THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 1, 2024
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:31 a.m. [ET] pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), in consideration of possible amendments to the Rules, and to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We’re about to start our first fall meeting. We had a meeting of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure last week. I’m Diane Bellemare, chair of this committee. Before we begin, we’ll go around the table so everyone can introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie, Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: [words spoken in Innu-Aimun] Michèle Audette, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator Lankin: Francis Lankin, Ontario.
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator McNair: John McNair, New Brunswick.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, and welcome everyone. This morning we’re going to continue the work we started last June on unaffiliated senators, but just before we do, I’m going to give a quick reminder in relation to earpieces; I ask you to always keep them away from the microphone to avoid accidents.
On that note, let’s recall that, at our last session last June, we heard testimony from three independent senators — that is, unaffiliated, three unaffiliated senators. They were called “independents” in the old days, but in these modern times when there are many independent and regrouped senators, we now have senators who are not affiliated with any group or caucus. We have decided to review the status of these senators.
Let’s also remember that last May or June, Senator Lankin tabled an amendment in the Senate — she’s part of the government representatives group — which proposed that the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament review all the rules and practices that concern unaffiliated senators. The proposal called for this review to be completed by December 2024.
Of course, this motion hasn’t been passed yet, but we had already decided to do this review. We’re going to continue it. As you know, this is my last meeting with you, since the Senate is abandoning me on October 13. So we’ll have time today to pass a motion to replace me. Next week, we’ll devote the meeting not to a committee of the whole, but rather to a meeting of the steering committee, to decide what to do next.
With that, let’s begin the first part of our meeting today. We have two witnesses. They are clerks of the House of Commons. We have with us Jeffrey LeBlanc, Deputy Clerk, Procedure, and Jean-Philippe Brochu, Clerk Assistant, House Proceedings. We invited them to analyze and understand a little better how unaffiliated MPs are treated in the other place.
In a second step, we’re going to look at data concerning unaffiliated senators. This comes from an analysis carried out by the Library of Parliament following a motion by Senator Kutcher to examine these statistics. It was very long, as you’ll see, but that’s for part two.
Let’s begin without further ado with the testimony of our clerks, who will each have a few minutes, and then we’ll proceed with the question period.
Jeffrey LeBlanc, Deputy Clerk, Procedure, House of Commons: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We would first like to thank the members of the committee for inviting us to appear. We would like to share with you our observations on the opportunities offered to independent members and those belonging to unrecognized parties to participate in the work of the House. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have afterwards.
[English]
From the standpoint of parliamentary procedure, you may be surprised to learn that the Standing Orders of the House of Commons do not define what a recognized party is. Speakers have had to rely on recent practice and past decisions stipulating that a recognized party is one that has 12 members or more.
The Parliament of Canada Act provides for monetary benefits in the form of allowances for certain positions in parties with at least 12 members in the House of Commons, and, furthermore, the bylaws of the Board of Internal Economy grant financial support to parties with more than 12 members.
[Translation]
The Standing Orders and practice also confer certain advantages on recognized parties and their MPs, such as the order of speeches during debates, the allocation of opposition days in the work on supply, the right to request a recorded vote, or the composition of standing and legislative committees, to mention a few.
Despite everything, independent members and members of unrecognized parties can take part in the work of the House and its committees in a variety of ways.
Jean-Philippe Brochu, Clerk Assistant, House Proceedings, House of Commons: Currently, in the House, there are two Green Party MPs, Ms. May and Mr. Morrice. Since this party does not have a minimum of 12 members, it does not have recognized party status. The House also has four independent members — Mr. Dong, Mr. Rayes, Mr. Rodriguez for the past few days, and Mr. Vuong — who are not affiliated with any party. Together, these six members represent 1.8% of members. I should say that they represent 3.28% of the opposition, i.e., 6 members out of 183. The number of independents obviously varies from one Parliament to the next, and even within a single Parliament. For example, during the Forty-second Parliament, this total number rose from 11 members at the start to 22 members at dissolution.
[English]
Like their colleagues, independent members and members of non-recognized parties may take part in the legislative process in various ways. They can contribute to private members’ business, and they can place on notice and move motions of amendments at report stage.
The order speakers follow during debate is typically negotiated at the start of a parliament as part of an agreement between the recognized parties. The Speaker assigns the forty-ninth speaking slot to independent members and members of non-recognized parties on a first-come, first-serve basis. If they’re given the floor during debate, those members can then move amendments and sub-amendments, as would any other member. If necessary, members can negotiate among themselves, and a recognized party will occasionally yield one of its speaking slots to independent members.
However, these members rarely have the opportunity to take part in certain types of debates, such as debates on opposition motions, emergency debates and debates on private member’s business, as the proceedings are usually interrupted before their speaking slot is reached. As a result, they focus, instead, on participating in the questions and comments period that follows their colleagues’ speeches.
[Translation]
In recent years, we have also seen the occasional special order provisions adopted by the House providing for the participation of MPs from unrecognized parties. We see this in the case of certain tributes, special debates or even bills whose deliberations are to be regulated. In these cases, the wording of the motion for the speeches would include something like, “that a member of each recognized party and a member of the Green Party be allowed to speak”.
Let us emphasize that independent MPs are not usually added to the list of committee members, although exceptions do occur. Despite this, the Standing Orders stipulate that, unless the House or the committee orders otherwise, any member who is not a committee member may take part in public deliberations, but may not vote, propose a motion or form part of the quorum. As a result, independent members and members of unrecognized parties sometimes attend meetings. Committees have even allowed them to ask questions of witnesses.
[English]
Since the Forty-first Parliament, standing committees have adopted routine motions at the start of each session in order to allow independent members to take part in clause-by-clause consideration of bills even if they’re not committee members. They are allowed to submit proposed amendments and make brief statements in support of them. These proposed amendments are then deemed to have been moved during clause-by-clause consideration so that the committee can decide on each of them.
[Translation]
Mr. LeBlanc: This brings us to participation in Question Period. In recent years, the speakers have endeavoured to invite independent MPs to ask questions in relative proportion to their seats in the House. This is probably one of the most talked-about issues in the House when it comes to independent members and unrecognized parties. This was the case notably on October 23, 2018, in a ruling by Speaker Regan regarding the number of questions allocated to independents. At the time, he stated:
In fact, recent successive speakers have made significant efforts to find a delicate balance in the allotment of questions between the recognized political parties and the independent members.
[English]
Speaker Rota also considered issues of this nature on February 23, 2021, and April 27, 2021. In their decisions, Speakers reiterated their role in protecting the rights of independent members while reconciling three key factors: established practice, the time allocated by the standing orders and the opportunity to ask the government questions.
Accordingly, based on how many seats they occupy in the House, independent members and members of non-recognized parties currently share four oral questions per week, or one per sitting, except on Tuesdays. These questions are always asked at the end of Question Period after those by recognized parties. In addition, by asking oral questions, members can subsequently raise their questions again by taking part in the adjournment proceedings, what we affectionately call “the late show.”
