with the incredibly important work over decades and decades of our collective minds at work in committee. I am a proponent less of our individual wisdom and more of our collective wisdom and spending time in committees studying important issues, and my comments reflect that.
I don’t have the answer, but we need to find a better balance, a more responsible balance, and I think we can do that if we’re disciplined about it. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I agree with Senator Tannas’ comments. I would add that we could review how the chair calls items on the agenda. Rather than reading out all the outstanding issues, the chair could ask at the end whether the senators want to comment on any outstanding items, so that they can do so at that time. We could then return to the agenda.
I calculated that, every day, we waste almost half an hour just listing the outstanding items and looking at them. It’s unbelievable. There are so many of them. That doesn’t seem right.
The Chair: The Senate Special Committee on Senate Modernization recommended that the call of the Order Paper be reviewed. This hasn’t been done for a variety of reasons. Some attempts have been made, but it hasn’t happened. The longer the agenda grows with each senator’s interests, the more time is lost —that’s the irony — and the less time we have for these issues.
Perhaps this should be included in our recommendations. We could ask that it be done differently.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Thank you to both our witnesses. My question is for Senator Tannas, and it regards Monday evening committee meetings.
I am a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, and we do incredibly important studies, but I think we lose 25% of our meeting time due to not sitting on Mondays after a break week, Mondays being excavated for other business and for public holidays. I like your solution, it’s rather elegant, to just extend the sitting week from Monday evenings to whatever the rule says. Are there any unintended outcomes of your suggestion?
Senator Tannas: I think there might be in that other committees could — and this, I think, goes back to the days when some committee chairs operated on their own advice and could call meetings off the cuff. Maybe that’s part of the provenance of the rule. But I think we are in a completely different era now where that’s not the case. Committee chairs are not these all-powerful nabobs who can do this kind of thing. The rule isn’t protecting what it was originally meant to protect.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Saint-Germain, do you have anything to add?
Senator Saint-Germain: I simply think that the best solution is to delete part 2 of this rule.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Thank you to both of you. I want to go back to the Mondays. To be clear, we’ve heard a number of different options for dealing with Mondays. Would both of you support, as a preferred option, Senator Tannas’s suggestion of cutting the Gordian knot and just saying Mondays — would that be your first suggestion to us out of all the different options?
Senator Saint-Germain: My first suggestion would clearly be to delete part 2 of this rule. To Senator Omidvar’s question, I’m wondering if there are unforeseen consequences of stating that now the Senate sitting week is from Monday to Thursday. Are there other financial impacts? I just don’t know. This is why I am hesitant.
Senator Tannas: We have this thing where the Senate calendar is shaded —
Senator Saint-Germain: When sittings are possible.
Senator Tannas: But “shaded” is not in the Rules anywhere. I don’t think it says anywhere in the Rules that shading means it’s a week or not a week, et cetera. I think we all recognize that there is potential for us to sit on Mondays. I don’t know why this is the way it is if the committee simply declares that, for the purposes of committee meetings, Monday is part of a sitting week.
[Translation]
The Chair: This could easily be done. However, under the current rules, Monday isn’t included. As you said, this box is shaded in our calendar to show that the Senate could be called to sit on Monday. This is indicated in the government motion tabled the week before, which said that the Senate would return on Tuesday, so it would still be possible to return on Monday.
It would probably be very easy to simply state that the week begins on Monday, or to delete rule 12-18(2). We can’t have it both ways.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: We are just running in circles because a few don’t want to. It is a useless power.
Senator Kutcher: I have an observation and a question. There is already prevalence for additional cost requests if we have to sit on a Monday. That’s already in there for people who come. So I don’t think that as an additional unforeseen consequence.
The idea of reordering the committees that sit on Monday to improve efficiency and fiscal prudence by choosing committees that may not be bringing in or inconveniencing witnesses is an interesting one. I sit on SECD, for example, and we always have witnesses and we need their input.
Do we have any idea of what actually it has cost people, or the cancellation costs for committees that have been vetoed for sitting on Mondays? Just the hard cost, let alone the inconvenience for witnesses; those are soft costs. Do we have any idea of what the actual costs would be?
