THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
Ottawa, Tuesday, May 28, 2024
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:36 a.m. [ET] pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(c), in consideration of the orders and practices of the Senate and the privileges of Parliament.
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone.
I see that two people are not here today, and they are members of the Canadian Senators Group. Nevertheless, we will begin the meeting.
My name is Diane Bellemare, I’m a senator from Quebec and I’m chair of this committee. Before we begin, we’ll go around the table, starting on my right.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Salma Ataullahjan from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Ontario.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Michelle Audette from Quebec.
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mohammad Al Zaibak, Ontario.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today we have one item on the agenda, and it is a discussion about a pilot project proposal for committee scheduling throughout next year.
[English]
This pilot project was introduced by Senator Ringuette, and it was worked through with Shaila Anwar at that time. Ms. Anwar is now in charge of all the Senate, so she will not be with us today.
As you know — and I’ll be very brief — the objective of the pilot project was to have no committee meetings on Monday, because it was difficult to have regional representation. Monday is a day where people travel, and the objective also was to not have any meetings on Tuesday night, since Tuesday night we usually now sit late, and committees cannot meet while the Senate is functioning.
Senator Ringuette and Ms. Anwar created this proposition, so I will leave that to Senator Ringuette. As you know, you received comments from the Library of Parliament. The Library of Parliament, could, if you agree, just introduce briefly the pros and cons, as they see at it, and then we’ll have a round table and a formal presentation by Senator Ringuette.
François Delisle, Analyst, Library of Parliament: The Library of Parliament has prepared a general overview of what was heard during the meetings that took place. First of all, there were some constraints that were highlighted by Senator Bellemare, and those were also noted during the hearings that took place. One of them was a difficulty for Monday committee meetings to meet because of senators travelling on this day.
We also heard that the time of the adjournment may vary, which affects the capacity of committees to schedule meetings in advance.
The committee meetings, we heard, should not meet during parliamentary group meetings and caucus meetings. We also heard that committees, as we know, do not meet on Fridays.
We heard from Shaila Anwar on April 9. She presented an overview of the proposed changes. Basically, the Monday morning meetings would be cancelled, would not take place. Official Languages, or OLLO, would meet on Wednesday afternoon. National Security, or SECD, would meet on Tuesday morning, and Human Rights, or RIDR, would meet on Thursday morning. This was the first major block of changes.
There was also a rescheduling of Tuesday evening committees. For example, Environment — or ENEV — would move to Thursday morning. Also, Agriculture Committee, or AGFO, would move to Thursday morning, and Fisheries and Oceans, or POFO, would meet on Thursday morning. That is another block of changes.
However, certain committees would maintain their schedule of two hours. I have to mention that ENEV, RIDR, AGFO and POFO would meet for a three-hour schedule instead of two meetings of two hours. RIDR always met for four hours on Mondays.
Another important point to mention is that the Legal Committee, or LCJC, and the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee, or SOCI, would maintain their regular schedule, which consists of two blocks of two hours. The Finance Committee, or NFFN current Wednesday meeting would be moved to 11:30 a.m. on Wednesdays. Rules Committee, or RPRD, would meet on Thursdays from 11:30 to 1:30 . The same thing for Internal Economy, or CIBA, moved to Thursdays from 11:30 to 1:30 p.m.
It’s a general overview, and I remain available for your questions.
Senator Batters: I’m sure I will have much more to say later, but there is something that François noted that I don’t think is correct. He said the Rules Committee, on the proposed schedule, would meet on Thursdays from 11:30 to 1:30, but that’s actually not correct. It’s scheduled on this proposal — which was one of the major problems I had with it — for Wednesday night from 6:45 p.m. to 8:45 p.m., which would mean, as I’ve said before, for some of us, especially in the Conservative caucus, 13 hours straight of meetings. It also overlaps with a number of other meetings.
That’s the note that I have, unless that has changed. I don’t think so, because we haven’t received any modification.
The Chair: Thank you for this correction. That was an error. Indeed, the pilot that we have in front of us, it has scheduled RPRD on the Wednesday. In a previous document it was different, but the last one that was distributed to everyone put RPRD on Wednesday night.
Senator Batters: Was that a previous document that was sent out to our committee?
The Chair: Yes. That’s the good document that you —
Senator Batters: The one you said that had the Thursday morning.
The Chair: That was in the first, a few weeks ago.
Senator Batters: Not a few weeks ago to this committee, though.
The Chair: No.
Senator Batters: Because I never received the different version. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Ringuette, I believe you had your hand raised?
Senator Ringuette: If you’d like to go around the table, I’ll make my comments afterwards.
The Chair: Perfect. So we’re going to go around the table, to hear the position of committee members following the consultations that were held.
[English]
Senator Woo: Can we hear what this new schedule does to the overall allocation of available time for committees to meet and what it might mean for any special committees that may be set up in the future?
The Chair: Shaila is not here today. Perhaps Senator Ringuette, who worked with her, has the answer.
Senator Ringuette: Do you want me to answer that now?
The Chair: Absolutely.
Senator Ringuette: From my discussion with the Clerk, Ms. Anwar, this proposed pilot project would provide flexibility for 12 hours of interpretation and 12 hours of room availability in case a committee needs a special time for a special event or an emergency that needs to be dealt with by that committee. It frees up 12 hours’ worth of interpretation. We have a limited number of hours of interpretation at our disposal, so it would provide overall 12 hours of flex time for committees and for the Senate if they want to provide a certain special mandate to a committee on an urgent basis.
