THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 4, 2024
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:32 a.m. [ET] pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), in consideration of possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
My name is Diane Bellemare. I’m the chair of this committee. For the people tuning in, we’ll start by going around the table so that the senators can introduce themselves, starting from my right.
[English]
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, a senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Good morning. Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba.
Senator Brazeau: Patrick Brazeau, Quebec.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Toronto.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mohammad Al Zaibak, Ontario.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters, Saskatchewan, deputy chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you.
Before we begin, I would like to remind all senators and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventative measures.
To prevent disruptive — and potentially harmful — audio feedback incidents that could cause injuries, we remind all participants to always keep their earpieces away from all microphones.
As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all senators on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.
All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use a black approved earpiece.
By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting.
When you aren’t using your earpiece, please place it face down in the middle of the sticker on the table, where indicated.
We’ll start our meeting with an analysis of equity among senators and the role of non-affiliated senators.
I believe that Senator Black wanted to speak about this before we begin our deliberations. I’ll give him the floor.
[English]
Senator Black: Thank you, chair.
I want to start by saying that I respect all of my honourable colleagues. We all know that sometimes we’re otherwise tied up with other public business that takes us away from our presence in committee and in this august chamber.
Last week, it was pointed out numerous times by members of this committee, and indeed by our honourable chair, that a couple of senators from CSG were absent and unable to participate. I quote from the chair’s translation:
“I see that two people aren’t here today, and they are members of the Canadian Senators Group. Nevertheless, we’ll begin the meeting.”
I’m not sure why this needed to be said. It’s not said every other time we have people that are missing. I was away on public business with respect to rural, and I would like the transcripts to reflect that I was on public business.
One of my other colleagues said: “We have a quorum. The issue is quorum, not whether some group chooses not to come.”
I would like it noted that I did not choose not to come. I was away on public business. I won’t speak for my colleague Senator Greene, but I know he was away on legitimate business as well. It’s not right to point out members that aren’t here, especially when our group is not here.
Thank you, chair, for the opportunity. I wanted to set the record straight. That large group at the top of the stairs is my next public business, and I’ll be leaving for a few minutes to deal with them. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Black.
[Translation]
That said, we’ll now begin our deliberations. Please keep your remarks fairly brief so that everyone has a chance to ask questions.
We’ll start with Senator McCallum. We’ll then hear from Senator Brazeau, and we’ll finish with Senator McPhedran.
[English]
Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express what non-affiliated senators endure in terms of their second-class treatment when compared to their colleagues who reside in a group or caucus. While Senator McPhedran and Senator Brazeau will do an excellent job in giving voice to our collective and unfortunate circumstances, I would like to paint a picture of this reality in practice based on activity within the chamber over the last two weeks.
Without having a seat at the table or an advocate in consequential leader and deputy leader meetings where legislation is discussed, bartered and decided upon to receive its votes, our items are left in the cold. We have no one — though sometimes we do — willing to put our items in place of one of their own member’s. Due to this, colleagues, we are literally forced to act unilaterally in ways that will further our own causes, as we do not have the privilege, authority or opportunity to move these items through the channels that you all enjoy.
Many of you may recall that I had attempted to have the question called on Bill C-226 two weeks ago. This bill has been in the Senate since March 2023, having already passed through the other place. This bill has had 12 total speeches in the Senate over second and third readings, a large number compared to most private member’s legislation. I have been diligent and deferential throughout this process. I have written many letters to the leaders. I have them here, and I will submit them as evidence. I have canvassed senators who may have an interest in this bill to see if they were interested in speaking at both readings. As this bill deals with environmental racism, my queries included all Indigenous senators, all Black senators, senators who were engaged and participatory during the ENEV study and so on. However, my bill was not permitted to receive its vote at that time on the premise that not enough time had elapsed and not enough individuals had spoken to it.
In the face of this rationale, I would like to flag a few items that were permitted to receive votes in the Senate this past week:
Bill C-281 received its second reading vote last Wednesday. Senator Housakos, the sponsor, was the only individual to speak to this bill. There was no critic’s speech.
Bill S-259 received its second reading vote last Thursday. The sponsor, Senator Loffreda, and one other ISG senator spoke to it. There was no critic’s speech.
Bill C-320 was only moved at second reading last Thursday, May 30. After two speeches, it received its second reading vote the same day with no other debate.
Bill C-321 was also moved last Thursday, May 30. After two speeches, it too received its second reading vote, also with no other debate.
Additionally, there were another two bills last week that received the vote with only two senators speaking to it, Bill S-17 and Bill S-260, while another bill was passed with only three senators having spoken to it.
There was also one other bill that was on the floor, spoken to by another senator, no critic, and it passed.
The non-affiliated senators were not even given the most basic courtesy of knowing about these myriad votes through the COPO scroll that we receive daily. The scroll we received on Wednesday indicated adjournment after Government Business, with no speeches to be had. Two Commons bills were then voted on without us being advised. Even worse, on Thursday, non-affiliated senators received an email from COPO indicating that they would not be sending out the scroll that day. That was a first in my time as a senator. The scroll is our only lifeline, as vague as it is. Without it, we are truly blind. When you look at what happened, there had to be the leaders’ agreement to having all those bills passed, because none of them was on the scroll.
I bring this up because when my bill went to a vote, senators came to talk to me and said that other senators want to talk to it. They weren’t even in the chamber. Another one said that no critic spoke to it. We do not need a critic. There is nothing in the rules that say a critic must speak. A critic cannot hold up a bill. I have the quote from the Rules of the Senate that says no critic where a critic is mentioned. Senators got up and voted to adjourn my bill. What do I do with this bill now considering what passed last week? I was away on business last week.
I have a lot more to say, and I have questions that I want to ask all of you in this room and every single senator in the chamber. I can send them to you. I thought there might be a point of order about the critic, so I do have the quote here from the rules.
I am understandably frustrated, especially because this is such a sacred chamber. To have activities like that go on is mind-boggling to me. There needs to be more respect.
Thank you.
Hon. Patrick Brazeau: Good morning to all of you. Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on some proposed rule changes. I’m going to repeat a lot of the things I said in the chamber.
When I got here 15 years ago, there were five independent senators. Looking at those senators, I thought to myself, poor them, because they didn’t have the same access to being able to sit on the committees that they wanted, to ask questions during Question Period and to make senators’ statements when they wanted.
There is a perception out there that we are all equal and, in principle, we are all equal. We are all equal up until the time that a senator decides to join one of these new subgroups in the Senate. That’s when everything changes. That’s when senators who belong to groups have more priority and access to asking questions and to making senators’ statements over unaffiliated senators.
I’m not here to complain about how things have worked in the Senate with respect to unaffiliated senators, but I’m here to bring facts with respect to how unaffiliated senators are treated. Unaffiliated senators have less chance of becoming Speaker of the Senate and have less chance of becoming a chair of a committee or the deputy chair of a committee. Sometimes we have to wait three, four or five weeks before we can get a senators’ statement in or we can ask a question.
