THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 6, 2024
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:33 a.m. [ET] to study the business of the committee; and pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), for the consideration of possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome back after the holiday break.
[Translation]
We are resuming the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. Today, we are holding a somewhat technical meeting to make certain changes within our committee.
My name is Diane Bellemare. I am a senator from Quebec and chair of the committee. I’d like to go around the table, as usual. Everyone can introduce themselves and name the province they are from, starting on my right.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Busson: My name is Bev Busson, senator from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Ontario.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters, Saskatchewan, deputy chair.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. I understand that Senator Woo would like to take the floor.
[English]
Senator Woo: Yes, chair, it’s my great honour to have served as deputy chair on this committee, but I would now like to relinquish this position and nominate the Honourable Stan Kutcher as deputy chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Woo, for your active participation in our committee. You have a special interest in this committee. You played a big role in modernizing the Senate. You were there from the very beginning, from the time when we had various groups in the Senate.
I want to express our heartfelt thanks, and I hope you will stay on with us, even if you are leaving the position of deputy chair. I hope you will continue to participate in our discussions.
Hon. Senators: Bravo!
The Chair: Is it your pleasure that Senator Kutcher serve as deputy chair of the steering committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you very much.
Hon. Senators: Bravo!
The Chair: We will now proceed without further ado. We will hold a short meeting after this one.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much everyone for your support. I certainly won’t be able to fill Senator Woo’s shoes, but I will do my very best to at least put my toe into them. Thank you.
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: Senators, just for the record and to be clear, the steering committee of this committee would now be Senator Bellemare as chair, Senator Batters as deputy chair, Senator Kutcher as deputy chair and Senator Green would remain the fourth member of the steering committee.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today’s meeting will be brief. We will adopt our report, which you duly received.
You received the latest report, which summarizes all of the testimony on the committee’s structure and mandate. As you can see, the document has no title.
[English]
There is no title up to now, so I propose that we go quickly page by page to say if it’s okay.
I noticed certain little errors in the French version, and when I look at the English, there may be one or two little things I would like to correct or change with your agreement. I don’t have much, but there are about four places where we could have a little discussion.
We will quickly go page by page, if you have any comments on any of those pages, and then we will go through the document. After that, we will propose a title for this document.
We will go now to page 3. There’s nothing there. Table of contents is next.
Senator Batters: There’s a spacing issue with this, which I can show the people who did it later. But also, in line 7, where it says “the committee membership” and then under that it says “the honourable senators.” Instead of that, could we put “senators who participated” or something like that, instead of the honourable senators?
Mr. Thompson: I think we could remove that for the purposes of the table of contents. On that page, there is committee membership. There is “the honourable senators,” and then on the second page, there are other senators who have participated, so I don’t know if we need to make a distinction for the table of contents.
Senator Batters: Sure, yes.
Mr. Thompson: I think that was what was marked as a heading in the document. We can certainly correct that.
Senator Batters: Okay.
The Chair: Okay. Page 3 is done. Page 4? Page 5? Page 6?
Senator Batters: For the other senators who have participated in this study, what I wondered about this is that for a committee study, this would usually just list senators who took part as members of the committee, even if they participated only for one meeting or something like that. I notice here that there are a number of senators who participated as witnesses, and they are already listed as witnesses at the back in the appendix. I think that’s a better way to set them out. I think that any senators who only participated as witnesses and not as members of this committee should be only in that appendix and not as part of this because it’s confusing. There are a number of parts in this study where it says “some members of Rules Committee,” and then those people are not named, but those senators would be more properly identified that way.
The Chair: I agree. I was wondering too about that as well. Good.
Page 7? Page 8?
Senator Batters: Obviously, we’re just relying on our very general order of reference. I’m not sure it deserves a whole page. It actually looks like something is missing.
Mr. Thompson: I understand that, senator. This is the standard template used for committee reports, and in most committees they are relying on an order of reference. It’s usually something with quite a bit more detail providing the scope of that. With the Rules Committee, we are relying on our authority under the rules.
I’m in your hands. Is it even necessary to have this page? It’s an easy thing to remove. We could perhaps add a little more explanation that the Rules Committee has an inherent authority pursuant to this rule to examine things.
Senator Batters: I think that’s a good idea to do, and perhaps to not have it as an entire page. It just looks like something is missing.
The Chair: In the text, it already says that this committee has the order of reference to do anything from that it wants.
Mr. Thompson: Senators, I can write something up and I could present it perhaps to the steering committee to approve the final text. As far as pagination goes, I think once we trim the list of other senators, we’ll be able to back up some of that and get it onto this page so that it’s not an entire page on its own.
Senator Batters: Okay.
The Chair: Okay, page 9? Page 10?