On the same issue of flexibility, one of the comments that I received and acted upon was in regard to Foreign Affairs, or AEFA, and that sometimes they need a different time frame in order to have the proper contact in another time zone. I have brought this issue to the Clerk, and she tells me that in the past, maybe it happens once every six months that a committee has that requirement, and that the Senate will be able to meet that requirement for that committee in whatever time zone is required.
Senator Woo: The 12 hours of flex time, is that all on the Monday that we freed up, or is it spread across the week?
Senator Ringuette: No. It’s spread across the week. There is no more Monday except if the Senate decides so.
Senator Woo: Then technically we have even more flex time if you were to count the Monday. Is that fair to say?
Senator Ringuette: Absolutely. It happens sometimes that the Senate does sit on Monday, starting at 6 p.m. I’ll leave it at that.
Senator Omidvar: I like this proposal primarily for one reason. The Monday committee meetings are not a good use of our time or attention because we rarely get people, and we have very little regional representation, which is a problem.
I like this proposal because it frees up some interpretation time and therefore provides some flexibility. It is a pilot. We’re not marrying this proposal forever. We’re testing it out, hopefully evaluating it, and we will be on a stronger footing once we have gained wisdom on this new proposal.
Senator Batters: Yet again, as we discuss this particular pilot project in the proposal, I will just note the previous comments I made on this. The first day we were presented with the pilot project, we had just gotten this schedule five minutes before the presentation started, and I made some quick comments of major problems I saw with this. That was on April 9.
When we discussed it again on April 30, I made the same comments that, given the situation in the Senate, where the government motion was being brought forward to take a way and dilute many powers of the opposition, we were not inclined to participate in a pilot project with respect to committee schedule. I repeated that at the last meeting we had on this. I also repeated on each of those last two occasions that I hadn’t received any answers to those major problems that I had raised. As was recited, some of the problems that I raised to the Library of Parliament analyst this morning, there are still no answers to those issues.
Since then, I noticed that the Canadian Senators Group has provided an email to our committee that has many different objections that they also have to this proposed schedule. I know their committee members are not able to be here today, and I think that is part of the reason they provided that email in writing to us. Regardless, they have some very significant concerns, and they’re not able to be here today to elaborate on them but they are well articulated in the email.
So yet again, given the situation that was now forced with time allocation by the government to have significant Rules changes that have gone through, we’re not inclined to participate in the pilot project.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I know what I’m about to say has already been said by others, but I just wanted to back it up one more time. I agree with this change, given that since I arrived in the Senate, for several years now, it’s always the same old stories we hear, especially about the Monday meetings. Not only do I hear them, I live them, because I sit on the Official Languages Committee; at one time, I also sat on the Human Rights Committee, and the two committees met at roughly the same times. It was always the same problem: We were short of members because they were travelling that day. When it comes to the Senate, if it’s a day we can work, we’re told we’ve just come out of a break and can’t sit. So that takes away even more of our time. What’s more, when the Senate sits at 6 p.m. on a Monday, we lose more meeting days. It’s an important point to consider.
Then there’s the possibility of having the 12-hour flexibility for interpretation, depending on the meeting we’re at; you’ll understand that for me, that’s important, but it would be important for many of us too — not just me. I think I strongly support this pilot project. Moreover, since it’s a pilot project, we’ll be able to see what works; we’ll evaluate it and, in due course, if there are observations to be made, we’ll make them. If there are observations to be made, this doesn’t mean that everything should be thrown out. It may mean that we want to make a slight change to adapt the formula to everyone. These are the reasons why I’m in favour of it.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Did anybody look at the fact that some of us might have a conflict? I chair RIDR, but I’m also on the Fisheries Committee. What happens to that? More work needs to be done just considering that I have four committees. We don’t have the numbers — the Conservatives — so I want to know: Did any thought go into that process?
The Chair: I cannot answer for that.
Senator Ringuette: I feel very sorry, Senator Ataullahjan, that you have to sit on four committees. That’s a sad situation, and from my perspective, it’s an overburden on one senator. I understand the numbers.
I believe this pilot project, with the new agenda, would require in September for membership allocation in those committees so that if there are conflicts, they can be removed. I believe the timing is also good, because we have many new senators, and hopefully, we will have more new senators that will be appointed by September. That will allow for everyone to put forth their — I’m sorry, Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: [Technical difficulties] in terms of the numbers.
Senator Ringuette: Colleague, I understand there are groups or caucuses that are smaller in number now than they were when we started this Parliament. That has the effect, like you just indicated, Senator Ataullahjan, that you have to sit on four different committees. It’s quite a workload to have.
Hopefully, at the end of the day, right now, you sit on four committees for four hours on average, so you have 16 hours of committee work in a week. Let’s say that, in September, you still sit on four committees but most of the committees will be down to three hours. You will be down to 12 hours of work on committees. So, on average, it should reduce your workload.
Senator Ataullahjan: For me, it’s not reducing the workload. I like Human Rights and Fisheries. It means I will have to choose to give one of those committees up.