This is important to know. Contrary to senators who belong to subgroups in the Senate, when you are going to ask a question or make a senators’ statement, you know exactly when you are going to speak and after whom, whereas unaffiliated senators — and no fault to COPO; they are doing the best that they can with what they have — all we are told is, “You may,” or, “You may not speak. You are on the list.” But there are never any guarantees. Contrary to senators who are part of a subgroup, you know when you are going to speak. There is this perception that we’re all equal, and unfortunately, we are not.
It wasn’t like that 15 years ago. It’s not like that today. As a matter of fact, it’s a bit more complicated today, because 15 years ago, all unaffiliated senators had to do was go to the leader of the Conservative Party and go to the leader of the Liberal Party, and just those two individuals had to give their okay or blessing. Today, we have to have blessings from five different individuals who represent all the subgroups, including the Government Representative.
Going forward, I don’t know how unaffiliated senators will be more accommodated. In the House of Commons, there are opposition days. Wednesdays are relatively short days. Perhaps once a month there could be opportunities for unaffiliated senators, throughout the agenda that day, to ask questions and to make senators’ statements, et cetera. I don’t know, but what is important is that we are not treated the same.
When I came, the Senate used to work on a hierarchy basis, but the way it works now is that every single senator who has been named after 2015 and in the future has more hierarchy than any of us, even though, in my case, I’ve been here for 15 years. The minute and the second a senator decides to join a group, they have more access, more privileges and more benefits than unaffiliated senators do. Is this the way we want to move forward? I don’t know.
Again, I’m trying to make a simple point, without whining or complaining, because I’m very happy where I am. Speaking for myself, and perhaps I haven’t had as much difficulty as some of my colleagues in terms of conducting our work, I forge relationships, but that’s not etched in stone because leaders of these new subgroups will change over time, and those relationships will have to be forged again to ensure that we, as unaffiliated senators, are accommodated. It’s a difficult process and time-consuming process.
The question remains: Why do unaffiliated senators have to go through five of their colleagues to be able to speak on any subject matter?
With that, I am looking forward to the questions because I think that’s where we will get to potential solutions going forward. I thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Hon. Marilou McPhedran: I want to begin by acknowledging that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg First Nation.
I want to alert you that I’m still struggling with COVID bout number three, and sometimes it becomes a terrible coughing fit. If it happens, I will probably have to exit the room. I’m hoping it won’t.
I also want to thank Senator Francis Lankin. Although she was with the Government Representative Office, or the GRO, for a short time, she did definitely focus on having this opportunity for us to have this conversation at this very important committee. I know she didn’t do it alone, but I think she was really determined to see it, and I very much welcome the receptivity of you as members of the committee to have this time with us today.
I’m not going to try to add to the very important points that Senators McCallum and Brazeau have given to you. I do want to acknowledge previous work addressing some of the issues of a more inclusive, truly egalitarian Senate. I want to particularly note the extensive work done at the committee under Senator White, and I’m sure Senator Wells was likely part of that committee given that Senator Wells has been on this committee for the duration of his Senate career to date, about 11 years. I also want to acknowledge the very important work of Senators Greene and Massicotte.
My brief comments at this point will not be about the procedural details. They will be about matters of the heart as well as the mind and what it takes to make systemic change. It takes a determination, a collective determination in this case, to want something different. That’s probably what has been missing so far. Every member of this committee — I say this with respect and considerable admiration — is a member of a group. Many of you have been or are in leadership positions.
Leadership very much of the time is about power, and it’s also about rewards. We all have parliamentary privilege. Part of the mandate of this committee is to actually look at the privileges of Parliament. However, the subtext often for leaders and members of groups is, what are the benefits and what are the ways in which people within a group can be encouraged to be productive, and part of that comes with rewards. If I may, I’m just going to equate rewards with cookies and say that it is partly the responsibility and the skill of a leader to figure out how to share the cookies. Many of these rewards are not clearly articulated. One doesn’t really find out about them until one has been a senator for a little while.
I’ll give a specific example, and that is the opportunity to participate in interparliamentary groups. Now, although most of the interparliamentary groups that receive funding from both the House of Commons and the Senate are set up in a way that one would think that any senator certainly can be a member of an interparliamentary group with the opportunity to participate in many of the delegations where those groups do very important forms of diplomacy and represent our Parliament in many countries and many different venues, for the most part, not being a member of a group means you never get to participate in any of those opportunities.
As part of that more hidden reality, what I know, speaking personally, is that the moment that I became unaffiliated and pointed out that it was possible for a particular interparliamentary group to allow me to continue to serve on the executive, colleagues of mine from the Senate made sure that they intervened and blocked — used their veto — to make sure that I would never again be able to continue in that role and to participate.
That, I think, is my time. I could go on, but let me just close with this comment. This really isn’t about a lack of options. This is not about a lack of study and knowledge about what could be done to make the change. This is truly about your hearts and your minds as group members and leaders, and the choice to retain your privileges and your rewards from membership in a group. Nothing can change unless you address within your own hearts and your own minds whether you actually want this change. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: We heard your messages, which came from the heart. We’ll now open the floor to questions.
We hope to find ways to ensure equity among senators in the future. The committee is trying to do that with this study.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you, colleagues, for your presentations.
Senator Brazeau, I listened with great interest when you spoke last week in the chamber, and you made some comments that I’m happy to have the opportunity to address here. One of them was the non-affiliated senators’ ability to ask questions in Question Period and that you perhaps lack equality in that.
We organize by caucuses because it makes procedures go smoothly, not because — well, maybe because of power as well, but I think it’s more procedurally smooth if we organize by caucuses or — yes, by caucuses.
At any time, any senator can stand up to ask a question, and the only determinant is whether you’re recognized by the Speaker or not. We have a process, a practice, a convention, where lists are handed to the Speaker to make the process easier and smoother. I hear Senator McPhedran quite often, when she stands to ask a question, thanking the Conservatives or someone else for giving her a slot. That’s not necessary. You cede that authority when you tuck into that program of requesting a slot. Request a slot from the Speaker. The Speaker has the authority. That’s why the Speaker is there, to control the procedures of the chamber. If I were an unaffiliated senator, I wouldn’t go cap in hand to any leader, looking for a slot. I’d go to the Speaker and say, “I am going to stand up and hope to be recognized to ask a question.” That’s actually the rule in Question Period.
I have been to Question Time in the U.K. House of Commons and the House of Lords, and it is bedlam over there. It’s bedlam. I’ll show you what happens. Whenever a question is finished, 10 people will stand up, hoping to be recognized. There is no apparent organization at all. I like our system because it is organized. It has a degree of fairness. As soon as you request from another caucus to have a slot, then you cede your authority to get up and speak for yourself. That is one thing I would say.