In the French version, I have a remark about line 23. The translation says:
[Translation]
“Report 2: Selected Changes to the Rules of the Senate of Canada (Fall 2023/Winter 2024)”.
[English]
In English, it’s “Select Amendments to the Rules.”
[Translation]
So, I suggest writing “Proposed Amendments to the Rules of the Senate”, because “changes” is very broad. In Report 2, we are actually proposing amendments and not changes. Those would be proposed amendments, because that’s more in line with the translation.
[English]
It’s more in line with the translation of “Select Amendments to the Rules” in the English version.
Senator Batters: Thank you. In that respect, were you indicating that in French it should say “proposé,” like proposed? If so, then that should also be indicated in English, because these are not actual amendments. They are proposed amendments.
The Chair: Proposed amendments. Okay, does everyone agree with that?
Senator Batters: One other point I had in that section is about the report plan. When we discussed that on October 17, we may have been a little bit ambitious in what we expected to get done. I’m wondering if the timeline actually said that we would complete these first three things in winter 2024 and the last one in spring 2024, or if some of those things were actually designated at that time in October to say fall 2023. If they were, then I think we should take out those dates so that we’re not misconstruing what was actually said in October.
The Chair: I don’t see any problem with that.
Page 11?
Senator Batters: First of all, there is a spacing thing that I’ll show the drafters later.
The first time that a senator is mentioned in the footnotes — and there are many mentions of senators — it’s always listed as “The Honourable” so-and-so, comma, “senator.” I don’t think that in the footnotes we need that lengthy a description. Can we just put “Senator” so-and-so rather than having it read “The Honourable” such-and-such, comma, “senator”? I mean, it’s the footnotes. We don’t need to have that lengthy a description.
The Chair: Okay.
Page 12? Page 13? On page 13, I have something in the French, and also in the English. Page 13, paragraph 17.
Senator Saint-Germain: It is easier when you identify the paragraphs, from my standpoint, rather than the pages.
The Chair: It’s paragraph 17. I struck me when I read this in French — and it’s the same in English — that when we say the Senate sits an average of 10 hours per sitting week, I thought it looks bad, for one. Second, it’s an average, and an average also depends on the length of time that you calculate the average. Sometimes we sit 10 hours on Tuesday. I thought that rather than having hours, we could say that the House of Commons sits five days per week while the Senate sits three days per week.
Senator Batters: Actually, this was my point that I made a number of different times. Yes, sometimes we sit 10 hours on a Tuesday, but sometimes we sit much, much less than that for each of those three days of the week — if it’s a week where there’s not much government business or things like that.
That was my substantial point on this. There is a substantial difference, not just in the days of the week that the House of Commons sits. They sit five days a week every week unless there is a statutory holiday in the middle of it, which is rare because those are usually on non-sitting weeks. So that doesn’t really get the point across.
I know there’s a big difference, but what I was trying to explain is the major difference between how the House of Commons structures their committee agenda and how we do ours, and the reason is that the Senate sits a lot less as a chamber. We have made that deliberate choice to have our committees sit at times when the Senate is generally not sitting. At the House of Commons, they have a much different system. That would take a large part of this point away, and yes, it is a big discrepancy. That’s because it is a big difference between the two chambers.
The Chair: I prefer that we say it differently. I know your point has been made, and you made it at the committee. You made it officially. Everything is recorded here, but for such a summary, especially because an average is an average and the standard deviation is very high on this average. I would request much harder data to be able to specify that we sit an average of 10 hours a week than how we pick that number. If you don’t mind, I think it would do better justice to the work that senators do than to say it otherwise.
Senator Batters: What if we get that type of data from someone like the Committees Directorate, from Shaila Anwar, that sort of thing?
The Chair: We could. Depending on the period when you calculate the average, you can get what you want.
Senator Batters: Well, sure, but we could also say something like, “and the Senate frequently sits an average of 10 hours.” That is taking into consideration —
The Chair: I prefer this. I think the problem is “days.” It’s not hours, it’s days. The hours don’t mean anything.
Senator Batters: Well, it does —
The Chair: It’s a way to present things that are negative.
Senator Batters: It’s not negative.
The Chair: Absolutely.
Senator Batters: It’s explaining the difference between why the House of Commons has committees sitting at the same time as the House of Commons — and that’s because they sit a lot of hours — yet the Senate has made this deliberate choice to have committees generally not sit when the Senate is sitting because we have a different structure. We also have a much different size. That’s something legitimate to point out.
I don’t think it’s accurate, after me having made the point in numerous committee meetings, not to have it reflected in the report. You can say, “Some senators argue,” as you have many times throughout this report. “Some senators point out” would be legitimate because I have pointed this out many times. I think that’s an important point to make when we’re talking about the study of committees.
