THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 27, 2024
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:31 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), to consider possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Welcome, everyone. My name is Diane Bellemare and I am Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
Today we are continuing our deliberations and will be welcoming witnesses as part of our study on committees, and in particular rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) regarding leave on Mondays and Tuesdays.
Before turning the floor over to our two witnesses, I would like committee members around the table to identify themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Mégie: Hello. I’m Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Hello, Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Ontario.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
The Chair: We’re going to start by giving the floor to our two witnesses, Senator Cordy, former facilitator or leader of the Progressive Senate Group, and Senator Gold, government representative in the Senate.
We’re going to ask what you think about slightly amending rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2), which sometimes slow down committee work because committees can’t meet at the same time as the Senate is sitting.
We’re also going to ask you about a change to another rule that was proposed during Senator Plett’s testimony, namely changing the 6 p.m. meal break rule to have one-hour meal breaks instead of two hours, and maybe have them at 7 p.m. instead of 6 p.m.
You haven’t had much time for reflection, but we discussed this at our last meetings, so we’d like to take this opportunity to hear your thoughts on the subject.
The floor is yours, Senator Cordy.
[English]
Hon. Jane Cordy: It’s great to be here. It’s a little bit different to be on this side of the table, being a witness, and I’ll tell you later whether or not it’s better to be a witness or a committee member.
I’d like to thank the previous witnesses, my fellow leaders and facilitator for their thoughts and perspectives so far. It’s certainly been an interesting and informative dialogue that we’ve had as a committee. We’ve certainly brought forward some excellent proposals worthy of consideration by this committee, and I’m energized by all the new ideas and suggested ways of work we’ve been exploring for Senate reform at this committee and in other discussions in and around in the hallways of the Senate. It’s perhaps an advantage for me to go last, along with Senator Gold, so that I can give my thoughts on what’s been proposed already on this subject and what I would propose as well.
I’d like to state from the outset that the views are mine and mine alone. PSG members, as other groups, are independent, and people have their own ideas. This is not something that I’ve discussed with my caucus or colleagues before appearing before the committee.
As we’re all aware, the current discussion revolves around rule 12-18 of the Rules of the Senate. I’d like to address each of the parts and then provide some further thoughts around meetings of committees generally. I don’t have it in my notes about the break time, but I can do that during question period perhaps.
Rule 12-18(1) prohibits committee meetings while the Senate is sitting. To me, the outcome of this rule is that it ensures that senators are free to engage fully in performing each of their various duties. They can listen and participate at debates in the chamber while at other times participate entirely at committee hearings. We no longer live in a time where the Senate would simply adjourn after a few minutes, having only a few government bills on the Order Paper — our days are pretty full — so that we could spend time at committees. I believe it’s a positive thing that senators are in the chamber to hear debates on legislation. Our primary role is to deal with government legislation. There are exceptions, of course, when committees like National Finance need additional time to do their studies of legislation and government finances. I think that, for the most part, we have been able to figure out how to make the exceptions work in the chamber.
I know there’s frequent frustration when committee meetings are cancelled, particularly on Tuesdays. I echo the frustrations about cancelled meetings and the impeded progress of legislation or studies that committees are doing, but I’m also mindful that a free-for-all of combined Senate sittings and committee meetings could create capacity challenges that we couldn’t overcome. I, for one, am unable to be in two places at the same time. I know women can do 10 chores at the same time, but being in two places is a bit more challenging. Having to choose whether I would stay for the debate in the Senate or whether I would go to committee is not something I would like to be doing on a regular basis.
We may also have to greatly increase our human resources capacity, because every time we have a committee sitting when the Senate is sitting, it requires more resources. We know that, even now, resources are stretched to, I would say, capacity and on some days beyond capacity. We have to consider the people who support the Senate’s work in the chamber and in committees, and we have to consider the financial impacts of employing personnel whose presence might not actually be necessary on a regular basis.
It would be my view that an acceptable compromise would be to first apply a sessional order to allow for committees to sit while the Senate is sitting, but only in the study of government legislation. I’m mindful that committee members, including me, have already heard from others about sessional orders. They’re not always a bad thing. Sessional orders have long been employed as a means of trying out a possible rule change. In this case, we also prioritize government business elsewhere in our proceedings and committees. It would be a natural extension to prioritize it here. It should not impact greatly our own ability to do our duty diligently nor impact support personnel whose capacity already allows for both sittings and some meetings to occur at the same time. If the sessional order works well, then make it part of our rules. If for some reason it doesn’t, then it could continue as a sessional order or on a case-by-case matter.