Senator Tannas: I’m struggling with where — I certainly understand the Tuesday issue, because that happens. It develops; it is a creeping situation. But we know when statutory holidays are for Monday. The calendar is set.
Senator Kutcher: But when we are not allowed to sit on Monday. When they have been cancelled, what are the costs incurred to the Senate when they have been vetoed for whatever reason, on a whim or something?
Senator Tannas: Okay, right. I don’t know how often that happens. Does that happen often, where arbitrarily and with short notice, a Monday meeting is cancelled?
Senator Kutcher: Yes, a few times. Yes.
Senator Tannas: Is that right?
Senator Saint-Germain: Sometimes we have to pay for — I don’t have all the numbers, but for witnesses who could not cancel or cancel without penalty. Some have done some work. It’s also the human side of it for witnesses, out of respect for them, for senators and all the employees of the senators’ offices, the committee and the other staffers.
Also, for senators who have to come and stay in Ottawa on Monday evenings, it has an impact on their budgets. Some of them have to go to CIBA. I know it is possible and they are compensated for this because they are sitting on Monday committees, but it brings an additional cost. That’s something that is currently managed. That’s the point.
Obviously, there are cancellation fees and various human and financial costs that we need to keep in mind.
Senator M. Deacon: I have a question, and a chunk of that question has been addressed by the last two senators, but suffice it to say, on the Monday piece, we have to find a fix and find it quickly. I don’t ever want to be misquoted as ranking committees, but there was never as strong a lesson in my short-term memory over the last three months than with Bill C-21.
When we reflected on it, we lost 27 witnesses over missed Mondays, a new holiday Monday, the holiday Monday we know, and there was a lot to that and a lot of adjustment.
We increased hearings. Is it in the best interests to have a five-hour or six-hour hearing? Are you really good at the hour four or five of a hearing? We did our best to make it work, but, to me, it is a strong example that this fix needs to be done now.
I would finally comment that, without question in making this decision, the majority of leadership, what is the decision? Make it, and we come out of that with a decision of whether we can or cannot meet. There is always this pull coming off of the National Finance Committee. I hate missing the chamber — “hate” is too strong a word. I am challenged at times by missing work in the chamber and listening to the debate of my colleagues when a reading or a bill is coming up and when I need to jump out and be in committee. The National Finance Committee is a really good example of this throughout the year. We have to find this piece, and we have to make it work now.
We are being watched. Not modernizing and living in 1909 or 1960 or 2010 is just not acceptable.
Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: It was more a comment than a question.
[English]
Senator Busson: I think my colleague addressed most of my concerns, but I wanted to ask my colleagues at the front whether or not — I think there is a consensus that the Monday problem, vis-à-vis having permission to sit, anyway, has a solution of, “Let’s just fix that.”
Now, there are two options. Senator Tannas, you suggested that we make an edit or change the rule so that Monday is a work day, or we just delete rule 12-18(2) completely. Which one do you think is the quickest solution, because I can see the spring is going to be very busy for a lot of Monday committees. I think we should make this a priority.
I’m wondering if you have looked into which of these two might be the quickest?
Senator Saint-Germain: If I may go first, I believe either solution will take time to amend the Rules, make a report to the Senate and then speak to this.
I believe the quickest solution in the interim would be through a sessional order when we are back in January of 2024 and that notwithstanding rule 12-18(2), Monday committees — I know the clerks will craft a very good sessional order. I think it is the best-case scenario.
Senator Busson: I’m hearing that you both think that’s a priority?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
[Translation]
The Chair: I gather that, ideally, this solution should come from the leaders, not from this committee. It could also come from this committee, which could report back in the event of a motion and so on. However, if we all agree that this rule should be set aside, at least for this session, the leaders could certainly introduce this rule themselves.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: As much as I appreciate sessional orders, they are not a permanent fix to the problem, and it is always subject to negotiation between the leaders.
In regard to Mondays, I personally believe that once and for all, let’s do the right thing and have this committee recommend that we delete rule 12-18(2). It is dépassé. The best before date has gone on that for quite a while.