Senator Ringuette: The issue here is that you can’t solve a problem and advocate for the status quo. We have a problem, and we’ve had that problem for many years, particularly committees that have to sit on Mondays. The issue is that, some Mondays, they can’t even sit. The committees that sit on Tuesday evening — notwithstanding that there’s a correction that will have to happen there, because the committee schedule is from 6:15 to 8:15, if my memory is right. Right now, we have the dinner break from 7 to 8. So right now, there is a discrepancy that will require adjustment.
Senator Kutcher: I want to share with the committee the results of numerous discussions I have had with colleagues who are not members of this committee. I just put them forward for your consideration. There are three issues, and I have clustered them into categories to make them easier for us to think about. Then, I will have a final comment.
The first issue that people raised is that we’ll be exchanging one set of problems for another set of problems. I think that’s a reasonable issue to raise. In numerous discussions, the nuance around that was that if we have a lower order of problem, it’s better than a higher order of problem. That’s a reasonable thing to consider. Just because we think we might be changing one sets of problems for another set of problems, if the problems we are moving toward are less problematic than the ones we’re dealing with, then we should move in that direction. That was one issue.
The second issue was that you can’t please everyone. Some people said that, around this place, you can’t even please most people. That was an editorial comment and not mine. This is always a feature of any change; it’s not unique to this proposal. The fact that some people won’t be pleased with this proposal is understandable and expected. With any focus of change, we know that’s always the issue.
The third issue — they didn’t say this but I’m putting it to this context, and I know Senator Wells will enjoy this one — is that the dog we know may be preferred to the dog we don’t. That one is an a priori determination. That means that it is a determination we have done before we have seen the other dog. Senator Wells’s dog and my dog should be very good friends, and I’m not sure if I prefer his dog or the other way around. But both of us realize that the determination that we won’t like what we get is an a priori determination insofar as we have made it before we try it. Those were the three big issues raised, and I have heard them around this table as well, but I thought I would share what our colleagues are thinking.
One issue that came up over and over again — and this is what I will conclude with — is that people must understand that this is a pilot. I will put my old scientist’s hat back on and identify that the reason we do pilots is to learn from them. As long as this is clearly time-limited — that is essential — and it can’t go on forever, and as long as it has a clear evaluation structure done by this committee, using data that was collected before we started the process, and we have some data that was collected before that. Then this committee will make a decision whether to keep what the pilot did, tweak the pilot or revert to something that was there previously.
I think it’s really important that when we talk about this, we are realizing that it is a pilot. It is time limited, it must be evaluated and it’s this committee that will do the evaluation. Then a decision will be made. This is not a decision for major change. This is a decision to test out an alternative to see if it works.
Adam Thompson, Principal Clerk, Chamber Services, Chamber Operations and Procedure Office, Senate of Canada: Senators, I want to clarify something, and that is the authority for setting the schedule for committees, which is not with this committee itself. It is ultimately with the leaders designated through the whips and established through the Senate Administrative Rules. What the committee is discussing is making a recommendation to the whips, but any final decision would be for the whips to make and not for this committee. I just wanted to make that point clear.
Senator Busson: For clarification, I would like to reiterate why I believe that this pilot project is important. From my perspective, and perhaps I’m being a little self-gazing, but for the western senators, it’s not just inconvenient to come to a meeting on Mondays, it is nigh on impractical and almost impossible. If I wanted to appear on National Defence, I would have to take a red eye on Sunday evening, leaving my house at about 6:00 p.m., going through Vancouver on the 11:00 p.m., arriving here at 7:00 a.m. to be able to connect with meetings. Any other flights get here later than 4:00 p.m. If you look at the membership on committees like National Defence, there is nobody west of Ontario on those committees. We talk about committees being critical to our credibility, and I think it’s an affront to our credibility that we can’t have the kind of regional representation that we should.
The Monday evening issue also erodes our credibility if we talk in one breath how important committees are and then in the next breath be prepared to cancel them at the last minute because we can’t sit. I just wanted to add my voice to that.
Senator Batters: I just wanted to comment on a recent off-mic exchange that happened here what Senator MacDonald said in response to a previous comment, saying that that doesn’t help us much because we have a very small group as the Conservative opposition now. Senator Woo’s comment was, “Give up your committee seats — proportionality.” That is not acceptable. We are the opposition. We have an important role in this chamber, and it’s not an acceptable outcome to potentially have Senate committee hearings where a Trudeau cabinet minister might be appearing for questioning on a bill and because we have to give up committee seats — because of what some would like to happen — where there is only one opposition senator questioning that Trudeau cabinet minister, and all the other senators questioning have been appointed by the current Prime Minister. That is not an acceptable outcome, and I don’t think anyone here should be advocating for that.
Senator Al Zaibak: While I’m not a full member of this committee — thank you so much for inviting me to be here — as a new senator, I believe that the proposed changes make significant, logical business sense, and I’ll be in favour of adopting the changes. I’ll be recommending them. However, the commencement date and the end date of the pilot project aren’t clear to me. I’m wondering if we could clarify that.
The Chair: I understand that the Senate would start in September and end in June, but Senator Ringuette can make it more precise.
Senator Ringuette: I have a series of comments to make, if I may.
Senator Woo: Senator Batters may have a fantasy world where the Conservatives have more seats than their proportions in the Senate would allow them to have, but that’s not the Rules of the Senate. That’s not how we operate. When the time comes for seats to be reassigned, it will be on the basis of proportionality. No special privilege will be given to one group over the others to have more seats out of proportion to their numbers.