As to rule 12-18(2), I believe the situation is more complicated. It’s not just about meetings on Mondays. As others have noted, the substance of this rule has been in place for a very long time. It has been, however, also routinely suspended by sessional order to allow committees to meet at their discretion.
I was in the Senate when previous discussions occurred around those sessional orders. One of the reasons for discontinuing the practice, if not the only reason, centred around the notification of senators of meetings. During a meeting of this very committee to which the sessional motion had been referred to in November 2002, former Senator Joyal noted:
If we are to be called to sit on a committee during an adjournment week, we have to know ahead of time and not two days ahead of time. Canada is a huge country. If we are informed on Thursday that the following week, when we are supposed to be adjourned, a committee will sit, it may present a problem for some committee members. Some of us may have organized our agendas differently.
I do not have an objection in principle to committees sitting when we are adjourned. However, the idea of a fixed calendar was to help us to manage our agenda, to enable us to be in attendance when the Senate sits and to use the other weeks for business and other activities. Many of us schedule speaking engagements and other meetings and events during non-sitting weeks in our provinces.
I was a member of one such committee at a time when long and frequent meetings were arbitrarily called by the chair, who lived in Ottawa. Senator Plett referenced this in his comments. It was indeed a challenge faced by many senators on various committees. I can assure you that the practice makes it extremely difficult to schedule travel and other priorities. I try to meet with constituents in Nova Scotia when I can, and unexpected committee meetings for senators who are not from Ottawa can create difficulties. It was one thing in the distant past, even before my time, for a committee chair to call meetings on a whim. Travel options were such that many senators did not leave Ottawa. They came to Ottawa by train in September and stayed until Christmas. I’m glad we don’t do that anymore. The Senate sat many Mondays and Fridays, and sometimes committees would even sit on the weekend. No one from the West or Atlantic Canada travelled back home. Travel is certainly much easier today, but not as easy as it was before COVID, I must say, looking at my flight schedule from Nova Scotia. There used to be six or seven direct flights a day. They were the good old days. So we have to weigh the pros and cons of any decision.
I would like to address two parts of the rule. Part (a) is relatively easy. It is not an impediment to having committees meet during the usual sitting week when the Senate has adjourned the previous Thursday. It allows for sufficient time to make travel arrangements or other preparations.
Part (b) has been a bone of contention in these discussions so far. I understand the frustration. To disallow a committee to meet during its regular time slot on a Monday after a break week, for political or other reasons, is arbitrary and unfair.
I would point out that this part also contains its own remedy, though I know it seems a substantial hurdle to some, that a committee can meet whenever it likes by order of the Senate. Historically, and in the absence of a sessional order, these types of motions were common. We are not without tools in our tool box to address many of the common complaints that arise.
I would note that Monday meetings were already considered by the Rules Committee when undertaking its study that I mentioned previously. Their report on the sessional order was adopted on November 7, 2002. It said:
Your Committee, to which was referred by the Senate on Thursday, October 31, 2002, the motion that for the duration of the present session any select committee may meet during adjournments of the Senate, reports as follows:
Your committee recommends that, for the purpose of rule 95(3), committees of the Senate be permitted to meet at any time on any weekday the Senate stands adjourned during a Senate sitting week.
That simple recommendation solved the Monday problem for that session, at least.
It’s been suggested to eliminate the rule entirely. I don’t share that view, but that doesn’t mean that it should be left as it is. I would argue that if we believe in independence and equal value of leaders and facilitators, then all of us should be included. I would agree that a majority would be sufficient to provide that consent but, again, I would prefer to see this come forth now as a sessional order.
I think that if we’ve learned anything, it should be that the Senate, the institution, the people in it and its priorities are ever changing. That’s a positive thing.
Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for that testimony. We will now hear from Senator Gold.
Hon. Marc Gold: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Colleagues, it’s a real pleasure to be with you.
[English]
Thank you for the invitation to speak. I’m going to focus largely, though not exclusively, on rule 12-18. I appreciate your seeking my views, the views of the Government Representative’s Office, on this.
Before I get into the substance of it, just to remind us — in a way, Senator Cordy alluded to it more directly — the rule we’re discussing, 12-18(2)(b)(ii), talks about “the signed consent of the Leaders of the Government and Opposition.” It’s just another example of the need to change terminology, which I know had been discussed by you in your earlier look at the Rules as an area of consensus.