I am curious about the Tuesday night meetings. It is frustrating for committees to have witnesses and cancel at the last minute. It is unbecoming of the chamber of sober second thought.
In the Rules of the Senate, it states that on Wednesdays we complete our work at four o’clock. Couldn’t we have in our Rules that on Tuesdays we complete our Senate sitting by six o’clock, period, no questions asked, so that the committees can do their work?
Senator Tannas, I sympathize with you and with your comments in regard to so many motions, so many inquiries and so many private bills. We have to start to deal with that, because it’s kind of overtaking our raison d’être.
I guess my question is: How would you view this committee recommending that on Tuesdays the Senate adjourns at six o’clock or after government business? Possible wording is available to us, and that would allow Senate committees to meet and also meet their mandates.
Senator Tannas: I suppose if we did that, we could maybe get a few more committees meeting on Tuesday nights as well. I don’t know, but it would certainly give predictability.
My own view is — and it is a prejudiced view — that I think the value to Canadians overwhelmingly comes in two areas: When we are giving sober second thought to government legislation and when we are in committees going deep on issues that matter and making recommendations. Those, to me, are the two reasons most of us came here.
If you proposed it, senator, I would support it.
Senator Saint-Germain: Very briefly, I believe that if we go there, it should also be conditional to the review of the Order Paper. We need to find more than one solution in order to get there and to also make sure that some non-government business, including studying the Rules of the Senate, which is non-government business, ensure we have time to do it in the chamber.
So, yes, but conditionally.
Senator Ringuette: To further this discussion, and from my experience, yes, we are wasting a lot of time saying, “Stand, stand, stand,” and, honestly, now that the Senate is televised, it really doesn’t look good for the people who are watching us. Again, let’s get a grip on this.
It used to be that only four people in the Senate chamber knew who was going to talk and when. It was a secret. It was power, that information. Now, the Chamber Operations and Procedure Office, Till Heyde’s unit, send scrolls to every senator. Now we know who wants to speak and when.
I truly believe, Madam Chair, that we should, in our next few meetings, give extremely high priority to this issue of “stand,” and we should also come up with a viable solution for the Tuesday meetings. As Senator Saint-Germain said, on Tuesday, we could say that from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., it’s going to be private members’ bills, just like in the House of Commons. They have a specific time for private stuff, and that’s it after that.
The Chair: For the new senators, it is true that in the not‑very-far-distant past, the scroll was not open to everybody. The scroll was kept with the leaders of the two groups. Even though you shared a group, you may not have known exactly who was going to talk on which subject. Those rules are different now. That’s how transparency works. It is better knowledge for everybody. Maybe our Rules should be adopted in consequence.
Senator Batters: I have a couple of comments. With respect to the comment just made about the House of Commons and their private members’ bills, the difference there is that, yes, they only have one hour a day allocated for private members’ bills, but it does take years for MPs to get their private members’ bills dealt with. When my husband was an MP, he was told to plan his one private members’ bill for his entire career wisely, because that was very likely the only one he would get. Now some senators have several on the Order Paper at the same time. Therefore, that would have to be sacrificed. That is a choice.
I have a couple of questions with respect to the earlier discussion about Monday sittings and whether that could just be a simple rule change or something like that. As I read one part of the Rules — and maybe I’m not looking at the correct part — in rule 3-1(1), entitled “Ordinary time of meeting,” it says:
Except as otherwise ordered by the Senate, the Senate shall meet at 2 p.m. on Mondays through Thursdays and at 9 a.m. on Fridays.
It is not necessarily the rule that is the provision for when the Senate is sitting on a normal basis — it is probably a sessional order. Also, I note that the government deputy leader stands each week to announce the day when the Senate will be adjourned. Most weeks, the government deputy leader stands to say that it will be adjourned until Tuesday. Then on a rare week, it could be until Monday night. Sometimes, the Senate could even still be sitting on a Friday as well.