Senator Wells: I just wanted to point out that proportionality is not a rule of the Senate; it’s a practice of the Senate.
Senator Ringuette: At the start, I want to say that I personally have nothing to gain or lose, but I have good faith. Chairs of committees and deputy chairs of committees came in front of us and were very critical of the inequities in regard to their Monday and Tuesday committee meetings. I am proposing a nine-month pilot project to address these Monday meetings and Tuesday night meeting concerns. Monday meetings have travel constraints. Therefore, most of the senators on these three committees are from central Canada, and it’s unfair — from my perspective — for the other senators to not be able to provide their expertise. I’m thinking of Senator Busson, who would make a great member of National Defence because of her expertise.
These committees sit from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. In addition, as per the Rules, many times these committees cannot sit on Monday after a break or if there is a national holiday on Monday. So, there is difficulty for these committees to meet their agenda, particularly in comparison to other committees that sit from Tuesday to Thursday. Some have suggested to rotate committees’ meeting times to have more equity from senators sitting on those committees. When that was mentioned in this committee room, there was no appetite to look further into that option.
With regard to Tuesday night meetings, we have heard strong support that too often and at the last-minute, Tuesday night meetings have to be cancelled, frustrating senators and witnesses. These situations are an embarrassment to the members of the committee — particularly the chair — and reflect poorly on the efficiency of the Senate regarding its operation. These committees are Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, Agriculture and Forestry, and Fisheries and Oceans. These last‑minute cancellations are creating a backlog for these committees’ agendas and inequity, as per other committees.
Following the above-mentioned complaints, I undertook with the then-committee chief clerk to review how best to create efficiencies and remove inequities between committees. This review, based on committee meeting data, compared committee meeting time, actual time the committee met and the deliverables on legislation and studies.
The Senate management committees — CIBA, Rules, Audit and Conflict — that share the same time frame, remain in their time slots.
Senate committees that have a heavy workload with legislation — Legal, SOCI and National Finance — retain their two meetings for two hours.
In essence, 7 out of 17 committees do not change their hours of meeting per week. Out of the 10 remaining committees, 6 are currently negatively impacted and require other options. Only 4 out of 17 had no complaints.
To create a level playing field for every senator and every committee, as per their workload and time to do their work, there are not many options given room availability and interpretation limits. Either we solve the inequities complaint or we keep the current agenda system.
One option is to do as the House of Commons did, and does, and that is to have a rotation system every September and January. As I mentioned earlier, there doesn’t seem to be any appetite for that option around this table.
The other option is to deal with the complaints and inequities as per the committee’s data and meeting time, and bring forward a new meeting agenda that would create efficiencies and equities. That is what I have brought forward for your consideration.
That is why I have worked with the Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, Shaila Anwar, to propose a pilot project for nine months that would start in September and end in June 2025. This is an ideal time to test a pilot project. It’s the end of the parliamentary period. It will give us time in May to study the results of the pilot and make changes accordingly for the next Parliament.
In regard to the comments I have heard, Madam Chair, if I may, from the ISG — as I mentioned earlier — Foreign Affairs need two slots to better meet with foreign entities; that was the comment I heard. After my conversation with the Clerk, if during the pilot period Foreign Affairs need to meet in a special time slot with foreign entities, a room and interpretation capability will be made available to the committee because we have these 12 hours of flexibility. It was also mentioned that, in the past, this special requirement has not occurred often. This issue, in fairness, can be accommodated if needed during the nine months of the pilot.
The Conflict of Interest Committee workload that shares the two hours with Audit said that it may require more time because of certain periods when they have more on the agenda. Freeing up 12 hours of interpretation and rooms should also accommodate their new workload requirements.
From the Canadian Senators Group, we have received the letter signed by Senators Black and Greene. I would like to address these comments.
The first comment was the proposed committee meeting on Tuesday morning, when various groups/caucuses meet — and there is a scrolls meeting — the deputy leader would not be able to attend the meeting. Colleagues, scrolls meet at 9:30 in the morning. We currently have four committees meeting on Tuesday morning, and they are APPA, Rules, Transport and Communication, and National Finance. We already have this conflict, if I may say.
The other item was that three- and four-hour meetings are too long. Currently, the Monday committee meetings are meeting for four hours. OLLO, National Defence and Human Rights have four-hour time slots on Monday nights.
When they appeared as witnesses before our Rules Committee, they did not express that the length of their meetings was too long. They expressed it was very difficult to meet on Mondays, as Monday is a travel day for many senators who would like to participate in these committees. In addition, this committee data, like most other committee data, demonstrates that committee work has been done within three hours of work per week.
The other comment was how to fit potential witnesses in three‑hour slots; the same way that you fit witnesses in two-hour slots. It’s a question of efficiency and operation.
The last comment was in regard to cognitive load with three‑hour consecutive meetings. Our interpreters do work more than two hours at a time. They have health breaks.
I would also mention that universities provide intensive courses in three-hour time slots. Municipal councils meet for at least three hours at a time. The House of Commons has committees that meet for three hours on Monday and Tuesdays.
Colleagues, the Senate itself sits, most of the time, in four‑hour time slots, and sometimes more when we reach midnight.