To the point about Monday committee meetings, it’s clear that the committees that meet on Mondays are impacted negatively by the rule. The inability to meet just because two leaders refuse permission seriously cuts into the hours that those committees need to do their proper planning, much less to do their actual work. Whether it’s the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, Veterans Affairs, Official Languages or Human Rights, they should be able to meet every sitting week, as other committees do, but over the past year, as we all know, they’ve only been able to meet as often as committees that are only intended to sit every two weeks. It’s just not fair, or not reasonable.
I know the committee has also looked into concerns raised by those standing committees that are scheduled to meet on Tuesday evenings and their inability to do so when the Senate sits late on those days — which often occurs because our Order Paper is longer than it was in the old days, for reasons of which you’re all aware. I know you’ve heard different views on the topic. Let me share my view. It’s simply this: I believe that committees dealing with government business should have or could have permission to meet while the Senate is sitting, especially when our chamber is seized with a larger volume of government business during our parliamentary calendar, as is typically the case as we approach extended breaks in our calendar.
If I can open up a sidebar before I come back to this, I know that your committee has also considered the need — and this is not on this rule — for a timelier response by the government for delayed answers and written questions. It was suggested by Senator Quinn. I know this is an important issue. I’ve spoken about it in the chamber. If your committee is willing to take this on at some point, I would suggest that you give serious consideration to the rules in the House about this — for example, putting a limit on the number of written questions that a member may put forward to ensure fairness in the process to all senators who would like to d so. I think consideration could be given to the timeline for the government to respond, such as, I’m going to suggest, 60 calendar days or more — it’s obviously for you to consider — a reasonable time so that the departments and agencies are able to deal with the higher volume of parliamentary returns, considering both what they get from the other place and what is coming from here. On that, I’ll end, but I do invite you, as I have in the chamber, to consider that. I think it would be a good thing for the Senate, and it would make my job somewhat more pleasant and easier.
Returning to 12-18(2)(b) specifically, I think that committees that are scheduled to meet on Mondays should be treated like all others. They should not require permission to meet following a break week. I see no logical reason for such committees, simply because they’re configured on an agreed-upon schedule, to be treated differently than any other standing committee. These committees deserve the same scheduling and planning options as all others.
Giving, in essence, a veto to two leaders to approve such meetings is an outdated practice. It doesn’t reflect the existing configuration and plurality of groups that are in place — a point that Senator Cordy also underlined. Indeed, Senator Plett himself noted, in his appearance before this committee earlier this month, that the provision reflected a time in the Senate’s history in which there were only two recognized parties, government and opposition, and that’s no longer the case. Committees now consist of representations from four different recognized parties and parliamentary groups.
I also understand that both Senator Saint-Germain and Senator Tannas have appeared before your committee on this issue and proposed that the rule be abolished or that Monday be interpreted as part of the normal sitting week. I agree with them and would propose an interpretive clause to the rule so that Mondays are deemed part of the sitting week. In essence, this interpretive clause would mean that if the Senate is sitting Tuesday through Thursday during a normal sitting week, Senate committees with a Monday time slot could meet without needing any additional permission. That’s one way to accomplish that objective.
On longer periods of adjournment, such as the summer break or the break around the winter holiday, I believe that a more equitable approach to committee scheduling would be to apply a 50% plus 1 rule, majority rule, to written requests. If a written request comes from the chair or deputy chair of a committee, then you would need 50% plus 1, involving the government, the opposition and the three largest recognized parties and parliamentary groups. I would cap it at that. That’s what the Parliament of Canada Act does. It can be revisited in the future, but for the moment, that’s what I would recommend you consider. It’s going to be rare that this provision would be used, colleagues, I would hope, but I think it would be appropriate to involve the recognized groups and parties if a request does come from a committee. Senators can readily plan ahead to attend Monday meetings during sitting weeks. That’s a no-brainer, but to come in the middle of a Christmas break with your family, or a summer holiday, is a quite different matter, logistical and perhaps others. Therefore, there has to be at least majority support among the leaders to summon committee members on what could be short notice. I take your point also, Senator Cordy, because we can’t participate virtually, which is another subject that we’re not going to discuss further today, but that’s just the consequence of not having hybrid options.
We’ve heard from committee chairs that the current rules create uncertainty when they’re developing work plans, complicate senators’ travel plans, and, frankly, this provision can also be utilized as a delay tactic to prevent committees from making reasonable progress on bills or other items. I note that Senator Plett raised the idea of a sessional order that would allow Monday meetings to meet without permission, providing they are doing government business. Colleagues, the work of a Monday committee is no different than the work of any other committee, and they study issues of national interest. They should not be subject, in my opinion, to different rules.