The other thing is that when I came here in January of 2013, the most powerful senator in the room was Senator Cools. She was a non-affiliated senator. At one time she sat with the Liberals, and at one time she sat with the Conservatives, but when she sat alone was when she had the most power.
You said you have to go to five senators to ask a question or to have an intervention. Well, we had to go to five as well: Senator McCoy, Senator Cools, Senator Rivest, Senator Dyck and Senator Prud’homme, who left before I got here.
Don’t sell your equal status in this chamber short, because you have it. This not a question, but it was something I did want to say.
Senator McCallum: When you talk about QP, it is the ministerial QP that’s we can’t get on.
Senator McPhedran: I think that the commentary was directed at Senator Brazeau. Do you care to respond?
Senator Brazeau: Yes, I will respond to that.
Obviously, as you mentioned, we do have the power to do certain things, but as you will appreciate, if senators choose to utilize that power to either delay or to make a statement, there are consequences to that. As I said, when rules are in existence but are not practised on a daily basis, yes, it remains at the discretion of the Speaker, but it is the same thing if I go to see the five leaders and one of them decides no. I am in the same boat if I just go to the Speaker. If the Speaker chooses not to recognize the unaffiliated senators, we’re back at square one. I know some of the procedures and tactics that we can use as unaffiliated senators to make this point, but I also wasn’t born yesterday, and I know the consequences that can come with that. We are walking on eggshells a little.
As I said, my relationship with the leaders has been good. That does not mean that, going forward — let’s face it. Some of these proposed changes that we are contemplating will affect me more than anyone else in the Senate. That is just the reality. As I said, I am fully aware of the powers that we have, but exercising them in practice and angering my colleagues, that is something to contemplate as well.
[Translation]
The Chair: I think that we know what unanimous consent entails, and that non-affiliated senators may sometimes not agree to it. Obviously, non-verbal pressure can be applied afterwards.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Those were points I wanted to make, so thank you for that.
I will respond briefly to you, Senator Wells. You referenced the power that was held, and in particular you used the example of Senator Cools. Let’s remember that that is the power of “no,” and that is a power that comes with very significant consequences.
I have a bill, lowering the federal voting age to 16, Bill S-201. It is the third such bill I have introduced. That bill, Bill S-201, has been with us for 30 months. The kind of quid pro quo that operates is part of the reality of what we have to learn to navigate effectively as senators. I am not in any way denying that function, but every time an unaffiliated senator decides to try to use the power of “no,” we understand that the consequences are likely to eliminate, in one of the scenarios, the work that we have been doing with a lot of dedication.
I would invite less simplistic references to power here. There is an understandable defensiveness for those of you who are members of groups and who do get to eat the cookies all the time. I appreciate that. My remarks in opening this morning were really to ask you to move beyond some of that defensiveness around the privileges and rewards that you have and to think more in terms of the possibility of a procedurally effective Senate that is also a Senate that truly does have equality of senators, which is not the case now.
Senator Batters: Thank you to all of you for being here today.
First of all, I start out by saying, as I said in the chamber when we debated this omnibus government motion on Senate rules, that by the Trudeau government cementing equality of groups by this motion, they have demolished the equality of senators. That used to be the prevailing principle in the Senate for some of the reasons that were just mentioned. I also remember those times, and there could be one senator and, indeed, it was because of a “no,” but a “no” can be a very powerful word.
I want to remind all of us that part of the reason we are here today is because we just had a government motion that was brought forward which was eight pages long of Senate rule changes, and yet there was not one mention in eight pages of non-affiliated senators. That was something I challenged the government Senate leader on. It was a decision of the government to do that. That was a government motion. That government then used the guillotine motion of time allocation to pass that.
By the way, it is actually not because of the government or any GRO members that we are hearing from this panel of non‑affiliated senators today. It was our Rules steering committee that decided to have this panel today. Certainly, the motion that is right now started in the chamber perhaps is an impetus for that, but it was a decision of our steering committee that we wanted to hear from you because you hadn’t really had a voice in that procedure that had just happened.
Thank you very much, Senator McCallum, for bringing up last Thursday, no scroll, because I also noticed that. I think it is the first time in my 11 years in the Senate that I can remember that happening. For many people, that is not a good situation. I absolutely understand that it is for you in particular because you don’t get a version of a scroll from a group that you may belong to, and you have to rely on that. Frankly, though you may get a scroll notification of sorts from a group, that is the one that is actually from the Senate. That should be the one that we all can rely on. I don’t understand why there wasn’t one sent out last Thursday, but that is something that is quite important.
One of my questions today to each of you is, were you consulted when those Senate rule changes were being formulated? Were you consulted by any senator from the Government Representative Office prior to those major Senate rule changes being introduced in the Senate, including Senator Lankin who was the Government Whip liaison at the time? If you were, please tell us about those consultations.
The Chair: Who wants to start?
Senator McCallum: Yes. James and I spoke with Senator Lankin. We had a Zoom meeting with her.
Senator Batters: How did that go? What length of time was it? Did you bring up matters that you felt were dealt with, or did you feel you were heard but your concerns were not addressed?
Senator McCallum: I cannot even remember what we talked about. That is how general it was.
Senator Batters: Interesting. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Senator Batters, I do want to thank the chair and deputy chairs. I did also, without naming you at the beginning of my presentation, appreciate that.
Yes. I had several conversations with Senator Lankin. I felt that the motion and our being here today are connected to those conversations. I expressed a lot of concerns about where this was all going. We are now dealing with a de facto situation. Probably the crux of the discussion was that much of the work of this committee, reports from this committee, surfaced in that previous motion.
This is an opportunity to acknowledge, first of all, that the kind of inequality that we are talking about today has been the norm in the Senate long before the current government. Senate after Senate after Senate, government after government after government, has perpetuated this de facto inequality of unaffiliated senators. We are back to a situation where no one government holds responsibility. We hold that responsibility. We function in a closed circuit of senator-to-senator governance on absolutely everything. It is up to us.
Senator Batters: Since you said you had several conversations with Senator Lankin prior to these rule changes being introduced, were you especially surprised when you saw the product after those discussions and that non-affiliated senators were not mentioned once in eight pages?
Senator McPhedran: No. Was I disappointed? Yes. Was I surprised? No.
Senator Batters: Interesting. Thank you.
Senator Brazeau, do you have anything to add?
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for the question.
In terms of myself, I had a conversation with Senator Lankin around the time that the government motion was being contemplated being introduced that dealt with the groups within the Senate. I had a short, quick conversation. At that time, I was also made aware that there would be another motion coming forward that dealt with the unaffiliated senators.
The point I want to make here again is about equality. When the first government motion was introduced, we heard the words “equal, equality, senators are equal.” Just the fact that there are two separate motions demonstrates that we are not equal.
Senator Batters: Exactly.
Senator Ringuette: First, I would like to make a few statements.