The Chair: Senators Saint-Germain and Kutcher, don’t take this personally but when I read it, I didn’t even remember that it was your point that you asked to be put forward.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I think the information we are providing is completely biased and incomplete. If we want to make a comparison, it must be complete and include all the committees of both the House of Commons and the Senate. The numbers are comparable, but there are barely one hundred senators who are appointed to sit on those committees. At the House of Commons, many MPs have just one or two committees, whereas there are more and more senators who have to serve on more than two committees to ensure that their group is represented. That’s an extremely important point.
If we operate according to the number of sitting hours — so, 10 hours, I think there were weeks when that happened —, I find that a very surprising average. That said, keep in mind that in addition to sitting hours, there are committee hours. How many senators have no free time when they are in Ottawa because they are at committee every evening or until the late afternoon?
In that regard, I agree that we have to talk about sitting days, but we have to round out the comparison with committees, including the number of Senate committees and those of the House of Commons, relative to the number of senators available to sit on committees.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: I think the salient point in this is to demonstrate that there are differences between the House and the Senate. You can pick and choose a gazillion pieces of data that demonstrates this, including the quality of the ties that House members wear. We need something clear and simple for Canadians to understand. Senator Bellemare, you have made it clear and simple for everyone to understand that there are differences.
Concerning the point that you also made about the data and the statistical analysis of the data, if you were to do that you’d have to take it at least 40 or 50 years, and the standard deviation is so huge that the averages are misleading and useless as a comparator. I would support your perspective.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: I thought we were reporting on the Senate committees. I don’t see why we would compare ourselves to the House of Commons, which has a completely different operating structure and ways of operation. In this report, we want to talk about what we heard from the witnesses. I don’t recall our witnesses comparing the Senate committees to the House of Commons committees. They are completely different operations. Honestly, I don’t see why we would even want to bring forward comparing the Senate committees to the House of Commons. That’s not what we want. That’s not what we heard from our witnesses either.
I have great reservations in that regard because it’s only questioning how we would operate differently, and then we have to explain why we have to operate differently. It’s bringing forward a whole slate of details of why and when, which is not needed in this report.
The Chair: I have a suggestion, if you agree. We could drop this phrase. The relevant point here is that the House of Commons has 337 members and the Senate has 105 senators and sometimes much less than that.
We could just say, “When comparing the Senate and the House of Commons committee structure, it is important to consider the significant difference in membership size in the House of Commons and in the Senate.” Period. The rest of it doesn’t have anything to do with that.
Senator Ringuette: No, it doesn’t.
Senator Batters: With respect to evidence that we heard, we actually did hear evidence that occasionally talked about House of Commons committees and the things that they had and the things that we have differently. So we did hear some evidence on that as well as — and, I’ve made this point a few times during this whole thing — senators sitting at that end of the table and being a witness or sitting here and making comments as part of the study. I wasn’t ever a witness, but I certainly had many points to contribute during it. I don’t think that should be a distinguishing factor.
I made this point throughout; others also made the point about differences with House of Commons committees. We can set out how many committees the House of Commons has. They have several more than we do. I can’t remember the exact number, but certainly the Committees Directorate people will know that.
There are many points in this draft report that say, “One witness said,” or, “Some members of the Rules Committee said.” That doesn’t mean everyone agreed with it, but I think to simply take it out — just because some people expressed that opinion and others didn’t share it — isn’t an accurate reflection of what was said. We did have this point of view made. That was a deliberate choice made by the Senate. We made a choice to focus considerable time, given our fewer numbers, on committee study and to have that done during a time when our chamber isn’t sitting so that senators can devote major attention to that as compared to the House of Commons. It’s a reason for explaining why there are differences between the two. There are benefits and other factors for both of them.
Senator Busson: In my humble opinion, if we’re going to reword this paragraph, as you suggest, it might be helpful to make reference to the fact that if we sit for an average of 10 hours a week, a lot of senators’ time is taken up outside of that because it’s a distinct decision of the Senate that committees only sit during sitting hours by exception.
For resourcing purposes, that covers a huge explanation of the fact that 10 hours is a small part of the time that we spend doing our work. No comparison is needed, really, to the House or to anything else.
The Chair: Also, if we have to compare, we have to compare. This is not just only one point.
Senator Woo: I propose we either adopt Senator Ringuette’s suggestion by dropping that sentence or we refer to days of the week rather than hours. It is a irrefutable true statement that we sit three days compared to the House sitting five days, whereas the statement about the hours may or may not be true depending on your measure. Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: I want to observe that if we start outlining the differences between the Senate and the House, then we have to do a more fulsome job. Either we go the full monty or we just be minimal, and that is, of course, the will of the committee. Pointing out just the sitting hours is a very misleading statement without stating that in the House of Commons, committees meet while the House sits and, therefore, they have so many more committee — either do the whole thing or drop it. That’s my pedestrian point of view.