As Senator Cordy mentioned, it’s only a very recent practice that Monday committees have been denied permission to meet. From the inception of Monday committees nearly 23 years ago, up to and including the Forty-second Parliament, there was a sessional order at each and every session allowing Monday committees to meet, and not specifically on government business. The sessional orders allowing Monday meetings were granted without issue as the need for permission was intended for periods for longer adjournment. I will refer you without quoting — I’ve taken up enough time in my remarks — to the fifth report of the committee back in 2002 which Senator Cordy alluded to for which they gave the rationale. I don’t think that our colleagues at that time intended for this rule to treat Monday rules differently.
To conclude, the Senate and its committees must operate efficiently to best serve Canadians. Senator Deacon (Ontario), at this committee, recently pointed to the study done by the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs on Bill C-21 in the fall as an example of where permission was denied for Monday meetings, and this resulted in the delay of testimony by over 27 witnesses. That’s just to be avoided.
May I put on the record, colleagues, that as Government Representative, I have not ever denied permission for committees to sit on Mondays.
Thank you again for your invitation to discuss the rule and for your work on this important matter. The Senate’s work must not be hindered by outdated rules, and I look forward to any questions you may have.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Gold. Thank you very much, Senator Cordy; that was very interesting. We’ll now open the floor to questions.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you and congratulations to you both. You bring an added value to our work on this issue and I very much appreciate it.
Senator Gold, you anticipated my first question, as I wanted to ask if you agree that Monday should be considered part of the sitting week; thank you for your response.
Senator Cordy, as you have extensive experience in the Senate and are among the deans, I would like to know, on this question of Monday committees, whether these committees are being deprived of the expertise of certain senators who may be qualified to sit on them but are unable to because of the region they represent. Because of their location, they would have to leave on Sundays, so they do not sit on these committees.
Should we rethink the committees that sit on Monday evenings to identify those that have a more administrative and technical vocation and are less likely to sit, particularly on government bills?
[English]
Senator Cordy: First of all, I’d like to also comment on Mondays being considered a sitting day. I have one page where I thought about what questions would be asked. Senator Gold, you actually answered that. I think Mondays should be considered a sitting day. When you said why should it just be for government business, and I hadn’t even thought about that, but why should a Monday committee meeting be any different from any other committee? We’re having two classes of committees.
Your question was related to Monday sittings, and I’ve had people in the Progressive Senate Group talk to me about that. If you’re from the West, you can’t participate in a Monday committee because you can’t get there unless you come in on Sunday, and that is unfair. The reality is that we are a huge country from coast to coast to coast, and people can’t get the travel arrangements. I jokingly talked about travel being easier before COVID, even to come from Nova Scotia. I think I’ve had one flight since September that actually has been on time, in addition to getting flights that have stopovers in either Toronto or Montreal, so it’s a long day, and I’m not that far away compared to people who are living in the Prairies or in British Columbia or in the North. So it is a very good point that you’ve raised.
I don’t know how you do it, whether we juggle committees around so that, after every session, maybe we schedule Monday committees to another day. I know, and I think I said in my comments, that when those committees first came in back in 2000 or 2001, and I was brand new at the time, they said that if we were going to have them, they had to be on Mondays, but that was over 20 years ago. I think we can look at it with fresh eyes and say that some committees have to sit on Monday because of resources, time, staffing and room allocations, but does it have to be the same committees for 20 years? That’s a really good question that you have asked.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Gold, do you have anything to add on the subject of administrative committees?
Senator Gold: I understand the question, but I haven’t thought about it, so I’m not going to comment on it.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Good morning, colleagues, and thank you for being here.
We’re talking about Monday committees. You know that RIDR meets on Mondays, and it’s been a challenge for us because we sometimes get government legislation, yet the studies that we’ve done and you’ve seen recently have been very timely and very well received.
The challenge you mentioned, Senator Cordy, was that some of our senators, if they have to come for a 4:00 meeting, have to come on Sunday, which is not fair to them. If they go home Friday, they basically spend Saturday at home and then come back.