[Translation]
As for MP statements, at this time, each independent and unrecognized party MP may make only one statement per four-week period, and only one of their statements, the first, is allowed per sitting.
[English]
As you can see, the House’s approach is very often based on calculations of the relative size of the political parties, but some mechanisms do enable independent members to make their voices heard. Because the chair is the guardian of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons as an institution and of the members that compose it, the chair also fulfills its responsibilities by upholding the rights of independent members.
This concludes our presentation. Thank you once again for your invitation to appear. We’d be happy to answer your questions now.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
Senator Saint-Germain: Welcome, Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. Brochu. I have two quick questions. The first is operational. You said that, for Question Periods, four questions are allocated, i.e., there are questions allocated to independents and there are also statements. If I understand correctly, you said that four statements are allocated each month to independents. How is this negotiated? If you allocate a certain number of questions to independents, who negotiates with them? Is it the table? Is it the speaker? Who decides on these four people, and based on what criteria?
Mr. LeBlanc: That’s a very good question. The number is set following negotiations with the recognized parties, which establish the distribution of questions and statements among them. Essentially, it’s a mathematical calculation to arrive at the numbers allocated to independent MPs. Then, for the distribution of questions and statements among them, they negotiate it themselves. So they come to an agreement among themselves. These agreements are communicated to my office. There is one person in my office, a procedural clerk, who is responsible for liaising with the independent members. She is informed regularly on their behalf of who will be asking the questions and delivering the statements each day.
Senator Saint-Germain: My second question is for you, Mr. Brochu. It concerns parliamentary privilege with respect to committees. Unaffiliated members, known as independents, don’t have committees, but they can participate in one and be given the opportunity to ask a question. How does this respect their parliamentary privilege? What is your argument that this approach nevertheless respects parliamentary privilege and the rights of Parliament?
Mr. Brochu: That’s a big question.
Senator Saint-Germain: You can give a short answer.
Mr. Brochu: I’ll try to keep it brief. In the House, committee membership is established by the party whips themselves. So the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs delegates this authority to the whips of the recognized parties. That’s the first thing. It’s recognized in the Standing Orders.
Not all MPs, in any case, can participate in all committees, vote and be members. They can always be asked to replace one of their colleagues when they’re on the same committee. Even if they can’t be members, as I mentioned earlier, they can still attend meetings. However, to speak in committee, they must have the permission of the committee members.
How does this align with privilege? In fact, their access is not restricted, with the exception of in camera meetings, of course. Otherwise, if they wish to speak, as do their colleagues who are not on or members of the committees, they must have permission from each of the committees to do so.
I could mention one thing. You mentioned privilege. I mentioned it earlier in the presentation. One of the big changes that has affected independent members and their participation in committee is the possibility of proposing amendments. There were some particularly complex reporting stages in the House a little over a decade ago, a dozen years now, where some independent members participated by proposing hundreds of amendments. At the time, one of the Speaker’s decisions was to invite committees to give independent MPs more of a voice, so that the work would be done in committee rather than at report stage. Most, if not all, committees now have this type of housekeeping motion that encourages the participation of independent MPs so they can propose amendments at committee stage rather than in the House.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. This is a very important issue in the case of unaffiliated senators.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you for coming to our committee today and helping us with these issues.
Right now, there are really only four independent MPs, as you spelled out. In the materials you have provided, and also in your opening remarks, you were talking about those four independent MPs. There is a total of four Question Period questions per week, and that’s per a Speaker’s decision. Is that one each, or does it vary depending on negotiations between those four independent MPs, and does that also include the two Green Party MPs in that? So really, within that four, there would be six vying for those spots? Does that vary, and how did it work in the last few parliaments, perhaps when there might have been more independent MPs?
Mr. LeBlanc: Good questions.
Yes, indeed, I confirm that the four questions are shared between the six, so the two Green Party members and four independent members. We only very recently gained that sixth. Mr. Rodriguez is only a few days old. Quite often, there are some independent members who don’t participate very much. Mr. Dong, for example, very rarely asks questions. I’m not even sure he has ever asked a question in Question Period. So generally speaking, the remaining four members manage to get a question per week, and that works fine.
In the past, for example, in the Forty-Second Parliament, from 2015 to 2019, the Bloc Québécois had, I think, ten seats, which was just under the number you would need to be a recognized party, so they were still treated as an independent. I don’t believe we’ve ever had a circumstance where the independents have ever had more than one question in Question Period. I think that’s pretty standard. As long as I’ve been here, I don’t think it’s ever been more than one.
Senator Batters: Thank you, yes. Mr. Rodriguez, cabinet minister one day, independent MP the next.
For SO-31, Members’ Statements, were you saying there were four per month?
Mr. LeBlanc: Each independent or non-recognized party member gets to make one statement per block of four weeks. That’s how it’s shared.
Senator Batters: For items designated in the House of Commons for speeches, bills and that type of thing, you were saying in your remarks — please correct me if I am wrong — that, generally, independent MPs don’t usually have a chance to make those types of speeches because they are time-limited slots. By the time it would come around to them, usually the time is already expired, so they focus instead on doing questions and comments.
In the Senate, that’s actually quite an advantage for non-affiliated senators, because there is no limit per item for non-affiliated senators to be able to give speeches. It’s not, “We’re going to debate this bill for one hour, and then we will move on to something else.” We don’t have those limits, so a non-affiliated senator could potentially and give up and give a speech just like every other senator, for a maximum of 15 minutes, unless, of course, the government imposed time allocation on a bill. Otherwise, they would be able to do that. Am I interpreting that correctly? Would you agree that, between the two of them, that is quite an advantage for non-affiliated senators in the Senate?
Mr. LeBlanc: It’s a fair point that our debates — as Jean Phillipe mentioned, it’s the 49th spot that goes to independent or non-recognized party members, and very often, we don’t get to 49 speeches on any particular item. That’s pretty rare. Sometimes they’ll be given spots by other parties to allow them to participate, but in short, time-limited debate, such as opposition days, which is a single day of debate, or private member’s business, which is only two hours’ debate on any given item, it’s very rare they’ll get an opportunity to intervene. If you don’t have those same time-limited debates, it probably provides for more opportunities.
You also have a smaller institution. It’s 105 senators, right? I felt embarrassed for a second there. It’s a smaller institution, so the percentage they represent is larger compared to in the House.
Senator Batters: For government bills, are there often time-limited slots on how long government bills are debated, and what are those?
Mr. LeBlanc: There again, it’s pretty rare we would get to the 49th spot. The times we do is on very controversial bills, or budget implementation bills will sometimes have several days of debate, but most of the time the debate either ends naturally because we’ve run out of speakers or through time allocation where the debate is brought to a close. For independent members who want to participate then, their best chance is to get a spot from one of the recognized parties, which they’re usually able to do, I think, with some success. The Green Party in particular has a pretty good working relationship, and they’re able to sometimes get spots from other parties.