I have been in the Senate for 21 years. When the Senate had a Liberal caucus and a Conservative caucus, I still had to wait in line for a proposed statement or a proposed question. There’s not enough time for either to satisfy everyone.
Also, because of my function, I am aware that the Speaker’s office allows and entertains statements and questions from non-affiliated senators.
To Senator Brazeau’s comment, I gather what you are looking for is more of a certain time frame for questions and statements from non-affiliated senators, bearing in mind that the Senate has always functioned on proportionality, whether it is groups or caucuses. More or less, each of you would have 1%, which is about that. Is it the certain time frame that you are looking for in regard to those two issues?
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for the question.
Yes, it is looking for more structure and certainty, because right now there is none. If you believe that you have had to wait to get statements in in the past, it is worse for unaffiliated senators. That is just the way it works.
Having said that, many new senators who have been named after 2015 have never been in opposition. If and when that time comes, that will bring a different dynamic to the Senate. I do not know if the current subgroups will stand the test of time. Time will tell. As unaffiliated senators, we are basically being forced to join a group if we want what we are asking for this morning.
Having said that, these groups were — for the most part, three of them out of the five — created after I got here. Senators should have a choice to be a part of a group, and equally — equally, there is the word — to not be part of a group. The decision to not be a part of a group should not punish the senators who make that decision for themselves. We know the dynamics here. It is a partisan place. Each time we vote on something, it is partisan, whether we like it or not.
Yes, we need more certainty and structure. If we do want to speak on a subject matter, perhaps we have a two- or three-week window. Sometimes there could be an event happening and we want to make a senators’ statement to highlight that event, but because of the current structure and the way that the Senate works, sometimes that event comes and goes, and six or eight weeks later, there is no sense in making that statement.
Senator Ringuette: I understand that. It happens to me often.
Senator McCallum: You said that we could get onto the lists. I have put my name forward for statements. I go to the bottom of the list. I am told, “If there is time, you can speak.” Many times, there is no time. I do go to COPO. We do put our name in for Question Period, and many times I do get on.
Senator Ringuette: I have a further question on this same issue, if I may. Today, three of you are here. I am looking at the proportion and trying to see a certain time frame and so forth. Would you wish individually to have a time frame, or collectively?
Senator McPhedran: If I may jump in here, from my perspective, today is not the day to go into that kind of granular detail.
Senator Ringuette: We need to know. We need to know.
Senator McPhedran: Yes, I know that, but I don’t think this is your only meeting on this issue. We’re working on a proposal, and for me, it is premature to answer your question.
Senator Ringuette: Senator Brazeau?
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: Could you repeat your question, please?
Senator Ringuette: Regarding the possibility of having some certainty, do you want individual or collective certainty?
Senator Brazeau: I’ll speak for myself. Right now, three of us are non-affiliated senators. There are others, but for the purposes of this activity, there are three of us. There may be more in the future. We don’t know.
To answer your question today, I think that I would prefer a structure for the non‑affiliated senators. We just want to make sure that, in the future, no matter the number, all the non-affiliated senators can be accommodated and there are decisions —
Senator Ringuette: — and that you organize the opportunity among yourselves?
Senator Brazeau: And decisions would be made for the person speaking, as is the case in other groups.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, senators, for being with us. I appreciate the concerns that you have raised. I have one question for Senator McCallum and then a question for all of you.
Senator McCallum, you raised a piece of paper that had questions on it. I did not receive any of those questions.
Senator McCallum: No. I just did them this morning. I could send them to you.
Senator Kutcher: Could you just send them to everybody?
Senator McCallum: It’s questions I ask myself.
Senator Kutcher: Then we could have a more fulsome understanding of it. That is great.
Senator McCallum: What bothered me the most was that when that happened to me, it affected my integrity. It also affected my ability to sponsor another bill, because will people say, “Well, she could not get it through”? There is a lot. Those are the questions I ask.
Senator Kutcher: I would appreciate you sending that to us. Thank you.
I am listening to what you are saying and trying to understand more of the nuances and the concrete components of that. I hear the concern. Do you have specific proposals for this committee that we can look at, proposals that would potentially lead to a change in the rules that we could then study and evaluate? For me personally, I would find that helpful. What is it that could be done? Have you thought about that? Do you have any specific proposals for us to look at concretely?
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for the question.
Unfortunately, it’s difficult to answer because we don’t know the aim of the government, how far they are willing to go and what methods they are willing to use to bring about these proposed changes, and we don’t really know what they will be as of yet.
One thing I mentioned earlier, just thinking out loud, was that Wednesdays are relatively short days. Perhaps one Wednesday out of the month when the Senate sits, there could be a bracket of space that could be held there for unaffiliated senators. But in terms of concrete solutions, we need more of a discussion about how free we are and how far we can actually go.
Senator McPhedran: I would respond to that by saying, yes, we are discussing some options, but I think we have a much better chance of being able to move forward if it is the will of this committee — it all rests with members of this committee — to come up with some options and if there is a desire to make the change, which is why I used my time today to address that.
There are a number of different options. I don’t think that any of the possible options would disrupt the kind of procedural efficiency that Senator Wells has emphasized and that we all want, but they could potentially move us to a place where whatever changes this committee could recommend would be mindful of not only the principle of equality of all senators, but also the dignity of all senators and how, in some cases, what we are forced into can feel quite undignified.
As an example, to pick up on the power of “no,” last week there was somewhat of a play on that that involved me. Immediately, at break, one of the group leaders came up to me, pointed his finger at me and said, “This is not going to go well for you.” With the kind of quid pro quo that we have all been raising, there is a lot of background and back-channel subtext that becomes part of this. The power of “no” triggers that kind of behaviour as well. We have the opportunity to move together to a more positive forum of procedural efficiency that is also more inclusive and more respectful of the equality of all senators.
Senator McCallum: I want to speak from the way I was raised, which is consensus based on sober second thought. I had gone to one of the leaders and asked, “Is there a chance that the four leaders could arrive at decisions based on consensus instead of bartering?” And he said, “No.”
When we look at what happens in the chamber where people jump up and adjourn and there’s so much disruption, that has to stop. That doesn’t belong there. It’s threatening. People have speeches they have prepared. There is so much drama in there. I don’t know why we allow our chamber to be so disrespected. We need more respect of one another. We need to have our voices heard, because the voices I bring are of Indigenous people. We need to find a way to get the bartering out of there and have everything come from merit. We learn from all that you bring to the table. That is the purpose.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I think that most of my questions were answered after the questions from Senator Kutcher and Senator Ringuette about certainty and the proposed structure, and after you were asked whether you had anything to suggest.
I think that we’ll take in all Senator McCallum’s questions. We’ll get to know your concerns, but we’re already familiar with them.
We need to know whether you, in all your time thinking about it, have come up with a solutions plan. That means, for example, solutions for every issue that bothers you, that prevents you from moving forward as a senator or that prevents you from properly fulfilling your role as a senator.