Colleagues, I hope that has addressed all the comments and concerns. Therefore, I move that:
The attached new schedule herewith for Senate standing committees be agreed to be started in September 2024 as a pilot project for the duration of this Parliament; and that the Standing Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament review the effectiveness of this pilot project in May and June 2025 with defined criteria and comparative committee statistics, among other things.
[Translation]
The Chair: I will recognize Senator Wells and Senator Batters, but the clerk, Adam Thompson, would like to make some clarifications.
[English]
Mr. Thompson: Senator, in that motion I want to reiterate the point I made earlier that this committee does not have the authority to implement a pilot project on committee schedules. It would have to be a recommendation to the whips for their consideration.
The Chair: Recommended to the whips.
Senator Ringuette: We are the Rules Committee. I understand that. We were tasked with looking at committee issues. I believe it is part and parcel of the situation. I would like for us to move on the proposed motion, and I believe, in all fairness, that I would like for this committee to report to the Senate about this motion. You can report it to the whips and to the leaders as well, but I think that all senators need to be aware, involved and part of the discussion.
I would also request, chair, that this committee make a report to the Senate that this pilot project is proposed by the Rules Committee. I suppose that we’ll move for a vote on this motion.
[Translation]
The Chair: As the clerk says, it seems we don’t have the authority to make this kind of decision. We do have the authority to report and make recommendations; perhaps we need to amend the motion and make a recommendation to the Senate in the form of a report or letter.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: Chair, any member of this committee has the ability to move a motion, which is the first thing. The second thing is that I believe that such a consequential motion, if agreed to by this committee, should be reported to the Senate. I think that should be part and parcel. I understand that we should also, by the same token, send this recommendation or this report to the whips.
Senator Batters: First of all, the motion that we were just presented with says: “I move that the attached new schedule attached herewith attached for Senate standing committees be agreed to start in September 2024.” So it doesn’t talk about a recommendation or anything like that. It’s the Rules Committee saying that it has agreed that this will start. As our clerk just pointed out, that is not actually how it can happen. As a result, it doesn’t seem like this motion is in order as it’s worded right now. If Senator Ringuette would like to propose a revision to it, then we could consider that. As it exists right now, the Rules Committee is not able to come to such an agreement. The agreement would have to be that of the whips and perhaps the Senate — I’m not sure — but not as it exists right now.
As I was just saying, the Canadian Senators Group has two members on this committee, including one member of steering. They’re not able to be here today, so they provided their comments about this pilot project in writing to all members of this committee, and they indicated some pretty strong disagreements with it. There was one matter that Senator Ringuette — at least one that I noticed — didn’t address, that being the proposed committee meetings on Tuesday mornings when various groups and caucuses meet.
I noticed for myself that yet another matter that still hasn’t been resolved is something I brought up on a few occasions in previous meetings. The Wednesday morning Finance Committee meeting — a very important committee of the Senate — is scheduled in this pilot project to meet on Wednesdays from 11:30 to 1:30, which is during the ISG meeting — the largest group in the Senate — which they have from 11:00 to 1:00 p.m. That’s right during that, and would take a large number of senators away from that. As I’ve stated many times, that’s also during the Conservative national caucus, where we meet with the MPs from the Conservative caucus. That has not been addressed.
My main point on this is that we’ve seen from the Canadian Senators Group’s email — and they are not able to be here today — that they are not in agreement with this pilot project. Those from the Conservative opposition are not in agreement with this pilot project. I’m not sure why this committee would continue to discuss it and now potentially put forward some sort of recommendation that would be largely agreed to by perhaps just one or maybe two groups in the Senate.
I don’t think we should proceed. I know that some dismiss the necessity of having consensus, but certainly on a pilot project there should be consensus to go forward.
[Translation]
The Chair: Ms. Shaila Anwar has just joined us. We can invite her to the table and ask her to speak on the ins and outs of this motion and how to go about setting up this pilot project.
Senator Wells has the floor.
[English]
Senator Wells: I’m in agreement with Senator Batters on a couple of things. One, obviously, I think the motion is out of order. I think we all see where this is going, but I do think if it’s going there, let’s make the motion at least in order. If that requires an edit, Senator Ringuette, then I would encourage that.
The other thing is that, generally, in a pilot project, in my experience, there is a consensus to go forth with testing changes. I’m not at all against changes. I think that sometimes it’s necessary. I’m not sure if it’s necessary in this case.
Another thing is that part of the foundation of the argument from Senator Ringuette was comparisons to the other place, which is clearly a different demographic, geography and age. I think that consideration should be taken into account. With 338 members of the House of Commons and only 100 here — and generally less than 100 — it’s a whole lot easier to get regional representation. I think that’s clear.
Finally, if my colleagues were open to this and if this does go the way that I expect it may go, I’m wondering, because of the negative effect of this, if we lock in for a nine-month period, what can we learn in nine months that we wouldn’t be able to learn, for instance, in the three months from the opening of the sitting in the fall to December? Something like that, I think, would be able to identify some of the scheduling pitfalls that we have. One of the committees that I sit on, the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight, meets every second week, and in this interregnum week, we have a steering committee for that time. I think there are more considerations and different considerations than what was laid out in the foundation for the motion.
I would also like to hear from Ms. Anwar about her support, because she was referenced in the documents.
[Translation]
The Chair: I suggest that we end this round table and hear from Ms. Anwar next. Unless you want to hear her now? All right.