Senator Saint-Germain: I fully support what my colleague Senator Omidvar just said. Numbers speak regarding committees. At the House, they have 28 standing committees. We have 18. They are 338 potentially and we are 105, potentially. We have, together, four joint committees, and the Senate has seven subcommittees, and some of them are meeting very often, such as those from Internal Economy and the Veterans Subcommittee. So numbers speak, and we need to nuance. It is important.
Senator Wells: I’m in accordance with Senator Omidvar as well, and the other part of this is — and there are so many differences — there are some committees that have permission to sit while the Senate is sitting, as a rule. While we generally sit three days a week, there are other committees that do sit on a Monday, so trying to get into too much detail gets us away from what we are trying to do. If there is relevance to it, then yes, let’s put it in, but I don’t think there is relevance to it in this case.
Senator Ringuette: Therefore, because of where we are going with the discussion — and I think there is a consensus — I would suggest that we remove paragraph 17 in its entirety. It brings nothing to the discussion.
Senator Batters: In that respect, then, there’s not even a will to have one senator mentioned or something like that, that I brought up this point? I am a deputy chair of this committee, and I have made that point a number of times. We can nuance it. We can put the number of House of Commons committees in, but there are a number of points, frankly, throughout this report that I don’t agree with, but I can’t deny that one senator or one witness said it. So it’s going in the report. Will we take those types of things out too just because not everyone agreed?
The Chair: As a matter of fact, Senator Batters, if we put numbers, they have to be solid numbers —
Senator Batters: Let’s get some, then.
The Chair: — and this number is not solid because it’s an average and it has a flavour on it — 337 members, that’s a solid number; and 105, that’s a solid number.
If we want to be solid, we have to be rigorous, and you’re so rigorous all the time. You are the rigour, but on that, that’s only the opinion, because it’s an average with a big standard deviation.
Senator Batters: We have the ability to get the actual averages, then, so we could get that.
Senator Ringuette: Madam Chair, I move that paragraph 17 be deleted from the report that we are considering right now. Thank you.
The Chair: So we have a motion —
Senator Ringuette: A motion, yes.
The Chair: Is there a supporter for the motion? Who is in favour of dropping paragraph 17 of the report?
Who is against moving — two. Abstentions? One abstention. Adopted. Thank you. It’s too bad —
Page 14?
Senator Batters: With respect to page 14, where it has the number of Senate vacancies, it is still listing it as of October 13, 2023, so we should, undoubtedly, make that more current.
The Chair: That will be deleted with the paragraph that we just deleted.
Page 14 is okay?
Page 15? You have something on page 14?
Senator Batters: Under paragraph 24 of that paragraph, line 23 as it exists on the draft, when it is talking about removing science and technology from the Social Affairs Committee mandate, there isn’t anything specified in this section about where that was proposed to go, because I believe that the same senators who are talking about that point also proposed where it would go, and if we just kind of leave it out of there, then in the report it seems to be a bit of a gap in stating this. There was testimony about it. I may not have agreed with that, but there certainly was testimony about that. So —
The Chair: Senator Omidvar, since you are the —
Senator Omidvar: Senator Batters is right.
Senator Woo: I wonder if we need to clarify that the recommendation on the Foreign Affairs Committee — this is paragraph lines 11 to 16 on page 14 — which talks about changing the title of the Foreign Affairs Committee to include the word “development.” That has been done, I understand. Would it be helpful to mention that?
The Chair: Could you repeat that?
Senator Woo: Lines 11 to 16 talk about changing the name of our Foreign Affairs Committee, but I believe that has been done already.
The Chair: No.
Senator Woo: Oh, it hasn’t been done.
The Chair: That’s a letter we received from the chair after we had made our stylistic change in the first report when we went through it. That came after that, and it’s an official request from the committee.
Senator Woo: The committee is already styling itself that way, so I thought it had been done, but thank you for the clarification.
The Chair: It’s not in rule 12-7. It may be on the website.
Senator Batters: Also with respect to the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee, lines 14 to 16, there was a proposal to add “international human rights” to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s mandate to avoid duplication, but there was significant pushback, as I recall it, by the Human Rights Committee senators who indicated that’s absolutely a correct part of it.
The Chair: It is said later on in the report.
Senator Batters: Okay. Maybe there should be a brief reference or something like that, so it doesn’t look like it was said unchallenged, because, as I read that — and I didn’t recall — and perhaps it was only a brief reference. However, that’s a pretty significant thing we are saying to make it look like the Human Rights Committee is doing duplicative work, which I don’t think they are.
Senator Omidvar: I agree completely with Senator Batters. On page 15, line 13, there is a reference to an opposing point of view, and it loses its currency unless it’s included in paragraph — lines 11 to 16. We could say something like, “however, other witnesses spoke against this recommendation,” pointing out the important work the Human Rights Committee does. I think that is exactly what Senator Batters is wanting.