We came up with a solution a few years ago where we asked for a time slot, and Wednesday at lunch was free. RIDR was then meeting between 11:30 and 1:30 on Wednesdays, but somehow we lost that slot. It made it so much easier. Besides the challenge of getting all the senators to come here, it’s a challenge to find replacements if you can’t be there. I’ve tried to get back our Wednesday slot. We’ve been told that it’s not possible, not enough staff or resources. Maybe that’s something we need to look at.
Also, regarding the Monday meetings, I try to accommodate. On this committee, we work on consensus. We try to accommodate senators who say, “We don’t want a 4:00 meeting. Let’s do a 5:00 meeting.” That, again, cuts into our meeting time, which is supposed to be four hours.
I know you kind of answered this question, but I wanted to put it out there that this is a challenge. We did find a solution that worked very well for us. I’m still trying to get that Wednesday slot back, but I haven’t been successful.
Senator Gold: I appreciate the challenge. I have nothing really to say about the scheduling of that. That is not something from our office. I know that you have looked at scheduling meetings. I don’t know why the Friday meeting isn’t possible.
Senator Ataullahjan: Wednesday.
Senator Gold: I beg your pardon, senator, Wednesday. I sympathize with the challenge, really. The work that committees do outside of government business is important, at least certainly the studies are. I will reserve judgment on other aspects that seem to occupy our Order Paper too much, but I certainly support the idea of treating Monday committees as any other committee, with whatever work the committee and the Senate deems important.
Senator Cordy: I was on the Human Rights Committee, and I know that we actually had most of our meetings on Wednesdays because it worked out for everybody. If we really had to, we used the Monday afternoon.
Last week and this week, I was asked to substitute for a colleague in our group. Last week, the committee had to sit for two hours instead of four because the Senate sat at 6 p.m. This week, I was going to be coming again and was told, no, that the committee wasn’t meeting because the Senate was sitting at 6 p.m. Two out of a possible eight hours in the last two weeks is what happened. It is a challenge for the good work that you are doing.
Senator Batters: Thank you to both of you for being here.
Senator Cordy, you made some excellent points about the difficulties of travel, and certainly I have seen that, coming from Saskatchewan.
In your comment about committees sitting during non-sitting times, you also pointed out that currently that can, of course, occur by order of the Senate as well. When you said that you don’t share the view that that particular rule as it exists right now should be eliminated, you said that all leaders should be included in the decision about that. Were you expressing that the leaders’ decision be unanimous or a majority?
Senator Cordy: I would say a majority.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: I didn’t make that clear. Sorry.
Senator Batters: That’s all right. That’s why I wanted to get confirmation.
Senator Gold, when you were speaking about committees dealing with government business should be able to meet when Senate is sitting, you gave one example where that may not have occurred. Wouldn’t you agree that it generally has occurred for the last several years? There have been many occasions where, when needed, the committees dealing with government business, especially if it’s of an urgent nature and needs to be dealt with quickly, have sat when the Senate is sitting?
Senator Gold: Senator, thank you. That’s a fair comment, especially when, as I said, there are times of the year when, for various reasons, our Order Paper is quite consumed with government business.
I have said this before this committee, so I’m like a broken record here, but I do believe that, in light of the changes to the Senate, our rules should reflect now the fact that there is not just government and opposition whose consent would be required. A motion can always be put on the table. I think you made this point, Senator Cordy. The Senate can decide over the objections of the minority leaders or otherwise, but I do think that, as a general rule, a majority of all the recognized groups and parties should be an appropriate new approach given the changing complexion of the Senate.
Senator Batters: You were speaking about the longer periods of adjournment. That’s what you were proposing, that 50% plus 1 rule of the leaders of the groups of government, opposition and the three largest parties. I’m assuming that you kept it to that because of how the Parliament of Canada Act recently got changed. But under that scenario, Senator Gold, you seemingly could have a situation where both the government and the opposition disagree, and the other three groups want to go ahead with it. What do you think about that? More importantly, what does the government think about that?
Senator Gold: When I appear in this capacity, I’m reflecting the views of the government.
The changes to the Senate are consequential not only for individual senators who have decided to be non-affiliated with a political party but, certainly, for the government and for the opposition. I won’t be shy about stating that, at times, there are roles, privileges, prerogatives — choose your term — that I think the government needs to retain given that our primary function is to evaluate and deal with government legislation. In other respects, this government is committed to modernizing the Senate. It’s committed to a less partisan Senate, not defined by the same dynamic that you would see in the House. The consequence of that is the government has to water its wine in cases.
In my appearances before this committee when you were looking at equity and fairness in the rules, I don’t remember everything that I said, but I do remember expressing the government’s support for a series of rule changes beyond nomenclature which would have given other parliamentary groups a role in decisions that we otherwise would take only as government and opposition.