Ms. Anwar, you have the floor on this pilot project.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, Senate of Canada: I’m sorry, I was at another meeting and didn’t follow all of your discussion. Regarding the pilot project, I just wanted to clarify, as you mentioned earlier, that the committee does not have the authority to propose changes to the schedule.
[English]
Right now, the schedule is under the purview of the leaders, that has been delegated to the whips, and that is pursuant to the Senate Administrative Rules. If there is a desire to propose changes to the schedule, one option could be for this committee to seek the approval of the whips or to approach the whips about initiating a schedule proposal that would work within the powers of the committee, and it wouldn’t exceed the powers of the committee, most importantly.
With respect to the proposal itself, I’ve heard the same evidence that you’ve heard, and I’ve received many of the same comments. There are senators who prefer the status quo; senators who prefer small changes; and senators who prefer more substantial changes. I can’t remember who mentioned it, perhaps Senator Kutcher, but it will be difficult to come up with a proposal that will please everyone. It’s a question for senators to determine whether or not or how much consensus there is to proceed with changes, big or small.
From the perspective of the administration, my only role in this is to provide you with options that are workable with the services and capacities that we currently have. I’m in your hands, as far as that goes. I just wanted to reiterate that it is, ultimately, a decision of senators on whether or not they want changes. If there’s broad consensus to proceed with changes, I would suspect that would be something the whips would take into consideration in making their decision.
The typical process is that we approach them at some point in the late summer with the committee schedule. If specific changes are requested by committees or by chairs, then we bring them forward at that time. It is up to the whips to determine whether or not they want to accept those changes. Once they agree on a schedule, that schedule is communicated to the leaders and then more broadly. That’s just to give you a bit of background in terms of the process.
Again, I apologize. I was not able to listen to all of the meeting up until now. If you have specific questions, I’m happy to take them.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: My first question is this: Reference was made to an email. Since this is officially my first day with you, could I have access to this email from the Canadian Senators Group to which Senator Batters referred?
The Chair: We will send it to you as soon as possible, senator.
[English]
Senator Audette: We’re looking at it.
[Translation]
So I’m going to poke around again.
The Chair: Do you want me to read it?
Senator Audette: Please.
The Chair: The letter is addressed to me.
[English]
We wish to advise you that the Canadian Senators Group had an opportunity to discuss the proposed committee schedule presented by Senator Ringuette during our weekly group meeting on Tuesday. On behalf of the CSG, we wish to share the below comments noted during the discussion. Please note that these are in no particular order:
There are proposed committee meetings on Tuesday morning when the various group caucuses meet. This is an issue.
There are proposed committee meetings that take place during scroll meetings, which means deputy leaders and those that attend the scroll meeting would not be able to be in committee. There are currently some committees that meet for three and four hours with no health break, yet two‑hour meetings have 10-minute breaks between panels. For example, OLLO is four hours long. Three- and four‑hour meetings are too long. With some witnesses participating internationally, it is already difficult to find a time for their participation. Reducing the number of weekly opportunities to meet will make it more difficult to schedule international witnesses due to time differences.
Our doctor colleagues noted the cognitive load may be too much for participants. This could be a health and safety council. How do we fit potential witnesses into three hours? It means we lose one hour every week for witness testimony.
Please accept these comments on behalf of the Canadian Senators Group.
Senator Woo: In light of the Clerk’s comments, I propose that we prepare and adopt a report, based on the will of this group, through a vote, that supports the establishment of a pilot project along the lines that Senator Ringuette has proposed. And that will be part of the persuasion exercise that we will make to our leaders and to the whips so that they can take that into consideration when they plan the schedule in fall.
The Chair: If I may ask a question to you Senator Woo and to others, if I understand what you mean, we will do a report, the seventh report, and it will table this schedule with brief introductory remarks, if we want to be rapid, because it takes time to format an official report. In these introductory remarks, we would say in summary what we’ve been hearing today from senators about the pros and cons, but if we do propose that, we would do so in light of the fact that not many senators can come on Monday and on Tuesday night, meetings are cancelled. That’s a lot of frustration. In light of those issues, we would like to have a pilot, the duration of which — I think three months may be too short. I think it’s better to have at least winter, and the other seasons that we sit in the pilot.
Mr. Thompson: Senator, I take your point. I want to make it clear that presently, there is no draft report before the committee. I would be happy to take your comments and instructions and prepare something to bring it back to this committee for its approval. If the committee is going to approve a report to go into the Senate, it must approve a final text. We can’t report general comments. I would be happy to draft something and bring it back to this committee.
Senator Woo: Senator Bellemare has already summarized what that report will look like, but it’s very important that final remarks on the outline of the report be included, which is that this committee recommends a pilot project along the lines that have been captured in this draft motion.
I’m delighted, Mr. Thompson, if you and the team could prepare a report along these lines.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Ringuette, did you want to add something?
[English]
Senator Ringuette: There were comments for the new proposed meeting time for National Finance. That is a result of the request of the chair of National Finance.
Senator Wells: A couple of things have come up since I requested a moment to speak. One is now the direction or the possible direction to generate a report with the decision of the majority. In a case like this, it’s important, especially if it’s going to be considered by the whips or leaders, for there to be contained in the report the clear dissenting opinion from at least two of the groups or observations that include those sentiments.