Senator Batters: That is quite a difference if they have to wait until spot number 49.
It doesn’t sound like there’s any role in the overall negotiation for independent MPs to get these speaking slots or things like that. It’s just only recognized parties in the House of Commons that have a role in that negotiation process, right?
Mr. LeBlanc: Correct. The rotations are negotiated by the whips at the beginning of each parliament, and it’s a very mathematical exercise. We have this percentage of seats; we get this percentage of spots. The independent and non-recognized members don’t participate in those negotiations. Once those negotiations are over, they’re presented with what is left over after those negotiations are finished.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for appearing before us this morning.
I don’t mean to put you on the spot, and you might not want to answer this question. Listening to the testimony and the questions, when you’re elected, you’re there to represent a group of people. It seems that these independent MPs don’t really have a voice in the Parliament. I’m specifically talking about the four independent MPs. Is that fair representation of their group of the electorate?
Mr. LeBlanc: The challenge in an institution with 338 MPs is that it’s not always possible that all 338 members are able to speak to every item of business. It wouldn’t be possible. They do find ways to intervene and make their voices heard on specific things. They’re given an opportunity in Question Period, Members’ Statements and questions and comments, which are the three most common ways for them to intervene and make their points known. The other opportunity is to present amendments to bills in committee, which is probably the other way that they’re most frequently active.
Mr. Brochu: They also have the same opportunity as any other member to take part in private members’ business by submitting bills and motions. They’re part of that random draw we conduct at the beginning of each Parliament, so they get an equal chance there.
One thing that is probably not known is that we have some independent members or members of non-recognized parties who are quite active. Some of them are actually participating way more than many other members that belong to recognized parties in the House.
[Translation]
The Chair: My first question is this. If I’ve heard correctly, it could happen, for example, that a recognized group loses that recognition, because it’s below the threshold set out in the Standing Orders, but in total, the number of independent or unaffiliated MPs plus the number of MPs who have lost their recognition forms a large group — I heard 22 at one point. In that case, do the Standing Orders provide for the possibility, for this total number of members, of making their voices heard in another way?
Mr. LeBlanc: That’s a good question. It has never happened that a party that was recognized at the beginning of a legislature fell to fewer than 12 members during the legislature. We don’t have any examples of that. We’ve come close once, but the parties have always maintained their status as recognized parties. They have never fallen below 12. Yes, there are situations where the total number of unaffiliated MPs, to use your term, is above 12. We’ve wondered if they could regroup and form a party. They’ve never tried. I could make an analogy: in the early 2000s, there was a group of MPs who left the official opposition; there were 8 of them. They then joined the Progressive Conservative Party, which had 12 MPs at the time, to form a so-called alliance between these two groups, which was therefore comprised of 20 MPs in total.
There was a decision by Speaker Milliken at the time, who tried to lay out the parameters of what a political party is; he said we weren’t really looking at one group, but at two groups that had come together and were working together. It was a merger, but they weren’t really a group of 20; it was a group of 12 and a group of 8. For a group to present itself as a political party, it’s not just a mathematical calculation. You have to ask yourself whether they have people in charge, a whip, a leader. Do they present positions together? Maybe it’s not necessarily just a mathematical calculation, but the degree of cohesion within that group.
[English]
The Chair: My next question is about the principle that we have in our rules here in the Senate, the unanimous consent thing. Do you have something similar in your chamber?
Mr. LeBlanc: Yes. It is very popular, and the independent members are very aware of their role in granting unanimous consent. That’s what Jean Phillipe was alluding to. When there are special agreements to accelerate the consideration of an item, for example, that requires unanimous consent, the Green Party especially, not so much the other four independent members, but the Green Party is generally a part of those discussions and is generally given, in exchange for their consent, an opportunity to participate. That leverage is sometimes put to good use by their party.
[Translation]
The Chair: Do you have any other questions about practices? If possible, I’d like to come back to the subject of committees. I understand that the groups, the whips, control the formation of committees. Consequently, a member who leaves his party will lose his seat on a committee?
Mr. LeBlanc: In general, yes.
The Chair: In general. So he could possibly keep it?
Mr. LeBlanc: I’ve rarely seen such circumstances. Sometimes they’ve kept it for a few weeks, just long enough to get an agreement to replace them, but that’s relatively rare. Have there been occasions when committee chairs or vice-chairs have left their caucus and been replaced? That’s relatively rare. There was, however, one occasion when an independent MP was a committee member, and that was André Arthur after the 2006 election. The Conservatives had agreed to give him a seat on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. It was a way of working with him. They withdrew one of their members, and Mr. Arthur was ultimately the replacement for a Conservative MP on that committee.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: You may have already answered my question about a party giving this spot to an independent. Does it happen very often in the House? If these independents go to committees — as MPs, I presume it’s like us insofar as we can go to any committee we want to — when they ask a question, are they allowed, or is preference given to people from other parties? I would like to clarify the process. I know what happens here, but it would be nice to know what happens there.
Mr. LeBlanc: To answer your first question, it is relatively rare. In my recollection, Mr. Arthur is the only example I can remember of an independent member being made a full member of a committee. I don’t recall any other examples in the 30 years I have been here. Tony Roman, in the 1980s, was elected as an independent. He might have been on a committee, but that is the only other example.
Independent members, like any member, are allowed to attend a public meeting of a committee. The way our committees operate, even the rotation of asking questions in our committees is subject to negotiation. There is an order, and this party gets this many minutes. For them to intervene, often it would be either at the end of the meeting if there is a little bit of time left or if one of the recognized parties agrees to give up some of their time to let them participate.
Senator Woo: You said at the start of your presentation that there is no formal definition of “recognized party.” Can you tell us about the working definition and the evolution of thinking around this term?
Mr. LeBlanc: It’s an interesting question because it’s not written down anywhere that it’s 12, but it has come to be accepted that it’s 12. I don’t think that has been the case forever. Even the definition of 12 in the Parliament of Canada Act only goes back to the 1960s, but it has come to be the accepted practice that 12 is the number.
There were probably times in older parliaments of 50 or 60 years ago in which they were perhaps not as stringent on that definition and a smaller group would have perhaps participated more. As the House’s timetable has become more full, and as the political parties I think have come to play a larger role in organizing the House’s work, the role of independent members has consequently diminished.
Senator Woo: Setting aside the minimum number of 12, is there another way in which the political parties define this, based on registration of the party, participation in election, having candidates, not having candidates or something to do with the Canada Elections Act?
Mr. LeBlanc: Yes. I might be wrong about this, but I believe the National Assembly of Quebec uses either a number of seats or a percentage of votes in how they calculate party status. Am I wrong about that? I think it’s right.
Mr. Brochu: Twenty per cent.
Mr. LeBlanc: If they receive a certain percentage of the vote, even if they have lower than the number of seats, they’re treated as a recognized party.
Senator Woo: What would it take to change the definition of the minimum of 12 members to be a recognized political party?