Senator Batters: Senator Gold, I need to go on briefly to the comments you made about potentially limiting the number of written questions that can be put forward by a senator simply, frankly, because your government seems to be completely incapable of getting us answers in reasonable time frames. You proposed that as one suggestion, and then you also proposed that there maybe should be a limit of 60 calendar days. Recently, Senator Quinn told us that the House of Commons has a limit of 45 days for a written answer to be provided. Why would the Senate have a longer time frame than the House of Commons if we decided to go to a time frame?
Senator Gold: If you are going to consider any such rule change, then I would suggest that you will decide that, and I hope we’ll hear further evidence on what the capacity is in the ministries to respond. We don’t want to create a rule that will disappoint us. I suggested 60 days rather than 45 days because I thought that would be a prudent way to effect the change from no rule to having it more limited.
I also suggested limitations of number of questions. The House of Commons has such a rule. No individual member can submit dozens and dozens of questions and expect answers back in that period of 45 days in their case. I think we should have a similar rule that would limit the number that each senator can ask and expect an answer within whatever time this committee, if it chooses to act, defines.
Senator Busson: When I put my hand up, I was not looking over Senator Saint-Germain’s shoulder, but I also want to talk about the Monday meetings. I appreciate your input and perspectives on the Monday meetings.
As we were talking, I looked up the membership for National Defence. They are all important committees, but this is an incredibly important committee. For a period of time, there hasn’t been anyone on that committee west of the Ontario border. I’m one of the persons who would love to be on that committee, but it really calls for a big work-life balance decision if I were to put my name in for that. I just want to reiterate the fact that I think more should be done around changing that conundrum for people and representation for all Canadians to have an opportunity to be represented on that and other important committees such as Human Rights. Apart from the fact that it’s a long way, there is a three-hour time zone challenge that is added to that for the West Coast.
As we talk about modernizing the Senate, things like three-hour committee meetings rather than two two-hour committee meetings and having fewer members at each committee so that we have a better chance of people being able to be on the committees that they would like, I would like to get your comment on whether you think that that’s a priority and what you think could be done to eliminate the need for people to make those kinds of family choices to come to Monday meetings.
Senator Cordy: I think your comments are spot-on. We have heard similar comments, sitting in your place, from other witnesses speaking on it. We have to look at that. We have to look at the fact, as I said earlier, that when these committees agreed to sit on Mondays, that was over 20 years ago. The time has come that we can rearrange them. Not every year, because you want continuity when somebody starts a session, but at the start of every new session, perhaps we could have a juggling of some of the committees.
Nobody has brought up the Tuesday evening meetings, and I’m on the Fisheries and Oceans Committee and you are on the Fisheries and Oceans Committee. We have not had a Tuesday evening meeting in a very long time, and when we do schedule a Tuesday evening meeting, we have had to cancel. In the last year, we had to cancel so many meetings where we have witnesses already sitting at the table, so now, when we have a Tuesday meeting, it’s to plan a report or it’s to plan future business, something that is not involving people coming from away to appear as witnesses. That’s very valuable time for us to be doing those things, but we could also be looking at witnesses.
There are a lot of things that we should be looking at. Fisheries and Oceans is not the only Tuesday committee that’s been affected. We have to look at either stopping at 6:00 so committees can sit or not having Tuesday meetings at all. I don’t know what the answer is. I have juggled a lot of these things in my head.
You have certainly raised really good issues. Three hours instead of two so that you just meet once a week instead of twice a week is also a possibility. Four-hour meetings, I have to say by the fourth hour, I would be pretty weary and would hope that my turn to ask questions would run in the first couple of hours, not in the fourth hour. Three hours would probably be very doable.
Senator Gold: Briefly, I think it is important that senators sit on committees not only where their interest is but where they bring an expertise, and it’s important that the diversity of our country be reflected on committees. That’s the problem that you identified very well. The solution is not as obvious, and if it was, we probably would be there. I know this committee has been seized with this and other processes on modernization about committees and the number of committees and composition of committees. There is something not right when you have a committee that simply does not represent the country and maybe not have the benefit of some senators who bring tremendous expertise and experience in addition to interest.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My question may seem out of context, but I want to come back to it. When we talk about Mondays, we could also talk about Tuesdays when we’re forced to cancel meetings.