I wanted to ask a question of our new witness who has joined us. One thing that we haven’t discussed in great detail or with any knowledge is the effect that this has on the facilitation of services. We’ve had a lot of discussion over the last few months about the difficulty that our interpreters have had. I don’t know about the service of the rooms. Often I show up, and everything runs smoothly, because a lot of things happen in the background. Could you comment on the possible disruption or accommodation of services with this possible new schedule?
Ms. Anwar: No problem, senator. In terms of the services, this proposed schedule was prepared by me with some of their considerations in mind; however, it was not vetted by the services for any specific issues or challenges. It does meet our current requirements in terms of the number of simultaneous meetings we can do and the total number of hours that can be supported by services.
We wouldn’t normally go to the services until we have a clear decision from senators on what they want. If this were to go forward, then part of our process would be to consult with the services.
I think the Thursday mornings and the Wednesday afternoons would create some pressure points. Obviously, there would be a period of adjustment for everybody. I think you’ve proposed a three-month trial period versus basically the season, next year.
Personally, without consulting with the services, I think it would be disruptive to do a three-month pilot and then revert back to the current schedule, because staffing decisions, resources, hiring, et cetera, are all done in function of the schedule, even for clerks. We hire clerks and the number of clerks for the function of how many we need to cover those busy periods, so we would have to do that analysis following a decision from senators.
I think the proposal works within the framework of what is currently allowed with the possibility of requiring some adjustments and tweaks.
Senator Wells: Thank you.
I have one final question. You said you had a hand in drafting it. Does that indicate you’re supportive of it?
Ms. Anwar: I’m agnostic on the schedule. My job is to follow the direction I’m given from senators.
During the pandemic, senators expressed a specific request for how they wanted meetings to take place and when they wanted meetings to take place. We prepared a schedule in function of this.
In terms of whether we prefer it or not, we’re here to serve senators, so we follow the direction that we’re given. If senators choose to adopt a new schedule, we will find a way to make it work.
Senator Wells: Thank you.
Senator Batters: First of all, I wanted to comment on a few points that could potentially be challenging from a logistical perspective, as we were just hearing the brief discussion between Senator Wells and our new Clerk of the Senate.
On Wednesdays, under this proposed pilot project, there are four different televised Senate committee meetings that are scheduled to be held between 4:15 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Then, in addition to that, there are two meetings that overlap with part of that, and that would be OLLO and Rules Committee, as it’s set out, which overlap with the last half hour of that. That would mean there would be six televised Senate committees at the same time.
Currently, I know there is a problem when there are four — I’m not even sure if it is three or four being held at the same time, because Legal Committee on Thursday mornings has that difficulty. We used to start at 11:30 a.m. We’ve been bumped to 11:45 a.m. as our start time, and that takes us basically right to the Senate start time of 2 p.m. — or until 1:45 p.m., and often we run a little later. That has been challenging, and it has not been allowed to happen because of that.
I’m not sure why we, all of sudden, have these — I see at least three different time frames; there’s the Wednesday late afternoon one that I just spoke about. There is also Thursday morning. There are four different televised Senate committee meetings that take place from 8 a.m. until 11 a.m., which, of course, all need television and interpreters. If we’re giving up any of that for any of those, that’s not acceptable.
Then the late morning on Thursday from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., it is the same sort of thing. That could be very difficult logistically, as we’ve already seen with existing situations right now.
The other thing is that now all of a sudden we’ve pivoted at this committee; there was a motion on the floor from Senator Ringuette. That seems to have gone by the wayside, perhaps because it needs a revision in order to be effective. Now, all of a sudden, we’re talking about doing a report. What is happening with that motion?
I reiterate that we have one group, the Canadian Senators Group, which has expressed opposition to this pilot project, and they’re not here. We have another group, which is here, that has been routinely expressing opposition to it, and that’s also part of what needs to be considered.
Before we have some sort of report, it would not be just the comments that have been made today, but I’ve been making comments for the last three or four meetings about all of the different problems with it, and I didn’t think I needed to reiterate them at every single meeting, but all of those need to be included.
[Translation]
The Chair: As I understand it, the motion appears to be out of order, as it is outside our area of authority. The alternative would be to amend the motion or make a report. A report can be short and has the advantage of submitting all the data.
Senator Ringuette: Madam Chair, I have no problem withdrawing my motion, but it seems to me that Senator Woo moved a motion regarding a report. That was my understanding. Perhaps Senator Woo could clarify, but I understood he was proposing a motion that this committee adopt a report, as discussed.
[English]
Senator Woo: Yes, on the understanding that maybe this motion has been withdrawn, I move that we request the clerk to write a report summarizing our discussions on this question, attaching the proposed pilot project schedule and, if, indeed, it is supported by the majority of this group, proposing that the Senate adopt this new schedule as a pilot project for a nine‑month period starting September 2024.
Senator Saint-Germain: Madam Chair, you said that that this committee is out of order because we have worked on a topic that should not fall within our purview. I would like to challenge this, because that means that over the last weeks —
The Chair: I didn’t say that, Senator Saint-Germain. I said that because I heard it.
Senator Saint-Germain: — over the last weeks, we’ve been working on this topic with the agreement of everyone and with the support of the administration. We cannot state and agree, and I want it to be put on the record that we are not out of order with this work on this topic. We can recommend to the leaders, but we’re not out of order.