Mr. LeBlanc: As I said, that definition does not exist in our rules. It is something that is an established practice. It is such a well-established practice now, though, that the House would have to make a decision. The House could either change its standing orders or adopt some new definition on its own.
Senator Woo: How would that happen? Someone would challenge it?
Mr. LeBlanc: I believe it would have to be a change of the rules. Someone would have to propose a motion to define it in the standing orders that, for these purposes, a recognized party is this many people.
Senator Woo: Okay, thank you.
Mr. LeBlanc: Absent a definition, we’re going with practice.
The Chair: I have another question for you. Are you aware if they have particular rules in other jurisdictions, in other countries, in other parliaments, for independent MPs?
Mr. LeBlanc: I remember that the Quebec example was interesting, but I don’t know of any other legislature off the top of my head. It’s not something I’ve studied. It uses the electoral results, not the number of seats, as a calculation. Most other legislatures I know of use a set number, and how they arrive at that number varies greatly from one legislature to another, and how they define it and whether it’s defined in the rules or some other way, I couldn’t tell you. It’s not something I’ve studied carefully in other legislatures.
Senator Woo: To return to the definition issue, if a coalition of independent senators — 12 of them — were to come together in a condominium and can identify some common purpose but are not part of a registered political party, and they may even have a structure where they have a coordinator and maybe kind of a whip, would this group be given recognition?
Mr. LeBlanc: Hypothetical question?
Senator Woo: Very hypothetical.
Mr. LeBlanc: Looking at the ruling that Mr. Milliken gave in 2001, he tried to lay down what the characteristics of a party are. In that ruling, he said,“What I have before me today is not that. That is a composite of two different groups trying to work together.”If there was a group that met that definition of what he defined as a political party — by agreeing to work together, by electing a slate of officers and by operating as a cohesive unit — I suspect the chair would probably grant them, but that is hypothetical.
Senator Woo: Even if the members do not belong to the same political party that was running in the election that brought them to Parliament?
Mr. LeBlanc: We’ve never been faced with that situation, so I’m speculating, but if they met the test of the features of a recognized party — I have the ruling in front of me:
. . . first, there are at least 12 Members in the group; second, they appoint a slate of House officers as their official spokespersons; third, they work as a cohesive unit; and fourth, they serve under the same banner.
Senator Woo: That can be done without being part of a political party.
Mr. LeBlanc: Conceivably. That’s a ruling from September 24, 2001, if anyone wants to look it up.
Senator Batters: This discussion made me wonder about what happened in early 2004 when the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and the Canadian Alliance merged in December of 2003, and then there wasn’t an election until June 2004. I remember it well. That was the election in which my husband was elected. Before that, they were running under the Conservative Party of Canada, but that wasn’t a party that had run in an election for quite some time before that June 2004 election. How did it work in the House then?
Mr. LeBlanc: There was another statement from Mr. Milliken at the opening of the third session of that Parliament after the prorogation when Mr. Martin became Prime Minister. Mr. Milliken said, “I have received a communication from the former officers of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party to say they are now working together and are now one party: the Conservative Party of Canada. These are their officers, and this is their leader.”Mr. Milliken accepted, for those purposes, that those two parties no longer existed and they were now one party together. Probably applying the tests that I described in his earlier ruling, they had an elected slate of officers, were working as a unit and were serving under the same banner. They met all the tests of what one would consider to be a political party.
That reminds me that some people decided not to join that party, stayed on the sidelines and continued to be recognized as Progressive Conservatives, for example. They were a very small number.
Senator Lankin: This is interesting. The takeaway for me is that all of this is done based on precedents, negotiations, agreements and Speaker’s rulings, and it’s not contained in the rules, but, at any point in time, a motion of some sort could be entertained to establish it in the rules. I was an elected member of a political party in the Ontario legislature. After a certain election, that group lost official party status, and graciously — it was interesting — the legislature determined that they were going to change and lower the number to ensure that political party still had standing and recognition. That was done through a rules process. Similarly, if there was greater dispute or there were an election that produces a larger number of people at some point in time down the road as independents, it is something that the House of Commons could undertake and could determine for themselves by amending the standing orders.
Mr. LeBlanc: Absolutely. Though, as I mentioned before, we came close two Parliaments ago where the Bloc were 10, not 12, and they were treated as 10 independent MPs. There was no discussion of lowering the number, but it is absolutely within the House’s power to change that if it wanted to.
[Translation]
The Chair: It remains for me to thank you for your participation in this committee. It was very interesting. We learned a lot that will be useful in the future. Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. Brochu, have a good day, and thank you again.
Mr. Brochu: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: For the second part of our meeting, we will hear from François Delisle, who has the responsibility of collecting all the data, along with others in the library. He will tell you how it went. It was not an easy task to find out the relevant information as it was asked.
Before I give him the floor, I just wanted to thank Adam Thompson for the work he did in the past and to welcome Maxime Fortin. She is now the clerk of this committee. We welcome her.
[Translation]
The floor is yours, Mr. Delisle.
François Delisle, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
First of all, as you will remember, senators, on June 4, a motion was adopted regarding the gathering of statistics by the Library of Parliament. During the summer, we went through these various numbers. The motion at the time was asking us to prepare data on the number of statements, the number of questions during QP and also the number of speeches during the study of bills in the chamber.
Now, we worked with two sets of data with regard to the questions asked regarding bills in the chamber. We were provided by COPO an Excel document that contained a set of numbers, not only speeches but sometimes interventions for adjournment, for example, and we worked with a tool that is on the website of the Senate when it comes to gathering numbers for the statements and also for the speeches.
At the outset, in the document that you have received, it’s important to take into consideration that the status of non-affiliated changes on a regular basis. I have a document here that I haven’t distributed, but, on a regular basis, almost every month, the number of senators in the chamber changes because there are people leaving and there are changes in affiliation for various reasons.
I would say there are three categories of a non-affiliated senator. The first one is the non-affiliated senators who occupy official roles, meaning those who sit in the GRO, the Government Representative Office, and the Speaker. They are non-affiliated. They designated themselves as non-affiliated. For the calculation of these statistics, we didn’t take them into consideration because they were not in the situation of Senator Brazeau, for example, or Senator McPhedran, who came to testify before us.
Then you have the newly appointed senators, people who have been recently appointed and who sit as non-affiliated for a short period of time, usually less than six months. In the case of Senator Richards, you have a senator who was previously a member of a group and then he decided to change his affiliation. There was a second category of senators for these calculations.
Then we have what I would consider based on the number of months that they have been non-affiliated. You have Senator McCallum, Senator McPhedran and Senator Brazeau, who have been there for over a year. In these statistics, we see that, as non-affiliated, they have been more active than those recently appointed. That’s why, in the tables we were provided with, there is a table where we consider only those three because they have been there for a longer period of time and they are sometimes a little bit more active than those who have been non-affiliated for a lesser period of time, less than one year and I would say six months. They are a little bit separated in the calculation. This was just about the categorization for these numbers.