Mr. Thompson: Senators, if I could, because it is mentioned a little later, perhaps coming back to page 14 and that paragraph about Foreign Affairs, that paragraph could be concluded with “as noted below, RIDR expressed concerns about this proposal” or “did not agree with this proposal.”
The Chair: Okay.
Page 14, it’s done. Page 15, now. It’s done too. Page 16? Okay. Page 17? Okay. Page 18?
I have a comment on page 17 at paragraph 35. In the French version, the Rules Committee is not mentioned; however, in the French version we do not spell out that Rules can have its own order of reference.
[Translation]
Mr. Thompson: It’s there, but it’s very small.
The Chair: No, that one is in English, but in French, it’s not there.
Mr. Thompson: Oh, yes.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: In English, we say RPRD. We should spell it out like the others.
The Chair: When they read it, people sometimes say, “What does it mean?”
Senator Ringuette: Acronyms.
The Chair: Page 18?
Senator Batters: At the end of subparagraph (c), “Membership,” and lines 21 and 22 talking about the self‑selection, some said the self-selection approach is not strategic and may not result in the most balanced membership. We had another side to that. There should be a short sentence indicating others disagreed with that point of view.
The Chair: We will add that.
Senator Batters: At footnote 45 — I understand some senators may not like acronyms — we did specifically have a page listing the abbreviations at the start to avoid things like this.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Batters: Footnote 45, when we set out all of those long committee names in a footnote, would be an appropriate place to use abbreviations.
The paragraph that goes on to page 19 is describing the number of senators on committees and that sort of thing. CONF, the Standing Senate Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, currently has six members. In this report, it talks about how it has five members. I’m sure that was changed as a matter of sessional order. Since we currently have had six members on that committee, and have for quite a while, we can explain what the current situation is and why it is different than what it says in this report, even in a footnote, but some reference to what the situation is. The committee doesn’t have five members right now; it has six, and it has for quite a while.
Senator Wells: The same would go for Audit and Oversight which has four members now by sessional order but in the Rules, it has three.
The Chair: Maybe it should be set out, but with the sessional order — okay.
Page 20?
Senator Woo: Page 19, line 9, there is a sentence that says decreasing committee membership to nine should be considered due to perpetual vacancy.
The Chair: Please state the paragraph.
Senator Woo: Yes, I am sorry.
The Chair: When we are in the French version, it is better. It’s not the same page, nor the line, but the paragraph is the same.
Senator Woo: Paragraph 43, the second line in that paragraph, it refers to “perpetual vacancies.” I think “perpetual” is the wrong word because it means never-ending, so maybe take the word “perpetual” out.
The Chair: Consider due to vacancies in the Senate.
Senator Woo: Yes.
The Chair: There is no qualifying necessity.
Senator Woo: There is no need to qualify.
The Chair: It refers to the fact that, compared to the other House, where they have election time or people can leave, here in the Senate we have an expiration date. The expiration date is very different from one another. Some years, everyone leaves. You are right. There is no need for qualification.
Page 20? Page 21?
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Which paragraph is it?
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Mégie. On page 21, it’s paragraphs 51 to 56, 57 to 62 and 63 to 68.
I have a point regarding that paragraph. In paragraph 68, it’s the same thing as the averages.
[English]
Ten hours. We just dropped the paragraph. We have this sentence, a repetition on page 24, paragraph 68. It says that the House of Commons has 338 members of Parliament, on average sits 35 hours per week. It is the same. We dropped it. Maybe we should drop it there too, close the paragraph.
Some members know that the Rules maintain the important practice in the Senate of ensuring that senators can participate in the chamber and committee proceedings without conflict. Some members of Rules note that the establishment of this rule was deliberate in recognizing that there are limited numbers of senators and number of sitting hours per week.
We stopped there. Do we agree?
Senator Saint-Germain: Paragraph 63, the last sentence says that some members of Rules know that testimony from leaders of groups and caucuses has not been received on this matter at the time of reporting. I would add some members know that’s “testimony from all leaders of groups,” because Senator Tannas and I have testified.
[Translation]
In paragraph 63, the words “from all” would be added.
[English]
The Chair: From all.
Senator Saint-Germain: From all.
The Chair: Okay, perfect.
Senator Batters: On paragraph 68, obviously I make the same objection with respect to having my point of view completely struck from that paragraph, as I don’t see that other points of view are happening. Thank you.
The Chair: You want to note it. Do you want a vote?
Senator Batters: It seems fruitless.
The Chair: Thank you.
Page 24, 69 to 72, and 73 to 77, page 25?
Paragraphs 78 to 84?