[Translation]
The Chair: That’s what I meant. The motion as written needs to be reworded. That’s what I said, that this motion as it’s written…. That’s right.
We are resuming. I think we’ll put the report to the vote. I don’t think there are any further comments. Senator Batters, unless you have another argument, a new argument, I think we’ve heard it all for now and the best way to proceed would be to put the report to a vote, as suggested by Senator Woo.
[English]
Senator Batters: Chair, I don’t understand how we can have a vote at this committee when we have one entire group that is not represented and has expressed opposition to this, and I suggest that we postpone any such vote, even if it means preparing a report, which, as Senator Woo wants to have happen, says that the majority of this committee agrees, because we don’t have one of the groups.
There are two groups that agree; there are two groups that disagree, as I see, at this table. Simply because one group has a lot more members than another one doesn’t mean — and that is never how this committee has worked before, to simply just say, “Okay, we have more members, so we’re going to just push these kinds of things through.”
[Translation]
The Chair: We’re talking about reporting. We’re not talking about agreeing with it. We’re talking about reporting. That’s what we have to vote on. I think that’s the right way to proceed. It’s our right to report, and if the two members of the committee were here, they’d probably also agree to report, although I can’t assume that.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: My understanding — and please correct me if I am wrong — is that committees work on the basis of quorum?
The Chair: We have a quorum.
Senator Kutcher: We have a quorum. The issue is quorum, not whether some group chooses not to come.
The Chair: Right.
Senator Kutcher: I want to make sure that I understand this correctly.
The Chair: We have a quorum.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
Mr. Thompson: Senators, I want to make it clear that, as I understand the proposal, it’s a directive for me to draft a report. That report would come back to this committee —
The Chair: Exactly.
Mr. Thompson: — for a final decision and comment or amendment, as this committee sees fit.
Senator Kutcher: Can we expect to see that next week?
Mr. Thompson: I’m going to start drafting as soon as I can, but I cannot commit to a timeline. I’ll be drafting this afternoon while I’m sitting at the table in the chamber.
Senator Kutcher: I’m glad to hear that, because you need something to do at the table.
Thanks, Adam.
[Translation]
The Chair: Are we going to vote on the report, on the motion to report? Senator Woo, could you repeat your motion?
[English]
Senator Woo: That we instruct the clerk to prepare a report summarizing the discussions on the topic of the schedule of committees and include in the report the proposed revised schedule that has been offered as a pilot project beginning in September and running for nine months in 2024.
[Translation]
The Chair: All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand.
[English]
Senator Batters: Because the first time Senator Woo proposed that motion, he said that the report would say that the majority support this pilot project going ahead.
[Translation]
The Chair: The motion was very clear.
[English]
Senator Batters: But this time he didn’t say that, so I wanted to be clear what we’re actually voting on.
[Translation]
The Chair: Yes, it’s this one, it’s the last rewording of Senator Woo’s report.
[English]
Senator Wells: I’m sorry, could you repeat what we are voting on? What is the question?
[Translation]
The Chair: The motion is as follows: That the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament ask the clerk to provide a report on the pilot project containing a new schedule tabled by Senator Ringuette and finalized by Ms. Anwar to be sent to the Senate subsequently. This report should be produced shortly.
We will now vote on the report. Doing so will indicate that the majority of the committee members agree to report, and that this report will be sent to the Senate for adoption. That’s the way to proceed.
[English]
Senator Wells: I hate to be a stickler on the process, but I did hear from Senator Saint-Germain a challenge of the chair on a ruling, and that hasn’t been addressed yet or withdrawn.
The Chair: Which challenge?
Senator Saint-Germain: I no longer challenge it, because the explanation was given that she didn’t mean what I understood, so this is okay. I’m in agreement with that.
[Translation]
The Chair: There was a communication problem about the motion, not about what we could do. Thank you.
Are we in agreement? We’re going to close the debate on this subject. Next week, we’re going to have three guests, as we’re undertaking a study on equity among senators, as you know. These guests are unaffiliated senators who will present their views to us. We hope to have a draft report to table next week; if not, we’ll table it the following week. We had decided not to hold a meeting the week of June 11, but that would be the last meeting on the report.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Are we going to call the vote?
The Chair: It’s done.
Senator Kutcher: Was it? I didn’t see that. I want to make sure, because I must have missed it. I have a foggy memory.
[Translation]
The Chair: It was a majority vote. I asked for a show of hands, and a show of hands —
[English]
The “yeas” have it.
Senator Kutcher: I wasn’t sure whether the vote was called. Could I please —
The Chair: We will have a vote on it. We’ll start, “yea” or “nay.”
Mr. Thompson: Senators, I will call the roll, if you would like to have a vote.
[Translation]
Honourable Senator Bellemare?
Senator Bellemare: Abstention.
Mr. Thompson: Honourable Senator Audette?
Senator Audette: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: Honourable Senator Ataullahjan?
Senator Ataullahjan: No.
Mr. Thompson: Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
Mr. Thompson: Honourable Senator Busson?
Senator Busson: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: Honourable Senator Kutcher?
Senator Kutcher: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Mr. Thompson: Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: Honourable Senator Ringuette?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: Honourable Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: No.
Mr. Thompson: Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: Yeas: 8; nays: 4; abstention: 1.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
There, we’ve finished on this item. Next week we’ll hear testimony and probably have some time to discuss the report.
(The committee adjourned.)