Now, just to put on some names, as recently designated, we based our data on June 20. All of our data is based on that particular date because that’s when we received the Excel document, or the date where the Excel document was contained in the computed information. On that date, we had Senator Richards and Senator Senior, who were recently designated. We had Senators McCallum, McPhedran and Brazeau, who were permanently but more than one year non-affiliated. Then we had those with official roles at the time — Senator LaBoucane-Benson, Speaker Senator Gagné and Senator Gold, GRO. Usually it would be four, but at that time there were only two members of the GRO.
With regard to Question Period, we looked at Question Period as a whole, including ministerial Question Period, and then we looked at ministerial Question Periods alone. With regard to Question Periods altogether, we see that, in 2018-19, there were very few questions asked by non-affiliated senators, excluding always those with functions. In 2024, there were 26 questions asked during Question Period by non-affiliated senators. That represented 2.4% of the total of number of — my apologies. I want to go to statements, which is at page 2.
In terms of statements, the table at page 3 indicates that, in 2024, there were 1,079 statements made. Of this number, there were 26 interventions or, I would say, sorry, questions that were asked during QP that represented 2.4% of all the questions. Out of those 26 questions, 26 questions were asked by those who were permanently non-affiliated senators.
In 2023, the number of interventions during Question Period was 32 for all unaffiliated, and, of this number, all but one were from Senator McPhedran and Senator MacAdam.
So you see that those who were there for a long time as unaffiliated senators, those who were not recently appointed, represent the majority of the interventions made in terms of questions during Question Period.
The number for 2024, 2023 and 2022 is always around 26, 32 or 36 questions, and the percentage remains relatively the same. We have to take into consideration that, prior to this, 2019-20 may not represent a good sample because of the context of COVID.
Then there were the interventions during the ministerial Question Period. Those were only Question Periods when ministers were intervening. You see for 2024 in table 3 that Senator Brazeau asked two questions in 2024, from the beginning until June, and that represents the total of all the permanently non-affiliated senators who asked questions. The only one in 2023 that we found was Senator Cardozo during, again, the ministerial Question Period. That confirms what was mentioned by Senator MacAdam when she testified. She mentioned that, especially during ministerial Question Period, these non-affiliated senators had more difficulty in being able to ask questions.
Of course, you see the total number of questions in 2024, which was 129, and 267 in 2023. But prior to 2020, the number of questions was a little less in 2019, and there was no Question Period in 2021 and in 2020.
With regard to statements on page 4, once again we used the debates and committee transcripts search tool. As I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, this tool helped us to gather all the data, and then we filtered this data. On the number of statements in general, the total number goes between 325 and 466 per year, but the number of statements by non-affiliated senators is again relatively low. It represents 1.8% in 2024 and 3.3% in 2023. The data for 2024 may not be representative because it’s just half a year. Once again, the statements are mostly made by non-affiliated senators who have been there for more than a year, so Senators MacAdam, McPhedran and Brazeau.
We also looked at the speeches on the bills, and for that you have the table at page 6. For the number of speeches related to bills, we found 6 between the beginning of January or the end of January and June, and there were 28 in 2023 and 18 in 2022. That represented 2.3% or 4% of the percentage of those speeches on bills. The speeches by those who were non-affiliated senators for more than a year represented the majority of those numbers.
It may be a little dry as information, so if you have questions, feel free to ask them.
[Translation]
However, the main challenge was to find the available data.
[English]
As I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, there is a fluctuation in the number of non-affiliated on a regular basis, so it was difficult to know that this was exactly the average of questions per non-affiliated senator per year that was asked. That’s why the percentage is based on non-affiliated as a group, and that was one of the challenges.
I will conclude on this.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Batters: Thank you so much, Mr. Delisle, for preparing that for us, along with your colleagues.
Just a couple of things right off the bat: First of all, just for the benefit of our colleagues around the table, it would have been helpful to have this item noted on the agenda for the meeting so that everyone knew that this was going to be discussed as the second part of the meeting. It has the two witnesses from the House of Commons, and certainly, this is the general topic, but it just says “Consideration of a draft agenda (Future business).” I will suggest that for the future.
Another small suggestion, before I get into the substance of my questions, is where you’ve noted senators who have been sitting as non-affiliated for more than a year as “permanent,” I would suggest maybe a better phrase would be “longer term” or something like that, because it isn’t actually permanent. Of course, they can always choose to change their status, and it’s simply a measure of how long they’ve been in that particular affiliation.
You noted how they’ve been categorized here since 2016. You’ve noted senators with official roles, which include the Speaker and the Government Representative, like the government leader, government deputy leader, government whip. Was the Speaker noted as non-affiliated prior to 2016, or is that since 2016 also?
Mr. Delisle: That is a good question. I will have to verify. I would prefer to just verify before getting back to your question on this. It’s a fact that prior to change of the structure, with this newly organized structure, the GRO, they became non-affiliated, but I’ll have to check just to make sure to get the right information.
Senator Batters: Okay. I guess early 2016 would probably have been when those senators who were affiliated with the government, the leader, the deputy leader and the whip, were defined, and when you watch the Senate on CPAC or on ParlVu, it says “non-affiliated” under the titles for those people. How did that come about? Was it a request from the Government Representative that they be designated as non-affiliated? Of course, prior to that, they would always have been designated as the party they were affiliated with. I’ve always said that that’s as affiliated as you can get, when you actually get money, positions and a title for being affiliated with a particular group. How did that come about?
Mr. Delisle: When the GRO was announced, and its formation, there was a speech that was given by Senator Harder. I have to go back to the speech, but I don’t think there was a specific reference to the fact that he and his colleagues would be non-designated. However, each senator has the privilege of informing authorities in the Senate about their affiliation. That is all I can say on this at this moment.
Senator Batters: Could you please look into that?
Mr. Delisle: Absolutely.
Senator Batters: Do you have something?
The Chair: I have something to add. At the time that the GRO started, it was a completely new situation. I was part of this new organization. I think it was important for us, as the GRO. We said we were not part of government, so it was decided that it was non-affiliated.
Senator Batters: Who decided that and how did you go about that? You were the government deputy leader.
The Chair: I don’t remember exactly how it was done, but we were not part of any group. We were not part of any caucus, so, by definition, not being part of a caucus, we took the designation that was at the time used by others.
I don’t remember, though, what the designations were for Senator Anne Cools and Senator Elaine McCoy, but they were sitting as independents for a long time. Was it independent or non-affiliated? When Senator Cools and Senator McCoy became independent, they were part of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, one of them. They became independent, and they were always thought of as being non-affiliated.
I think this kind of custom was a practice that developed, but we will look into it in maybe more detail.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
I noticed something else when I was going through these statistics that you’ve compiled for us, especially given what we just heard from the House of Commons officials, and that was very helpful to have. What came out for me is the massive benefit it is for non-affiliated senators to give lengthy speeches on any topic that they choose. They can start an inquiry, just like any other senator. They can provide a motion. They can speak on government bills. They don’t have to wait until slot number 49 to come up before they can actually give a speech.