I remember that at Ms. Anwar’s appearance, she brought a fully detailed and well-thought-out schedule. There was a certain degree of rigidity in the time slots, but there were places where we could cut an hour or two. It’s complicated, but it can be done.
Can we cut time, for example, when the bells ring? We could come to an agreement between us, not on a piecemeal basis, but agree in general that the bells should ring for 15 minutes, for example. You know, when you have two votes and each vote takes up an hour of the evening, that’s it for the evening, there’s not much time to do anything. If we wanted to squeeze things in to increase the time we spend in committee, wouldn’t that be one of the things to consider?
There’s also the possibility of sitting in hybrid mode for committees. A number of them already do this, and it helps a lot. However, Ms. Anwar was saying that it requires a lot more interpreters in terms of outside resources.
What do you think? Is there any way to consider these two points?
Senator Gold: Thank you for the question, colleague.
In the first instance, the question of bells is complicated, because there are times when groups need a longer period to discuss. For example, when someone tables an amendment without notice and the groups haven’t had a chance to discuss it and address the issue, that’s why we have our rules and processes. I’m frankly not in a position… I wouldn’t be comfortable with a rigid rule that sets the time for bells. I think there are too many variables for that to really work.
As for the second question, I wouldn’t say it’s a can of worms, but it’s a major issue that I hope the Senate will look at again. There’s no doubt that not being able to attend committee meetings poses problems for those with medical and family reasons. It’s an issue on which there’s no consensus, and I accept that, but personally, I’d love to see the Senate rethink this and take a serious look at it again. Perhaps this committee could look into it. There are other parliaments around the world that have different systems, not just a buffet with no constraints and no parameters. I think it would be worth studying in due course.
[English]
Senator Cordy: I’ve thought a lot about hybrid meetings and the possibility of having them. I thought first maybe Monday hybrid meetings would work really well, but they don’t. If you are flying from Vancouver, you can’t be participating in the hybrid meeting on an airplane or certainly not waiting by the gate with your iPad on, attending your meeting. We have to examine possibilities, but we also have to look at the pros and cons. Sometimes the possibility that is brought forward creates as many or even more problems. A lot of people have been through this, so let’s really look at what will work and what won’t work. It’s important.
Senator Omidvar: All of my questions have been answered. I would like to make an observation that the committees that meet on Mondays, because of the problems that have been already articulated, are really treated like second-class citizens in the Senate, and that cannot be tolerated any further.
The Chair: I think you are right.
Senator Batters: Senator Gold, earlier you were saying that you have not ever denied permission for Senate committees to meet. I note that you came into your position after the SNC-Lavalin scandal, so you weren’t in a position where you had a very contentious situation like that previously.
In the current scenario, what if we had a situation where the majority of the Senate caucus and group leaders agreed to bring a Senate committee back during a non-sitting week to grill the government on, for example, the ArriveCAN scandal? Currently, you are able to deny that permission as the Leader of the Government. What do you think about a situation like that? It isn’t necessarily on current bills being studied or things like that, but it could be, as many times in the House of Commons, on very important scandals that are going on.
Senator Gold: A good question, Senator Batters. I can always count on you to — c’est la question qui tue, as we say in French. The truth is I have to be consistent. Would I like that? No. I’m not here to defend or to criticize whatever the motivation might be. The fact is that it’s still the case that a majority of leaders of the groups should have, with few exceptions, a role to play in decisions that were hitherto made only by government and opposition. You have raised a good question. I will certainly reflect upon it further.
Senator Batters: You said earlier you were looking at one matter to make your job somewhat more pleasant and easier; that’s not my job because, for the opposition caucus, it’s our job to challenge the government.
Having a blanket permission for committees to sit when the Senate chamber is sitting will take a large number of senators out of the chamber when important matters are being deliberated in the Senate chamber. With four of the current five groups in the Senate having very small numbers of senators, that will have a major impact on all of those groups because their members are not able to be in two places at one time. While I might want to be in the Senate debating and asking you questions about an important bill that’s being debated in the Senate, I might be called out if my committee is consistently having meetings while the Senate is sitting. What do you have to say about that?
Senator Gold: Fair. Senator, I hope I didn’t give the wrong impression. All I said was that I think committees should have the right to sit on government business when the Senate is sitting, as sometimes happens. I wasn’t necessarily getting into the details of whether that should be a blanket rule or to obviate the need for consent.