You listed some of them, but perhaps you missed a few others. You must have thought of some solutions for us. That would be appreciated, especially now that the door is open.
Second, when proposed, these solutions could be the topic of another discussion.
In my opinion, this could be the right solution starting today. What do you think?
[English]
Senator McCallum: I truly do not have the solutions because you guys have the power and we don’t. I always go to the leaders. I will submit all of the things I wrote to the leaders, including the vote last Thursday that was not last minute. There is still that thought that we need to barter with something.
When people play games and they know the rules, you cannot have a solution because it’s adjourn this, adjourn that. I don’t understand it. I didn’t come here to play those games. We have limited time in the Senate to do the work that needs to be done. That’s why I’m here. I want you to help us do that. That is my request.
The Chair: Thank you. I think you have expressed your frustrations very well, and they are shared by even senators who are within groups.
Senator McPhedran, you wanted to say something?
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, chair.
I think we do have suggestions, but I want to go back to my primary point today, and it was just clearly articulated again by Senator McCallum. This committee has the power and responsibility. One of the strengths of Senate committees is the capacity and the resources to study an issue. If I may make a proposal to the committee, this is something in which all three of us would most definitely want to participate if we were invited. Would it not be possible for this committee to decide to study this issue beyond the bubble, the closed circuit of the Senate itself, and go elsewhere? Perhaps look at what is happening in other parliamentary settings? For example, in our very own House of Commons, there is time reserved for unaffiliated members of Parliament. They have a predictable time when they know they will be able to ask questions. That doesn’t disrupt the procedural efficiency. To make changes like this, we’re not throwing out all of our procedural efficiency. Frankly, that’s not a very accurate way to depict the situation, both the opportunity and the challenge that we’re facing. None of the previous reports of this committee actually dealt with this issue. This is a fresh opportunity for us to work together to do so.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: For non-affiliated senators, the main issue lies in the fact that, to obtain the right to speak, we need to approach the leaders of the five different subgroups. We need to make sure that, if they don’t have enough members who want to speak, we can have the rest of the time. Structure means knowing when non-affiliated senators can speak and not hearing that we’ll be put on the list. I’ve often been unable to take the floor for a number of weeks. I’m not complaining. However, the current practice isn’t fair.
We’re in a partisan system. I understand that some senators have a limited number of years of services. Other senators join forces with people from their own province or with colleagues who work on the same issues. I understand the differences and the reasons behind senators’ decisions to join a group. However, the same respect should be extended to senators who, for whatever reason, decide not to join a group.
I’m part of a group of 105 colleagues. The Supreme Court has nine judges. Do they have three subgroups? Do they have breakout sessions? I don’t think so. Maybe the Senate will go back to two groups in the future. However, we aren’t there yet.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Can I make a comment? When the leaders meet, we don’t know what they have met about. That’s where the bartering goes on. If they sent us a letter stating why they met — but we have to wait in Senate and say “no.” When we say “no”, then it affects us.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Woo: Thank you for your testimony today.
Can I first make a comment on groups and why they exist? The characterization that all groups are there to produce cookies and rewards is unfair, if I may say so. I just want to set the record straight here. There may be some groups and maybe some senators who are interested in groups only because of rewards and cookies. I get that. Maybe you want to be in a group because you want a certain travel privilege or you want to be on a certain committee and that’s your criteria. I get that. That’s fair enough. But the ISG is not that way. I’m not saying it’s superior. The ISG exists because we want to bake cookies together. We’re not giving out cookies. We’re making cookies together. We want to help each other, and we want to cooperate to the best of our ability without imposing our views on each other. I hope we don’t fall into the trap that there is a stereotype of groups that is based on a leader that has all these cookies in his or her pocket to hand out to people.
As some of you will remember who have been in the group, every ISG member gets the right to choose the committee they are on. In the past, typically every ISG gets the first choice but almost never gets the second choice as well, which is the reality of a limited number of committees and lots of people who want to be on the same committee. The challenge of allocating scarce resources is endemic to the Senate. It’s not just for you. It’s for all of us around this table.
The principle by which we have tried to organize ourselves, especially since 2016, both for the Senate as a whole and within groups, is the principle of proportionality. First of all, do you support the principle of proportionality insofar as it applies to you, which would mean that vis-à-vis your one seat out of 105, you should get roughly under 1% of committee seats, speaking time, QP and so on and so forth? Is that a principle that you more or less subscribe to?
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much, Senator Woo.
Each of us has our own personal experience of group or non‑group membership. I do need to say that your experience was not my experience. It might be useful just to acknowledge that all three of us experienced the ISG, and all three of us left the ISG. That is just to respond to that point.
As to proportionality, rather than being boxed in at this moment in time on one particular principle, I would prefer if we could return to the suggestion that there is an opportunity here to study this issue thoroughly and address it in a way that no other Rules Committee ever has. That would be one of the important considerations. But certainly, I’m not prepared to respond on that one point today. There is a much more complex situation here that is worthy of more study.
Senator Brazeau: I think it’s premature to answer that question. As I said, many of our colleagues have not been in opposition. When that time happens, it’s going to change the dynamic of the Senate. Perhaps we’ll be in a better position to talk about percentages then, but it’s way too early to say.
This shouldn’t be a discussion about cookies either. I’m not interested in cookies. Having said that, you respectfully are part of a group that has the resources because you are a group, so when we’re talking about cookies, the ISG gets a budget. You have human resources there to help you. As unaffiliated senators, we don’t have those cookies. What we’re talking about is not cookies; it’s respect. We are not being respected equally because you are part of a group and I am not. Therein lies the difference. Let’s not have the discussion about cookies.
Senator McCallum: I have to speak to the committee. As you know, when I was with ISG — you brought it up — I got my first choice and a second choice, and that was taken away without reason. I met with you and said that I would like to appeal that decision. How did this other person get in? Nope. I said, “Okay, then I want my third choice.” It was given to a senator who didn’t even apply for that committee. That’s one of the reasons I left. That was good reason to leave, and I don’t know what the other groups offer.
Considering what happened last week and the passage of all the bills, do I want to go into the group now? You give away so much. You give away your voice. You give away your respect when you’re trying to fit into the group, instead of belonging to the issue and belonging. I would ask that we be given a fair chance to really be able to know what is happening on the floor.
The Chair: We’ll leave you an answer.
Senator Woo: I have a question about how we get on the committees we want. Is it your view that it is not simply a question that you deserve to be on a committee — you absolutely do — but you deserve to be on a committee that you want to be on?
Senator McCallum: Yes, it is. You had criteria on what it needed, and I fit four of the criteria. The other person didn’t. I would have been the only Indigenous person on there. No. So I wonder what is happening here.