When I looked through these stats, I was actually expecting to see that senators who were non-affiliated had perhaps a considerably higher number of speeches given in the Senate, because that is in keeping with how the Senate is meant to operate. It’s supposed to be equality of individual senators. What I noticed, though, given these statistics, is that it’s not a lot higher of a percentage. When I look at QP questions, it is maybe in the two-point-something range for a lot of the years. Then for 2024, the speeches given — total number of speeches compared to total number of senators — is 2.3% so far for this year. Last year it was higher, 4.63%, but that’s not a huge difference in the percentages. It is the same thing with Senators’ Statements and the other statistics that you’ve done. It’s just something that I note, as I would have expected to see a higher number of speeches given because there aren’t the same limits as there may be for Question Period or Senators’ Statements or those types of things. Speeches are wide open. You can get up to speak on every topic you want to.
Mr. Delisle: Yes. On this, I cannot necessarily comment. We have to consider that, for a certain number of years, the number of senators sitting was lower than 105. Just recently we reached 101, a few days ago. Did it increase the number that we see? I wouldn’t be able to say. I don’t know if I can bring more on this particular point.
The Chair: If I may add, I think, looking at the data, it’s lower than their average with respect to — if you take 100, it’s 3.3 for the permanent. But is it a significant difference? That’s the question.
Senator Batters: Yes. My point is just that we’ve heard a lot about certain limitations that there are with non-affiliated senators, but the speeches are a definite plus compared to the House of Commons where they almost never get to give speeches. Those can all, obviously, be quite detailed and quite lengthy. We don’t have those limits in the Senate. They may have some advantages for some of the other shorter ways to communicate in their chamber, but we have a significant benefit. I guess I was just a little surprised to see that the numbers of non-affiliated speeches aren’t higher.
[Translation]
The Chair: Maybe we should also consider committees.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for doing this work. I appreciate that it was more challenging maybe than — but that’s why we have a great Library of Parliament, right? I want to commend you for taking the time to really carve out what I would suggest as “persistently” non-affiliated senators as a category, because that’s the group that brought this issue to our attention.
If I could just refresh my own memory here, we asked for this data because of an impression that there were concerns that persistently non-affiliated senators were left out of the actual functioning of the Senate and that they didn’t have an opportunity that was reasonable or proportional to participate in the activities of the chamber. That’s why we needed to have the data, and I appreciate you getting that data for us.
A couple of things come out as we look at that. There is an enumerator and denominator problem — I want to raise its attention to the committee — that you can’t answer in this data, but it’s for us to think about, with the enumerator being 36 speeches and the denominator being how many times they asked and were denied. What we don’t have here is that there were 32 questions over the course of the year, and how many questions did people ask where they said, “No, you can’t ask that.” Because that’s an access issue. We don’t have that data. I’m just raising that we can’t answer that question because the data is not available to us. In our attempts to discuss that as a possibility, we have to be very careful not to go down that road because we don’t have that data.
The second thing that I thought was very useful was that we were able to look at a period of relatively stable functioning of the Senate — if I can use that word — over the last three years, where the period of the process in the Senate was relatively consistent, as opposed COVID or pre-COVID times when the data is a little bit less robust. I would urge, as we look at this data, to keep that in mind, and what we’re looking at is three years of relatively stable functioning.
The thing that comes to mind, as I look at the data, is that the numbers are relatively consistent. The variance from year to year is not huge, so I feel a bit of comfort, as someone who works with large data sets, to look at it, and say, “This is probably reasonable because we’re not getting this huge variance.” We need to know the proportion of these persistently non-affiliated senators as a portion of all senators. As Senator Bellemare said, they’re around X per cent. We are looking at around 3%, because, again, the denominator varies. When we look at what the numbers show us, we see stability of data. We don’t know the numerator/denominator issue, but we can park that, and we see a relatively consistent participation in Question Period, in Senators’ Statements and in speeches.
The issue that I was trying to understand from the data was a concern that was raised at this table. Some of the non-affiliated senators say they weren’t having an opportunity to participate in the activities of Senate. I think that this data has been helpful to us in trying to understand that. It hasn’t given us the full picture, and I’ve never seen a data set that did, but I want to thank you so much for doing this hard work to assist us.
Mr. Delisle: I did it with my colleague also. Thank you.
Senator Woo: I wanted to build on Senator Kutcher’s comments, and I want to go a bit further in trying to come up with a generalization.
I think we can generalize that the long-term, non-affiliated senators got more than their proportion of Senators’ Statements and Question Period — setting aside Ministerial Question Period — than their share of filled Senate seats. This is a denominator problem, but we all know that we were running at sub-capacity until fairly recently. We’re around 100 now, but we were closer to 80 a few years ago.
To extrapolate from that, and to get at the problem we’re trying to solve here, which is how to treat our colleagues fairly, I think what we can say is that a laissez-faire system is actually where there is no structure of trying to carve out spaces for them. A laissez-faire system has served them reasonably well in terms of proportionality. In fact, they exceeded proportionality. One can make an argument that they exceeded more than they even might have hoped for, because there are many senators in the larger pool who have no interest in taking part in QP, in ministerial QP and Senators’ Statements and technically should be removed from the denominator, but we don’t know that so we can’t make that conclusion.
The question for the committee, then, as we think about how we change the way we practise, is whether we need to go beyond a laissez-faire system to a more structured approach that ensures proportionality is maintained or is provided to the long-term, non-affiliated senators. It seems to be working already quite well, in fact, better than they would expect, but do we want to change the system so that it calibrates more accurately with their share of the seats in the Senate? Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: First of all, I appreciate, in terms of statistics, the nuances you’ve made with regard to the various subcategories of unaffiliated senators.
That said, I think there are still a few nuances that should be made. Firstly, I’d like you to add the proportions for affiliated senators in terms of their ability to make statements and ask questions. I think it’s important to have this in full, because it suggests, by giving the total number only for affiliated senators, that they have more, but you also have to divide by the number of senators. I’d be curious to see the comparison.
Also, in terms of committee membership, compared to the House of Commons, I think we’re much fairer to unaffiliated senators and, as far as I know, each of the four long-term unaffiliated senators sits on at least one committee right now. That’s the case with two of them who, when they left their group, had a seat that came from the Independent Senators Group (ISG); I think that’s an important point.
Regarding senators’ statements, I think we should isolate what I call “obligatory protocol” statements by leaders and facilitators regarding the welcome of new senators and tributes to senators leaving the Senate. It’s still something obligatory that should be set apart.
Finally, my last point has to do with legislation. It’s clear that non-affiliated senators have the same treatment as any other senator; they can introduce bills, and any time they want to make comments at second and third reading, they can. That is truly fair treatment.
In conclusion, I would say that, based on what we have heard about practice in the House of Commons, long-term non-affiliated senators still get far fairer treatment in the Senate than members in the same situation in the House of Commons.