Senator Batters: In paragraph 82, we should refer to that two-hour evening suspension as it is properly referred to. I don’t think we need to put the colloquial phrase that is included there.
The Chair: Okay, we deleted that.
Page 27, paragraph 85 to 90. I have a comment on paragraph 86. I don’t know. We say the volume of legislation received by the Legal Committee and the Social Affairs Committee has impeded their ability to undertake special studies. I would also add Finance, because even though it is not the number of bills, it’s the legislative work that is very large on Finance. Because they have supply bills they have to review, I would add Finance. We put Finance in paragraph 90. It should be on the front, because I think it is one of the committees that works the most with the other two.
Senator Black: I have no objection to that, but did we hear it? Did we hear it, or have we heard it just today?
The Chair: No, we heard it from Senator Mockler, from the chair.
Senator Black: Fair enough.
The Chair: Paragraphs 91 to 96?
Senator Batters: In paragraph 93, on the second line, line 12 in the English version, the phrase “as they could require additional resources and time” is basically an exact replication of the previous paragraph, paragraph 92. That phrase should be taken out. There is still a valid new point there, which talks about the new demands for members of the main committee who may be required to sit on both, but that duplicate phrase needs to be taken out.
The Chair: Okay. Paragraphs 97 to 101?
Senator Batters: In paragraph 98, there are just a couple little typo things which I will go through later, but in line 9, I suggest changing “citizens” to “Canadians.” Of course, they are not always citizens, but usually they are Canadians.
The Chair: You want to change “citizens” to “Canadians” because where they live is important, instead of citizens?
Senator Wells: You could say “individuals,” which would cover it all.
Senator Omidvar: [Technical difficulties] — witnesses who are not Canadians, who are overseas. So I think individuals, experts?
Senator Black: Individuals.
The Chair: Individuals, I agree. Next, paragraphs 102 to 107? Paragraphs 108 to 115?
Senator Batters: In paragraph 111, I find this to be a bit of a strange comment, the second sentence of it. It says that prior to their appearance, witnesses should be informed that their testimony will be checked for accuracy.
I feel this is a way of saying, “Thank you for coming, witnesses, but, by the way, we will fact-check you.” It’s not very inviting to witnesses. I don’t really like how that is worded at all.
The Chair: Was it said?
Senator Kutcher: We all agree that we need to ensure that the testimony we’re getting from witnesses is actually accurate, so we need to sometimes fact-check the witnesses. When we’ve done that, there have been problems in the testimony. It’s very important for us to let witnesses know so that they won’t be blindsided. I think that will improve the quality of the testimony, that witnesses will take care to make sure the information they bring to us is accurate. People may disagree with it, but it needs to be accurate. Giving them that heads-up will help them better prepare their testimony.
The Chair: Good point.
Senator Wells: I tend to agree with Senator Batters on this. Yes, it’s important for witnesses to be accurate, but is it necessary for us to have this line in the report?
The Chair: Maybe it’s the “to be checked.” Maybe witnesses should be informed that their testimony should be accurate, should be based on facts.
Senator Wells: Shouldn’t we assume that? As they are witnesses, they are witness to something, their knowledge or their experiences. They are witnesses. We tend not to swear in witnesses because we have faith they’ll be accurate or tell the truth. While it might have been heard in testimony, as Senator Kutcher said, I still question the necessity of having it included in the report.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Regarding things that have to be checked, most often it’s when witnesses refer to a study or something else like that. We have to check whether it’s actually their interpretation or confirmed facts. It may be in that sense, but not in terms of everything they are saying. They can give their own impression. We can’t check that; it’s an impression. But when they use facts or refer to some study done somewhere, it would be good to check to see if it’s their interpretation of the study or what the study actually says. We might have to find a way of saying that.
[English]
The Chair: It should reference their data?
Perhaps “Some members suggest that committees have the capacity to fact-check witness testimony as needed. Furthermore, prior to their appearance, witnesses should be informed that they should reference their data.” That’s more neutral. That’s really neutral. If you know that, then you will be prepared.
Senator Kutcher: I think Senator Mégie makes a very important distinction and a very important point.
After decades of reading medical literature, sometimes the conclusions of an article aren’t found in the data of the article. Sometimes the person reading the piece concludes something that wasn’t actually in the material. It is really important for us to be able, if someone brings forward data, to let them know that we will be looking at the data and not necessarily just taking their interpretation of the data.
Senator Batters: That type of reference, as you were proposing, about referring to data — well, that doesn’t apply to all committees. Some committees, it might. In the Legal Committee, it probably doesn’t. Again, I think it’s the tenor of it. I personally don’t want to be associated with a comment that makes it sound like, “Thank you for coming and taking your considerable time to prepare a brief, to appear in front of us when you could be making money doing something else, practising law or doing studies or other different sorts of things. You are helping us here, but, mind yourself, we’re going to be checking your work.” I think that there’s a much better way to approach that, rather than put something in this Rules Committee report.