Another comment I wanted to make is about Monday meetings. I could be wrong, but I do not believe they are actually set if the necessary approval has not been given. Therefore, I don’t think that witnesses would have been invited and the meetings officially set — unlike Tuesday. I concede that’s quite different, where a meeting can actually be already set and then cancelled because of what’s going on in the chamber.
Is that your understanding, too — that it is not a common thing to actually cancel an already-set Monday meeting — unlike the Tuesday meetings?
Senator Tannas: It was news to me today — and that doesn’t mean anything other than that I just didn’t know — that a number of Monday defence meetings were cancelled by fiat from somebody. I wasn’t aware of that. I, like you, didn’t think that Mondays were being disrupted by vetoes from one party or another. I will leave that aside.
Regarding your other question: My understanding as well, Senator Batters, is that it was an interpretation. I say that because there are conflicts in the Rules about where Monday committee meetings fit. The interpretation somewhere along the way was that the adjournment motion was set at the beginning of the week, and therefore the Monday was excluded. All we were suggesting as a solution is that the Senate adopt, through a recommendation in a report from you and for the sake of committees — and you can craft the words — that committee meetings on Mondays, when we are going to sit on the Tuesday, would happen. Then I think we’d have good, reliable Monday meetings that wouldn’t be subject to somebody’s veto.
Senator Batters: Okay. When you were talking earlier, Senator Tannas, you were not sure about this Monday break situation. Certainly, we will hear more when we hear from some senators who are either currently or have been government or opposition leaders. Certainly, there were times when much more political consideration may have been held for those Mondays — a reason for perhaps one leader or another not to agree. Believe me, there were times when the government may have not wanted to agree. As an example, there was a time when perhaps one committee had members who wanted very strongly to study a particular matter that perhaps embarrassed the government or brought a government scandal to attention. If the government did not want that meeting to happen, which would normally happen on a Monday, that may have been a reason for that.
Senator Tannas: Yes, I think that is potentially the case. But why single out only committees that meet on a Monday?
Senator Batters: It would also be a meeting that wouldn’t be held in the normal course —
Senator Tannas: If politics can’t reach in to cancel a Wednesday meeting because they don’t like the subject matter, why would it single out a Monday?
Senator Batters: If I’m correct, it could also be meetings that could happen in the middle of summer when we are on a parliamentary break. I believe that rule is applicable for those types of things as well — that the government and opposition leader need to agree. We could have had a situation like that for — say — SNC-Lavalin, or something like that.
Senator Tannas: That’s why I think we need to have something that is not a deleted rule — just an interpretation that the Senate accepts that if we are meeting on the Tuesday, then the Monday is part of the week for committees. It could be that simple. Then we are not getting into the unintended consequences we were talking about.
Senator Saint-Germain: I just want to bring clarification. Senator Batters read rule 12-18(1), but the specific exclusion for the Monday sittings is rule 12-18(2). Notwithstanding the sitting calendar, it is a specific exclusion for the Monday sittings when the Senate has not been sitting for one week or more.
The Chair: Rule 3-1(1), which says:
Except as otherwise ordered by the Senate, the Senate shall meet at 2 p.m. on Mondays through Thursdays and at 9 a.m. on Fridays.
So there is a bit of a grey zone there.
Senator Saint-Germain: But notwithstanding the calendar once again, rule 12-18(2) prohibits Monday sittings for committees when the Senate has been suspended or has been on a break for one week or more.
Senator Omidvar: I don’t have a question. I want to, first of all, thank our witnesses for bringing really creative ideas to the table. Since this is on the record and private business, Senator Tannas, has been described in a certain way, let me remind this group that we have used the last two or three weeks — and we will continue to use this week — on a private bill, which I think we would all agree is in the national interest. There have been private bills that have been embedded into government legislation. I do not wish the audience who just listened to this meeting to have private business described in just one way.
Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: I want to thank our witnesses, Senator Saint-Germain, facilitator for the Independent Senators Group, and Senator Tannas, facilitator for the Canadian Senators Group. Committee members who are here, there won’t be a meeting next week, given that the weeks may be longer at the Senate. We’ll see you in 2024. Thank you and have a good day.
(The committee adjourned.)