The Chair: I understand your frustration. Here we are setting the stage for a study on the principle of equality among senators, and we know we have been dealing with the principle of proportionality for groups. At the same time, it doesn’t mean that the equality among senators does not exist and should not exist if it doesn’t. We are setting the stage for a study on this important issue that was raised in the Senate. Long before I was here, there have been non-affiliated senators in the Senate. They found their way sometimes, but there were frustrations at that time. I heard from old senators who heard from them too. It’s an ongoing issue. It will be important.
Other senates in the world have dealt with the issue of non-affiliated senators. There are mechanisms to try to organize the work so that there is some kind of equality. Equality is important. As a chair, I think it’s important to say that because it is connected with the fact that we are or are not able to do our work constitutionally on the same footing, on the same level playing field, as others. There are ways. We are just starting this study.
I know that Senator Omidvar would like to speak, and then we have another witness on a second part of this panel. We’ll look at the actual rules and processes and how we are dealing with it now.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, chair. My questions have been abundantly asked and answered.
Senator McPhedran: I very much appreciate the flexible courtesy of this discussion. I would like to make two closing points.
One is about equality, and I would just put on the record — I spoke to this last week — we want to be mindful of substantive equality and not go the route of formal equality.
The other point I want to make is that most of what happens in terms of committees happens through leadership decisions. It doesn’t happen through rules. I think we also want to be mindful in these discussions about what can happen through changes to rules and procedures and how that will impact on the leadership dynamics. But it’s not all about the rules. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your participation. Thank you also for expressing your truth. We received it clearly. For me, when I was listening to you, I understand that rules and procedures and practices are one thing, but your integrity is also important. You feel that this subject is related to the larger issue of respect, equality and integrity.
[Translation]
Thank you. We’ll now move on to our next panel.
Ms. Fortin, thank you for joining us to explain the current situation with regard to the Rules and procedures. You can give your opening remarks. This will be followed by a question and answer period until 11:20 a.m. After that, one senator would like to have a discussion.
I’ll give Senator Kutcher a chance to speak and make some suggestions, and maybe even move a motion. We’ll give him some time. He’ll speak at 11:20 a.m. Right now, we’re joined by Ms. Fortin. We’ll continue our deliberations on the topic at hand. Senator Kutcher wants to speak, so I gave him the floor.
Ms. Fortin, time is of the essence and the floor is yours.
Maxime Fortin, Acting Clerk Assistant, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you. Good morning, honourable senators. I’ve been asked to provide a brief history of the rules, practices and decisions regarding the number of senators on committees, including non-affiliated senators, and specifically regarding the role of the Standing Senate Committee of Selection.
I should first point out that this is a recent issue. Prior to the 42nd Parliament, most senators were affiliated with either the government caucus or the opposition caucus. The few senators who didn’t belong to a caucus were considered independent senators.
Since 2019, the Senate’s composition and rules have changed considerably.
[English]
I’ll start with current rules related relating to membership and non-affiliated senators.
First, according to rule 12-1, following the opening of a new session, and often before the adjournment of the first sitting after the Speech from the Throne, there is a motion to strike the Committee of Selection, to be composed of nine members, to report on the membership of the Senate’s standing committees. Rule 12-1 was modified in 2017 to stipulate that the membership of SELE should be proportionate to the recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups in the Senate and that senators who are not members of a recognized party or group should be treated as if they were members of a separate group for the purpose of proportionality.
[Translation]
Rule 12-2(1) specifies that, when a senator is appointed to a committee, the seat belongs to the senator for the duration of the session, and not to the group or party. This means that a senator who changes affiliation in the middle of a session usually continues to sit on a committee and remains chair or deputy chair.
Rule 12-5 specifies that the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition or the leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or parliamentary group, or their respective delegates, may make changes to committee membership on behalf of the members of their group or caucus.
However, the Rules don’t provide a method for changing the membership of non-affiliated senators who sit on committees.
[English]
I will now speak to the evolution and the composition of committees.
Committee membership in the Senate has always generally reflected the composition in the Chamber. Decisions on the composition of committee memberships and the affiliation of chairs and deputy chairs are typically decided after negotiations between the leaderships of recognized parties and groups, then formalized through the adoption of membership reports from SELE by the Senate.
Prior to the 42nd Parliament, a practice existed which allowed the then-called “independent” senators to place themselves under the authority of a whip of one of the recognized parties for the purpose of their membership on certain committees.
[Translation]
At the start of the 42nd Parliament, the 50 or so newly-appointed independent senators didn’t have any status or recognition in the Rules other than their status as senators. They didn’t receive any special funding and they didn’t sit on committees. Over a number of months, the Senate passed a series of sessional orders. Both traditional parties voluntarily gave up some committee seats so that independent senators could participate as official members. During this period, for the first time, committee seats were tied to parties or groups by either sessional order or by the Senate Standing Committee of Selection reports passed by the Senate. These provisions expired with the dissolution of the 42nd Parliament.
[English]
In 2017, the Senate amended some of its rules to introduce the concept of “recognized parliamentary groups.” Thanks to a number of subsequent amendments to the rules, recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups are now treated almost entirely equally in the Rules and Practices of the Senate in terms of funding and participation on committees, for example. The term “non-affiliated” senator was also introduced to signify those senators who do not belong to either a recognized party or group. It replaced the term “independents.” In the last few years, the Parliament of Canada Act was amended to take account of the existence of both party and non-party groups in the Senate to give them legislative status, sessional allowances and other official recognition.
During 43-1, a sessional order was adopted by the Senate which included provisions to preserve a specific number of committee seats for each recognized party or parliamentary group. The motion specified that if senators ceased to be a member of a recognized party or group, their committee seats would be filled by the leader or facilitator of their original party or group; that if a senator’s party or group ceases to exist, the senator would retain their existing committee seats; and that if a non-affiliated senator joined a recognized party or group, their committee seats would become vacant.
For the current parliamentary session, the second report of the Selection Committee, adopted by the Senate in December 2021, contained similar provisions to preserve a specific number of committee seats for each recognized party or parliamentary group and a process to replace a senator if they change affiliation.
[Translation]
During the 42nd Parliament, the Senate occasionally passed temporary provisions to change the membership of committees for non-affiliated senators. For this Parliament, the second report of the Selection Committee states that non-affiliated senators may, by written notice to the Clerk of the Senate, place themselves under the authority of the leader or facilitator of a recognized party or parliamentary group for the purposes of making membership changes to committees, including the joint committees, following the process established in rule 12-5. This gives non-affiliated senators the opportunity to sit on committees following individual negotiations between the non-affiliated senator and a party or group that agrees to give up a seat.
[English]
There are still many things to say and I could go into more detail, but I will stop here to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fortin.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Ms. Fortin, for your presentation but also for your work on committees, of which you are a clerk on one of mine, so thank you for that as well.
Regarding members of committees and non-members of committees who attend committees, of course, with some exceptions, a senator can attend any committee. Aside from voting privileges, are there any other rights that members have over non-members when attending a committee?