The Chair: I would like to add a little bit about fairness in speaking in the House, and that’s access to information. I think some non-affiliated senators have told us that they do have access to the scrolls, but access to other kinds of information isn’t as precise. The information doesn’t necessarily come at the right time for them. I just wanted to mention that.
Senator Mégie: Based on what you just said, Madam Chair, I would like to ask the following question: What kind of information don’t they have access to outside the scrolls?
My real question is that I have three people who have already provided notes on the proportion, such as Senator Kutcher and Senator Saint-Germain. There are four long-term non-affiliated senators, as our colleague was saying, but if we looked at the proportion, we would see that they aren’t at such a disadvantage. I thought the number was going to be even lower than what we heard today. After Senator Saint-Germain’s analysis, I see that this is true.
However, if we do it as we think we should, out of kindness and fairness, and if we could, as Senator Woo said, codify it somewhat, as they did in the House of Commons…. It’s not a matter of copying and pasting exactly what they did in the House of Commons, but of codifying it. You could say there are so many statements, so many times a week or so many times a month, codifying it, because it leaves the impression — even though it’s on the surface — that people think they’re at a real disadvantage.
If we codified certain practices, it might be clearer when we talk about it, but you could say, “No, it’s codified.”
The Chair: I don’t want to answer for the non-affiliated senators right now, but perhaps you could invite them to ask them questions after you’ve thought about it. Some felt they had to beg to participate in senators’ statements and question period. This will have to be reviewed based on the data, and it may need to be discussed with them. There are many differences in perceptions. Things are not seen in the same way.
Senator Audette: Thank you very much for the presentation and the work that’s been done. Of course, I had the same concerns, namely, how many “nos” we received when we asked to speak in what was listed, not only for the senators about whom this exercise was conducted or for the people who represent these spaces, but for each group as well. It will be important when we meet again; it will be up to the committee to decide, but they will want to know what’s going on, and they will want to listen to us and read the debates.
Each group also negotiates to decide who will speak in the allotted time. I’ve had some very polite “nos,” and it took me several weeks to talk about something that had already happened. We experience these realities within our own groups, families and organizations. People need to see and understand it. Of course, we are receiving statistics today, but we also have to imagine what would have happened if we had met and if the leaders had agreed on a motion to be moved. Sometimes, because of a lack of communication, someone will oppose it, and that will defeat an important motion. This must not be overlooked. Perhaps we should find a fair middle ground that ensures that people are informed, and not on the spot, when we’re debating an issue on which our leaders have already agreed. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Lankin: Thank you for permitting me to participate and speak.
I think I’m hearing a desire to determine what needs to be codified and how it can be codified. I hope if, in fact, that’s the way the committee goes that the principles that we have established through our discussions of reform around things like proportionality and other such things inform the codification of this as well.
The reason I speak to codification is because people have expressed some perhaps relief or surprise that the percentages seem to represent well the proportionality of the existing long-term, non-affiliated senators and that the suggestion that they perhaps have to beg for everything they get is not true. Well, I would say it is indeed true. That’s how they get those spots. They have been persistent in working with groups, particularly as numbers change in organized groups and there are perhaps more possibilities available within one group than another. As their numbers dwindle, there has been the opportunity for them to access more of those spots.
It is not a matter of right in these areas that we’re talking about in terms of Question Period, statements; it is a matter of cap in hand and having been successful. I think that’s a testament to the collegial nature, for the most part, in the way in which these things get worked out now that we’ve got absolute principles of proportionality and other measures there for our own references. But it is still a cap in hand, and I would stress that is not, I would hope, the way in which we would see ourselves going forward.
In terms of access to information, this is evolutionary. When I first arrived, we didn’t get scroll notes. Only the senators who attended the scroll meeting got scroll notes. The Order Paper was indecipherable. We have made changes as we have gone forward. I think it’s regrettable that, in getting access to the scroll notes, every group had to recreate the scroll notes with the different information. I think we should determine what is needed and have it produced once. It took a while for the non-affiliated senators to have access to that.
When there are leaders’ meetings and there are agreements that are arrived at that are brought back to groups either for debate, consultation, and/or, at the end of the day, to be informed, they do not have access to that information unless someone walks across the floor and shares it with them. There has been an attempt to build a more formal liaison to the Government Representative Office so that there is a purposeful sharing of that information, but these things, again, are not codified.
I’m only here for this session because of my particular interest in it. I want to put on the record that I hope we will keep in mind that it’s not a matter of, “Well, they’re doing pretty well so far. It seems to be okay in most areas. They’re better off in this area than the House.” That’s not what it’s about. It’s about our institution. It’s about our structures and our rules and our bringing to life the rights and equality of rights of every senator and figuring out how to make that work in an institution which is largely governed by a group structure.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you for these very good comments, which I share.
Senator Batters: Hearing Senator Audette and Senator Lankin speak, it made me wonder about one thing for each of them that they noted. I want to ask them each about that, and I want to ensure that I heard it correctly.
Senator Audette, I was listening through the translation and it may not have come through clearly, but I thought I heard you say that there was one point where you had to wait five weeks to be able to speak about an issue. Was that because of an issue, did you say, with the Senate or with your own group, that they wouldn’t give you a spot for five weeks?
Senator Audette: I wanted to do a three-minute statement on something that happened. Of course, the group would let me do it if it was Orange Shirt Day, but it was something else. We negotiated, and some colleagues put their name before me, and it was perfect for their moment to speak at that time because it was related to a national day or an event. Because we have few spots, I didn’t argue with that, but it’s the reality, sometimes, that because I didn’t put my name forward, somebody will be faster and have the spot. We negotiate among us.
Senator Batters: In your group?
Senator Audette: Yes. I hope I said that in French, but it was in our group.
Senator Batters: All right. Thank you. I just wanted to ensure that I understood you correctly on that.
Senator Lankin, I think I heard you say that now there is a “more formal liaison role to the Government Representative Office.” What do you mean, and how has that become more formalized?
Senator Lankin: If I said “formalized,” I misspoke. It is, in fact, just a practice that has developed. Perhaps Senator Audette could speak to her time in the liaison role. I was just there for a short time, as you know, with respect to moving the Rules package forward through the chamber, but during that period of time, I attempted, on a regular basis, to communicate to the non-affiliated senators about things that were coming up or things they wouldn’t have been aware of. Again, it’s not codified, and a new senator has taken that role, whether they’ve taken that on as part of their obligation or not. If I said “formalized,” my apologies, Senator Batters. That would be incorrect.
Senator Batters: Yes. I would be curious to hear Senator Audette’s comment on that, because working with non-affiliated or independent senators, letting them know different things, when we were in government, that was often something our deputy leader, Senator Martin, would handle. It certainly isn’t something new to the position or those government-affiliated positions, I would be curious to hear about what Senator Audette has to say. Is that something that you were also doing, those types of roles, or not?