As you and your leader know, I believe being in the chamber and debating matters is a fundamental part of our role. I have been flexible with my colleagues at the leadership table when objections have been made about Senate committees sitting. At the same time, I have appreciated the acceptance of some leaders, reluctantly, that we do that at times. Finance is often an example that’s cited because of the important work that they do regularly in our sessions.
I think it’s fundamentally important that we minimize those circumstances. I would restrict it certainly for government business and only when it’s necessary, for reasons that we would all agree are necessary. In that regard, I’m not sure I have thought about it any further than that. That’s really what I wanted to communicate in my remarks.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a question about the majority of leaders and facilitators. Do you think it should be the majority of leaders and facilitators with a majority of senators? Should we have a double majority if this was the rule, a majority of leaders and facilitators and a majority of senators? In other words, two or three small groups can get together to call a meeting or a committee?
Senator Cordy: I haven’t thought about that. It’s an interesting question. I would have to think about it. Are we talking about a majority of leaders or a majority of senators represented by those leaders? I don’t know.
Senator Gold: I haven’t thought about that either. I will think about it. Whatever the committee comes up with, I’ll have an opportunity to comment on it in the chamber or in the hallways.
I have some reservations about it because all groups that have reached that level of being recognized are deserving of being treated equitably. Bravo for those groups that have more members. Some groups have fewer members, but it doesn’t diminish the importance of those groups themselves and their right to be represented by their leaders or facilitators and to have them participate in these kinds of discussions.
If we look at the Parliament of Canada Act amendments that we passed — please correct me if I’m wrong, as it’s been awhile since we dealt with that — there were a number of circumstances where leaders of the five groups, as opposed to the government and opposition, now have a role, as they didn’t in the past, in making decisions about nominees, parliamentary officers and things like that. There was never a discussion then that we would need a double majority for that.
Those are my first reflections. I encourage you to consider it further.
The Chair: I did not want to start a debate. It’s only a suggestion of numbers.
Senator Cordy: We are in small groups. It’s an interesting question.
Senator Saint-Germain: I believe that any decision in our democratic institution should respect the views of the majority. If we allow only small groups to make a decision, that would represent only a minority. Senators could appeal this decision in the chamber, and then we can have a vote. The best-case scenario is that we have an agreement that is respectful of all groups; however, a majority of senators have to be in agreement with it, otherwise it would be something that is unfair. Consensus is not always possible. This is a part of democracy. The views of the majority have to prevail.
[Translation]
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
[English]
May I summarize the consensus, because we are approaching the closing of the witnesses around rule 12-18.
I understand that for most senators around the table, and witnesses we heard from today, there is a principle that we all agree on: that, as a matter of principle and as often as possible, Senate committees shouldn’t sit while the Senate sits because senators want to do both. Senators want to sit in the Senate and in committees.
Committees that have to sit on Mondays have to be treated equally. They should be included in the week. We have to find some solution so they are not treated differently.
On Tuesdays, possibly committees could sit if they have government bills. It could be a possibility to have that in a sessional order. What I heard from those present is that sessional orders would be preferable as an experiment rather than change the rule right away.
I see some heads nodding. On the other side? So it’s not a consensus on sessional orders. May I hear from you?
Senator Woo: I agree with everything you said up until the last point about sessional orders.
The Chair: Okay. Are there any other comments?
Senator Cordy: You did ask in your opening comments about the dinner break.
The Chair: Yes. I forgot about that.
When Senator Plett was a witness, the question was asked about changing the practice of having the dinner break for two hours to one hour, and we could have the dinner break at 7 p.m. instead of 6 p.m. When we are sometimes really short — we still have business to do, but maybe only 45 minutes — instead of seeing the clock at 6 p.m. and coming back at 8 p.m. for 45 minutes, if we were seeing the clock at 7 p.m., it would enable us to finish our business without having to come back at night. That was an interesting idea. It’s time to hear from you about it.
Senator Gold: Well, it is an interesting idea. If we are sitting late, it’s not unfair to have a break. I hadn’t thought about it. I missed that in the testimony; forgive me. But I’ll certainly consider it. It doesn’t strike me as an unacceptable compromise to the challenges we sometimes face when we have a little bit more to do but not a full evening.
Senator Cordy: I would agree with Senator Gold’s comments, but I think we would also have to be reassured that the cafeteria would remain open until 8:00, because I’ve gone there some days and they’re closing up at 7:00.
The Chair: I think that has changed. I think now they are open until the Senate is finished.
[Translation]
Are there any other comments?
[English]
If not, we’ll see you when we come back, and we’ll try to conclude on these issues. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)