Ms. Fortin: Non-members can’t move motions either. They also don’t count toward quorum. I know some committees have adopted different practices in terms of who gets to ask questions first, and sometimes members are prioritized over non-members. Other than those three exceptions — that is, moving a motion, voting and counting towards quorum — they have equal rights and privileges.
Senator Wells: I have seen that at some committees too, where the chair will defer to the deputy chair on first question, but it’s not a rule, just a practice. Some might consider it a courtesy. Thank you. I’ll have more questions later.
Senator Woo: Is there a way for a non-affiliated senator to be appointed to a committee not under the authority of the whip or leader of a recognized parliamentary group or caucus?
Ms. Fortin: They could be added in a report from the Selection Committee. The committee could decide to give a seat to a non-affiliated senator. There is also by motion of the Senate. That would another way to do that.
Senator Woo: At the creation, essentially. If that were to happen, then that non-affiliated member on a committee not under the authority of any other leader would still have to give up the seat if he or she joined a group; is that correct? Or is that not the case?
Ms. Fortin: Currently, the way the second report of Selection has been worded, no seats have been allocated to a non-affiliated senator. That’s why the provisions apply to a non-affiliated senator who would change their affiliation. If we just go with the way the rules are written currently, the seat belongs to the senator, not to a group.
Senator Woo: Exactly. Right.
Ms. Fortin: The second report of Selection acts as a sort of sessional order. Those provisions are only for this session.
Senator Woo: If we could find a way that was fair to all senators, including non-affiliated senators, to get on the committees that they were interested in — again, in a fair and equitable way — that non-affiliated senator could safely get on the committee and not run the risk of being bumped by a leader because that person would not be under the authority? That is hypothetically possible?
Ms. Fortin: Yes. Currently, there is no provision for replacements for non-affiliated senators.
Senator Woo: Okay.
Ms. Fortin: They couldn’t currently get replaced, even temporarily, on a committee the way the rules are worded currently.
Senator Woo: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have a question for you, Ms. Fortin. Are there any provisions, rules or practices regarding the allocation of statements or questions?
Ms. Fortin: This question is more for my colleagues in the Chamber Operations and Procedure Office. I can pass the question on to them and get back to you with an answer.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Ms. Fortin?
[English]
Senator Omidvar: I have a question that arose because of testimony we heard.
There is nothing in the Rules of the Senate that determines who is a member of an interparliamentary friendship group or the executive? Is there anything in the rules that states something on that?
Ms. Fortin: There is nothing in the rules. To have more information, again, that would be a question for my colleagues at IIA. Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Ms. Fortin, thank you for joining us. We talk a great deal about proportionality when it comes to calculating everything. Is this proportionality based on the total number of senators, so around 95, or are non-affiliated senators excluded from this figure?
Ms. Fortin: Proportionality is based on the total number of senators. Generally, at the start of a session, we look at the number of senators in the House. We then provide a table with proportionality figures for each party or group. We don’t bother rounding off the figures. As you can imagine, we often end up with figures such as three or four members. We let you round off the figures as you see fit. We provide these statistics to the Selection Committee, for example, to help its members determine the proportionality. This means the number of members for each type of committee, such as 9, 12 or 15 members.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cordy: I have comments to make.
Senators around the table who have been here for a while know that when the Progressive Senate Group started, we were basically non-affiliated because we did not have the numbers for a recognized group. We were fortunate because Senator Woo was a leader at the time, and Senator Plett, and both gave our group seats on committees. Clearly, there was not a seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee or Social or committees that many people vie for within groups, and we understood that. We were pleased to be given seats. We understood that they could be taken from us, but that never happened. We had them for the full term.
Oftentimes, decisions are made informally. In this Parliament, we have given a seat on the Official Languages Committee — not planning on taking it back — to the current Speaker who at that time was non-affiliated. Remember, the G3, as we call them, are all non-affiliated as well because there are only three. Some of them wanted seats, and many of the groups allowed that they could get them. We have also given a seat to a non-affiliated — not now non-affiliated, but at the time — on the Agriculture Committee because she was very interested in agriculture. Our plan is not to take it from them, although in the rules we could.
There has been goodwill for many years by leaders of groups, and the Senate overall, to try to make accommodations in circumstances for the right reasons. We have to keep that in mind. It is a worthy discussion we are having, and we cannot make judgments based on one panel. It is important, as you said, chair, that we hear from many witnesses about how we can make things work.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Could the witness send us a written copy of the background information that she just provided?
The Chair: When you answered Senator Mégie’s question about proportionality, you clearly explained that each group’s proportion of committee seats is based on the total number of senators, meaning 105.
Ms. Fortin: It’s based on the number of senators. The vacant seats are removed.
The Chair: The vacant seats are removed?
Ms. Fortin: In general, yes, exactly. The calculation is based on the number of sitting senators.
The Chair: Okay. This clarification matters. At that point, the total number of seats is allocated based on the proportion of the number of sitting senators. If there are 95 senators, the proportion will be based on 95 senators, and all the committee seats will be allocated to all these senators among the groups?
Ms. Fortin: We give you the figures and the proportions. I know that we’ve also provided figures with 105 seats for the sake of comparison. However, we generally use the number of occupied seats. There may then be negotiations that result in a group or party negotiating for more seats on one committee and fewer on another. At this point, the negotiations are political and we aren’t involved.
The Chair: In terms of the rights of non-affiliated senators, do the Rules state that they must be treated as a group at this time?
Ms. Fortin: Exactly. We look at the number of non-affiliated senators, including the senators from the caucus or the government group. Based on that number, we provide figures that show what this means when it comes to the number of seats per committee.
The Chair: The Rules state somewhere that committee seats are available for non-affiliated senators, since they’re factored into proportionality calculations? That’s debatable.
Ms. Fortin: The calculation for non-affiliated senators in the Rules is meant for members of the Selection Committee. At that point, they should be considered a separate group. Afterwards, for all committees, it’s up to the Selection Committee. We give you the statistic showing how many members this would constitute if they were a group. However, for the composition of committees, the Rules don’t require proportionality. In the past, the Senate has chosen to operate in this manner. The goal is to ensure a certain level of proportionality in committees. That said, apart from the Selection Committee, this rule isn’t enshrined in the Rules.
[English]
The Chair: My question was, when you calculate the proportionality, if you have all of the groups, including the non-affiliated, as a part of this computation — let’s say the non-affiliated have 5% of the seats — the SELE Committee is where they should get the 5% of the seats for them.
Senator Woo: In practice, that is very difficult to work out. Knowing the proportion of seats that the non-affiliateds are entitled to does not tell you which seats they should get. That is really the big question.
In the past, one practice has been for one of the groups to take the non-affiliated senators under their wing or umbrella, if I can put it that way, so that that the group has more than its proportion because it has the allocation of the non-affiliateds as well, and then the allocation process takes place within the group process. But the non-affiliateds would have to be okay with the process, and there is always the difficult question of how that group prioritizes its members over the non-affiliated senators. There is a way of guaranteeing that the non-affiliateds will get at least a proportionate number of seats.