[Translation]
The Chair: Maybe the sentence could finish with—
[English]
It could say that “Some members of the Rules Committee suggest that committees have the capacity to fact-check witness testimony as needed.” Period. That’s it. In other words, the committee should be able to do the checking. I would feel at ease with that. Okay? We’ll do that.
Paragraphs 112 to 115?
Paragraphs 116 to 120?
Senator Batters: In paragraph 117, the last part of that paragraph says that achieving unanimity can limit productivity. We have seen that here today, but then we just have a vote and we go ahead. I don’t think that last part should be so generally noted, as if everyone thought that. Perhaps, some thought that, but it’s certainly not what others may have thought.
If we’re going to make a general statement like that, it should be “some members noted” or something like that. There should be some indication that it was attributed to somebody in particular, not that it was a general comment from the committee.
The Chair: I tend to agree that maybe it’s not necessary to say “but,” but we could put in a comma. “It was noted that committee members usually attempt to build a consensus when drafting a report and recommendations.” Period. Do you agree? Because it was you who proposed that. It’s attributed to Senator Black.
Senator Black: I’m fine with that.
The Chair: You’re fine with that? Okay.
Senator Black: Period.
The Chair: Period.
Paragraph 121 to 126?
Senator Batters: In paragraph 125, line 21, I would add in just a couple of words, “also of the view that the collegiality . . .” and I would add in here the words “and communication established between members and witnesses cannot be replicated.”
Because it’s not just collegiality but the ability to have instant communication. Communication that’s right there is also important. That was certainly discussed at length when we have discussed that topic.
The Chair: I’m not sure that’s true.
Senator Batters: Well, I know that I said it a number of times.
The Chair: Yes, I agree that you said it.
Senator Batters: I think others said it too.
The Chair: But is it true that the communication is better than with hybrid?
Senator Batters: Oh, absolutely. If I’m right here and I can talk to my colleague right here beside me rather than have to send him a text or a message on Zoom or something like that if they are appearing in a hybrid format. Definitely, communication is easier.
Senator Ringuette: Technically all committees are operating in a hybrid situation. Most of the time, witnesses appear by video conference. Technically, we are operating in a hybrid situation.
Honestly, I don’t see the purpose of this entire paragraph at all. What are we saying? Because witnesses appear by video conference that they are not communicating with us as well as if they were sitting in the chamber? I don’t think so. At least that’s not my experience. I believe that we should be deleting that entire paragraph.
Senator Saint-Germain: I’m wondering what was said. I’m not sure that it involved the witnesses. It was related to senators only, not to witnesses.
The Chair: It says it’s not the witnesses. It’s the members of the committee. It’s not the witnesses.
Senator Batters: Because both of those sentences in paragraph 125 say some members of Rules Committee, which I am assuming is partially referring to me as I made this point, we could add in the collegiality. We can add in “and communication established between members.” It’s fine if we take out “and witnesses.” That’s fine, but I think adding in “and communication” is absolutely representative of what I said on that point. If you delete “and witnesses,” that’s fine. There was a point made elsewhere about how witnesses who testify by hybrid generally seem to receive fewer questions and less attention in a hybrid meeting, and that doesn’t seem to be disputed.
Senator Woo: Not to take away from what Senator Batters thinks she said and wants to have reflected in the report, but I’m not sure it’s a true statement to say that it cannot be replicated. That’s a very strong word. There are ways of replicating communications and collegiality even in a hybrid model, so there could be a softer word that perhaps Senator Batters can come up with. It’s different, yes. A hybrid approach is different from an in-person, but to say that you cannot have any form of collegiality or communication in a hybrid format is an extreme statement. It’s more difficult maybe, or it’s not the same — something like that.
The Chair: Or maybe we can put an end in paragraph 125 to say that “some members of the Rules Committee are of the view that senators cannot as effectively participate or question witnesses in a hybrid committee setting. Some members of the Rules Committee are also of the view that the collegiality and communication . . .”
We could also drop the last phrase.
Senator Wells: If we will drop “and witnesses” in the last line in paragraph 125, then we should also change “between” to “among” if it’s just going to be “among members.”
The Chair: Okay. Read what it would look like.
Senator Wells: It would say, “Some members of RPRD are also of the view that the collegiality established among members cannot be replicated in the hybrid committee meeting model.”
Senator Ringuette: I agree. That’s good, yes.
Senator Black: Are you suggesting not have “and communication” or did you miss that?
Senator Wells: Sorry, I would include “and communication.”
The Chair: So, “The collegiality and communication established among members cannot be replicated.” And take out “and witnesses” in the hybrid committee meeting model.