[Translation]
Senator Audette: The example I gave about a lack of communication comes from my personal experience. I had just been appointed to the Senate, I was arriving here, and I didn’t know about it, because there is no written or obvious rule that says that I have to communicate with such and such a group or representative every day. When I saw someone stand up and speak in the House, my reflex was to ask right away, “Will you allow me to communicate every day?” Yes, it’s obvious to people who have been here a long time; it’s normal. However, that’s not the case for a new senator who didn’t understand that this was the way to exchange and hand over documents.
Senator Batters, in my world and in these positions, for the sake of communication, membership and collaboration. There should be something more specific about how to submit documents and the exchanges required when this is brought back to the government representative’s office. This is my world: when there’s a debate, everyone has to understand where we are in that debate.
[English]
Senator Woo: I think it’s a testament to collegiality and good working relations that the long-term, non-affiliated senators have gotten a pretty decent share of speaking time relative to their numbers. We may well choose to codify these practices so that they, in fact, do get them on a regular basis. They may be worse off as a result, but this is a decision we take collectively.
I would not characterize the way they got their speaking slots as “cap in hand.” All of us have to negotiate for time. This is a scarcity problem. I’m in a group with 40-plus senators. There is a huge demand for statements and a huge demand for QP. I’ve almost given up trying to get a slot because there are senators who are way ahead of me in the queue.
The Chair: Never give up.
Senator Woo: I won’t. It’s negotiation. That’s what it’s about. Some senators in the non-affiliated group may be better or more persistent at negotiation than others. Some members in my group are better or more persistent in negotiation and planning than I am. We need to think of it in that context rather than creating kind of false privileges that, in fact, could undermine the privileges of other senators who belong in groups and who never get a chance, or rarely get a chance, to ask questions or make statements because they’re in a minority. We need to create a system that is fair across the board rather than create special privileges for special interests.
Again, I’m not against codification, and I think it’s actually a good idea, but let’s go with our eyes open. It may end up being worse than the record that we’ve seen in the last few years for the current batch of long-term, non-affiliated senators.
Senator Kutcher: My comment was actually raised in part by Senator Woo, and that was to be careful what you wish for. The current group of persistent, non-affiliated senators is three people. If that group rises to six or seven people, which it could do, it will be a completely different dynamic. If it is codified, this could be more of a problem, so we really need to be careful and think through the consequences of this and have that fulsome discussion.
This was useful, certainly as a member of this committee, for helping me understand the concerns. The impression that I got was that unaffiliated senators were not getting a fair shake because they were unaffiliated. That’s why we asked for the data. The data don’t support that issue.
The point that Senator Lankin made was an excellent point. The question is, does it become codified or not? With us as a group, we need to think carefully about what codifying does. Would it disadvantage people more than they’re being disadvantaged now, if they’re being disadvantaged now? I think we have to keep that in mind.
Senator Lankin: Just to add to that, I would ask the committee to be forward thinking. The numbers that people are looking at — and it’s not across all of the issues since people are particularly focused on Question Period and statements in the discussion that we’ve had and the data that has been reviewed taken from a window of time as best as we’re able to extrapolate and explain it — are from a window of time in which there were consistently fewer senators appointed to the chamber than the number of spots that are available. As those spots have been taken up and those newer senators are beginning to join various groups, there will be more demand within those groups. My colleague, Senator Woo, made that point in terms of the competition that goes on for scarcity of time within groups. However, the group you’ve chosen to join has access to proportionality and, over time, there are changes in proportionality of the allocation of these things within the context of how we structure with government and opposition. All I want to say is that the numbers that might look good right now might not look good a year from now when all of the Senate seats are fully occupied.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, senator. I would like to add a few thoughts for the future with respect to this study and the recommendations that I hope can be made in the Senate with respect to changes we may or may not make to the Rules.
In terms of what we’ve just been talking about, do we need to codify or not? Personally, in my experience, I think we have to be fairly careful when codifying. Flexibility is needed to adapt to different circumstances.
However, I hope that you’ll be able to look into the possibility not of codifying, but of finding mechanisms that will ensure that non-affiliated senators — and perhaps there will be more than we think in the future — will be able to exercise their constitutional responsibility as they wish.
To that end, there are provisions, notably in the French Senate, where non-affiliated senators can be attached administratively to a group with which they have some affinity. This administrative arrangement means that these senators, without being part of the group, are nevertheless counted in the group for funds, work, committees, questions, and so on.
It would be interesting to explore this avenue, which allows us not to codify percentages for groups that may vary throughout a session, but rather to explore channels and links.
We tried to get French senators as witnesses, but they’ll be starting work soon. I know we’ll be able to hear testimony on this dynamic in the future.
The other point I wanted to raise on this issue is the work plan. I wanted to thank the analysts and clerks who worked on the work plan you received, which sets out the issues to be addressed by the committee.
[English]
Those questions relate to our work in the chamber, but they also relate to the important work that we do in committee. We are ensuring that senators are treated equally, because we know proportionality is very important. It’s among the principles when a group is organized in groups and caucuses. At the end of the day, each senator is master of their own responsibilities. Equity among senators is very important to have access to being able to do their job properly. I would suggest that we pursue the discussion regarding affiliated senators in a further meeting.
It has been a privilege for me to be chairing this committee. We will now have a motion for my replacement after I leave.
Senator Kutcher: Before we get to the vote about a replacement, I want to give you sincere thanks for all the incredible work you’ve done in chairing this committee. Chairing is not an easy thing, I understand, and I want to thank you for your dedication and hard work. I wish you good luck as you move on to the next phase.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: I just want to add that we were colleagues for a long time in the Conservative caucus, and I have always missed not having you in caucus. It’s great to be here working with you again. I’m sorry to see you go and wish you nothing but the best in your new life post-Senate.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
With that, I’m going to move the following motion — and I know you’ll be very thankful.
I move that the Honourable Senator Audette be elected chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, effective October 13, 2024. Is it your pleasure, Honourable Senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Congratulations, Senator Audette.
We’ll be holding a steering committee next week.
We have a list of witnesses who could come and talk to us about work being done in other legislation, in other parliaments.
[English]
Senator Batters: First of all, I wanted to thank you for all of your work on this committee for quite some time, Senator Bellemare, and I want to give congratulations to Senator Audette for assuming the chair.
I want to make a little procedural rule, since this is the Rules Committee, that when we do have a motion like that, which is known about beforehand, again, it should probably be something that’s on the agenda just so everyone knows it’s an upcoming item. I knew, but it’s not on the agenda for the committee. I’m just saying that, for the Rules Committee, we should probably do it properly according to the rules.
The Chair: It was on the agenda. It is the last item.
Senator Batters: Where?
Maxime Fortin, Clerk of the Committee, Senate of Canada: I want to maybe clarify: It’s not on the public notice of meeting that’s on the website, but it was circulated in an email. If the committee wants it to be public on the notice of meeting for future meetings, we can definitely do that.
Senator Batters: It should be, yes. There shouldn’t be two different agendas. There should be one public agenda.
[Translation]
The Chair: On that note, thank you. Until next time.
(The committee adjourned.)