The Chair: Thank you for that, Senator Woo. That adds to what Senator McCallum was explaining.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: First, I absolutely agree. Also, in terms of non-affiliated senators, during the most recent negotiation, all the recognized groups agreed on the senators who would receive offers so that each non-affiliated senator could have a choice.
We asked them for their order of preference. We prioritized the senators in our groups. I’ll follow up on what Senator Cordy said. As far as we’re concerned too, the senators who became unaffiliated from a group kept their Independent Senators Group seats on the committees. This applies to a senator who was here this morning. She kept her seat on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. This committee is tremendously important and quite popular within my group.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Chair, I do not have a question but I have a reflection.
There is an ongoing tension between the principles of proportionality, equality and equity. They are not the same; they are different. That is what this committee might want to try and tease out as we embark upon what I think you are heading toward, which is a study.
The Chair: Thank you.
We have covered many things. If there are no questions, Senator Kutcher wanted to talk about the issue that we are talking about today.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ms. Fortin.
I recognize that we heard some very important concerns about access to specific activities that occur in the Senate in the previous panel. Those concerns were presented to us, but we do not have any data on the access issue, so I would like to move a motion that this committee ask the analysts to prepare data to assist us in better understanding some of these concerns. Specifically, it would be data on the number of statements, data on the number of questions and data on the number of speeches on bills on a per capita basis, comparing the unaffiliated senators as a group to all the other groups between the years of 2018 and 2024. That gives us a six-year period so we have data to see what is actually the proportional comparison, year by year. That would be very useful to have.
The Chair: I have a question for you. When you talk about the non-affiliated data, would you separate the non-affiliated who are just appointed and the non-affiliated who have been there for a while, or it is all combined? Would that include the GRO?
Senator Kutcher: I would put the GRO and the people who are unaffiliated together. We could do a sub-analysis. If we are looking at it as it currently sits, there are six, three in the GRO and three who have chosen unaffiliated status. I don’t think we could include people who have been appointed but have not decided yet to be a part of the analysis. That is not fair. However, if we have the analysis done on the six, using today’s data, and parse it out because GRO would skew the numbers — we do not want the numbers skewed — we want to be able to look specifically at those people who have chosen to be unaffiliated as a per capita proportion.
Senator Cordy: With the GRO, I do not know how many questions they have ever asked during Question Period or how many senators’ statements they have made; those have been rare. That might skew it. Separate would be good.
Senator Woo: To give an example of the kind of calculation that I would be interested in, when you think of ministerial QP — and that was a specific concern raised by one of our colleagues — typically, you get up to 15 senators per ministerial QP block. If there are six ministerial QPs in a given year and 90 senators, which is how many we currently have, that means that each senator has a quota of one question for the six sets of ministerial QP. I would be interested to know if our non-affiliated senators are getting their quota. I would be interested to know if I am getting my quota. I don’t think I am.
The question is about access and how we allocate these limited spots that are available, as well as whether non-affiliated senators have been penalized because of their non-affiliated status.
Senator Ringuette: I would certainly like to see that data, because sometimes it is only a matter of perception and not a matter of reality. We need to go to reality there.
The Chair: I think the numbers and data are very important to consider. They have to be taken in context and added with qualitative analysis, because the per-senator questions for ministerial QP, for instance — I know for myself, for some ministers, I prefer to leave that for others who have more acute knowledge of certain issues. Depending upon the minister who comes, I might have no questions at all, but it is my choice. I do not know what the data will show, but they would have to be qualified.
Senator Ringuette: We are looking at statements, regular questions during Question Period and ministerial QP.
Senator Omidvar: Speeches on bills, also. They have the right to stand up and speak anytime. You want that in.
Senator Kutcher: The motion is statements, questions and speeches on bills. I think ministerial QP could be another one. However, I will ask if we could consider and vote on this motion — number of statements, number of questions, number of speeches on bills on a per capita basis compared to all the other groups per year.
The Chair: I do not know if that is a motion, but maybe we can treat it as one. I hope we do not take this procedure all of the way around where we ask the library to do some work. They have a lot of work they have to do. I hope they don’t only do the work we vote on. There is a lot of work to be done on the procedures that other jurisdictions use when they have to cope with non-affiliated parliamentarians. We will vote on this one, but that does not preclude the other. I think it is important that the analysts also do the work on the institutions and procedures that exist in other jurisdictions. That was my comment on the fact that you asked for a vote on this point.
All those in favour? All those against? All those who abstain? The motion is carried.
On that note, there is a question that we have to ask before we finish our work for the summer break, which is the experiment on the calendar. We have a seventh report that is almost ready. It has been tabled to the steering committee. It is in English now. It will be in French this week. You will get it. We will be looking at this report on the special project of Senator Ringuette next week.
Senator Omidvar: Madam Chair, can we assume that we are meeting next week? It seems to me that we could have had this two-page report — I hear it is a short report — earlier from the clerk.
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: Senator, it has been drafted. It is currently in translation. We cannot consider a draft report in one language.
Senator Omidvar: Technically, if we don’t meet next week, which I hear is the rumour, then we are not going to get to this until we return in September.
The Chair: What I was proposing was to come back Tuesday morning at 9:30 a.m. I do not know if we are going to sit Monday night. I do not think so. It is Senate business. It is not a study. The clerk and the analysts did what they had to do as quickly as they could. This is it. The translation takes time.
Senator Black: I wonder, did it take into account the considerations of the document that the Canadian Senators Group sent. That was not considered during the discussion last week. It was only shared at that point with —
The Chair: Senator Black, last time, we did consider your report. It was read. I read it.
Senator Black: Thank you. I was under the impression that it was sent after the fact.
The Chair: No.
Senator Black: Thank you.
The Chair: I read it. Your point was really important.
Senator Black: Thank you.
The Chair: Regarding the report, I will let the clerk explain how he wrote the report.
Mr. Thompson: Senators, I will say, as has been noted, that the letter was shared with steering in advance of last week’s meeting. It was read into the record at last week’s meeting. The letter was then translated and distributed so that all senators had a copy.
The draft report as it stands now includes a summary of arguments in favour and against, and I believe the full nature of the discussion that took place in the committee is represented, obviously subject to your approval. You may wish to propose changes and emphasize or de-emphasize certain elements of it. That is the instruction I received, and that is what we prepared as quickly as we were able to, as it was not something that we had been expecting prior to last week’s meeting.
The Chair: The motion in the report is along the lines that Senator Woo was proposing. It has been sent to the steering committee, as I know. It is in English. It will be in French. If steering gives us the okay, you will get it as soon as possible. It is a matter of having it. Next Tuesday, we will vote on this report. We will look at it say if we agree. It is a motion that says we invite the leaders and facilitators to adopt the schedule.
We will meet next week. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)