Senator Ringuette: I would not say, “not be replicated.” I would say that it is difficult.
Senator Wells: Not be “easily” replicated.
Senator Ringuette: It cannot be “easily” replicated, because it can be.
Senator Wells: Not easily.
The Chair: I know for myself, I don’t know about you, but just as an anecdote, when I am in a hybrid situation, I sometimes receive text messages. There’s a chat, but there are also personal text messages. In the house people forget about that. Each one has their own experience with that. There are pros and cons.
Paragraphs 127 to 131?
Senator Batters: Paragraph 128, line 9, that was my point that compensating legal experts would have implications. I think we should add in the word “significant” implications. I definitely said that. If we want to start paying every legal witness that comes to Legal Committee, we’re going to have a massively expanded budget.
The Chair: Okay. Paragraphs 132 to 137? Paragraphs 138 to 139?
Senator Batters: I had my hand up for 137. I want some clarification where it says, “. . . some members of the Rules Committee suggest that committee chairs should provide a short overview of the study, along with key findings and recommendations.”
Where was that being suggested? In the chamber?
The Chair: Just a moment. Which line? I’m sorry.
Senator Batters: Paragraph 137, lines 23 and 24, where it’s talking about suggesting that committee chairs provide a short overview of the study along with key findings and recommendations. Where was it being suggested to do this? If it was suggested in the chamber, I believe that chairs already do that, or they should do that.
The Chair: Some witnesses did that.
Senator Batters: Don’t chairs already do that?
Mr. Thompson: When reports are tabled in the chamber, they can be put on for consideration, but that is not always the case. I think the proposal at this time was that when the report is tabled that there be a brief summary of the report to increase awareness of the contents of that report. Normally, it would be, “I have the honour to table the fifth report of the standing committee” on whatever. That is all that is said at that time.
I don’t remember who, exactly had made the suggestion, but it was a member of the committee. But the proposal was that at that time, there should be a bit more additional detail provided.
Senator Batters: I thought that was pretty much always done. I know for Legal Committee reports that generally is always done.
The Chair: But we don’t always do that.
Paragraphs 138 and 139?
Senator Batters: At the end of paragraph 139, to make it clearer, it said — and, again, this was my comment — “that Senate Committees Directorate is responsible for supporting committees and developing a communication strategy.” However, I think it should end with, “to promote the work of Senate committees.”
The Chair: Okay. We are now at the end of it. We now have Appendix A.
Senator Saint-Germain: Why do we end the list of witnesses at November 21 when we had additional witnesses after that and we have not reported yet? What’s the issue?
We refer to some leaders who were witnesses — not all of them; we made an edit. It’s not that I don’t want my name to be there, but it’s not accurate. The last day we received the witnesses is not November 21.
Mr. Thompson: No, senator, but when we had last prepared this draft, I think the committee had planned to deal with rule 12-18 almost as a separate, standalone study. That is why it was not addressed more directly in here. We can certainly add in the testimony from, I believe, December 5, if my memory serves correctly.
Senator Saint-Germain: Okay.
The Chair: Okay.
Erin Virgint, Analyst, Library of Parliament: In terms of the evidence that was summarized in this report, it’s only up until that day. November 21 was the final chair; I think it was the Finance Committee.
The Chair: So your name will be in the report too?
Ms. Virgint: The next one.
The Chair: The report on the rules? We are going to pursue the witness of the leaders next week with the other subject.
Senator Batters: On page 39, concerning the Tuesday, October 3 witnesses, I notice that former Senator Andreychuk is listed as former committee chair, but it doesn’t say what committees. For former Senator Joyal, who is in a similar situation, it does list which committee for him. I think it would be appropriate to list Senator Andreychuk’s also.
The Chair: Okay. Are we ready to put forward those changes and to table the report? There’s no recommendation.
The title?
Senator Saint-Germain: Listening and reporting?
The Chair: Yes. It’s the report entitled Committee Structure and Mandates: Summary of Evidence.
Mr. Thompson: Yes, Committee Structure and Mandates: Summary of Evidence.
The Chair: It’s going to be Report 1. Report 2 would be amendments proposed to some rules, if we can get those. Okay.
Then we will have the witnesses in Report 2.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain, your testimony regarding the days and everything else will be included in Report 2.
[English]
Mr. Thompson: Senators, we have made some changes here. Do you want the draft report brought back here or are you content to defer the final approval to steering? Okay. The minutes will note that.
The Chair: Okay. We will conclude our meeting today on that note. We will have an executive steering committee in the moments after we adjourn.
[Translation]
Thank you very much. We will see each other next week to resume our deliberations on this important subject. We hope to make progress before the end of the session in June. We have several reports coming down the pipeline. Thank you very much. See you next week.
(The committee adjourned.)