THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 22, 2024
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 10:32 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), to consider possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Denise Batters (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning, everyone.
Before we begin our full meeting, today, given that it is October 22, I’m sure many of us are thinking of the events of 10 years ago when Corporal Nathan Cirillo lost his life a short walk from here. As I drove by this morning on my way to this meeting, I saw people gathered there to remember him. We will remember him. We are also very thankful for all of the people who were on Parliament Hill that day — the officers of the Parliamentary Protective Service and police and all those who helped those of us who were there and tried to help Corporal Cirillo. Thank you for allowing me that today. I know we’re all thinking about those people.
I also want to welcome all of the senators here today, as well as the viewers across the country who might be watching this meeting either on sencanada.ca or later on CPAC.
My name is Denise Batters. I am a senator from Saskatchewan and the deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Rights of Parliament. Our new chair is away, so she asked me to step in to chair the meeting. I would ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Ataullahjan: Good morning. Salma Ataullahjan from Ontario.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Busson: Bev Busson from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Today, we are continuing our study into the role of non‑affiliated senators. We are pleased to welcome via video conference, from the French Senate, Christophe-André Frassa, Deputy Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Laws. Welcome, and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before our committee and provide us information about what the Senate of France does. I invite you, sir, to make your opening statement, after which we will move on to questions from senators.
[Translation]
Christophe-André Frassa, Deputy Chair, French Senate Committee on Constitutional Laws, as an individual: Good morning, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. At the request of the chair, Diane Bellemare — who, I believe, is no longer chair of this committee — and of the chair, Michèle Audette, I was pleased to agree to explain to you the unique status of non-affiliated senators in the French Parliament. This status is defined first by the Standing Orders of the Senate. In just a few minutes, I’d like to give you an overview of this status, and then answer any questions you may have.
Firstly, I would like to remind you that neither the Constitution of October 4, 1958, nor the Ordinance of November 17, 1958 on the functioning of parliamentary assemblies, nor the rules of procedure of the Senate or the National Assembly require a senator or member of parliament to be a member of a parliamentary political group.
Under French constitutional law, the parliamentary mandate is a personal one, attached solely to the member of parliament or senator. As such, they enjoy the prerogatives that are indissolubly linked to this status. However, in the French Parliament, as in other parliaments, political groups also have an established legal existence and specific prerogatives. In France, this is due to the fact that Article 4 of the Constitution states: “Political parties and groups shall contribute to the exercise of suffrage.”
In Parliament, this principle is put into practice by the existence of political groups that are specific to each assembly, but with a more or less clear affiliation to a political party at the national level. Thus, to date, there are 8 political groups in the Senate and 11 in the National Assembly, some of which are essentially the offshoot of a political party that exists on the national scene. These include the Republicans group, the Socialist group, the Communist, Republican, Citizen and Ecologist - Kanaky group, and the Ecologist group.
Others, such as the Centrist Union group or the Democratic, Social and European Rally group, are part of a political movement — centre-right in the case of the first, radicalism in the case of the second — but are less directly linked to a party at the national level, even if they are predominantly members of a party at the national level. That said, the Standing Orders of the Senate are flexible enough to ensure a senator’s membership in political groups, since they allow the senator not only to be a full member, but also to be allied with them, or even administratively attached to them.
In reality, a senator who is allied with or attached to a group enjoys all the prerogatives and privileges available to a full member, but for reasons of political display, they may wish to benefit from this position, which enables them to stand out from the other members of the group in order to demonstrate greater independence, particularly in relation to group discipline and the position of the political party itself. The rules of each political group define any internal differences between full members and those who are merely allied or attached.
What’s more, as far as we’re concerned, we have to consider that a senator allied with or attached to a political group is indeed a member of a political group. Strictly speaking, therefore, they are not one of the “Senators not belonging to any group,” as referred to in the Standing Orders of the Senate.
This brings me to the situation of senators who do not belong to any group, or what we call non-affiliated senators. Unsurprisingly, the fact that a senator does not belong to a political group prevents them from enjoying a certain number of rights that are available only to members of a group. Nevertheless, the Standing Orders of the Senate provide for the collective representation of non-affiliated senators through a structure set up in the form of an association, like the Senate’s political groups.
It is known as the administrative meeting of senators not appearing on the list of any group, or under its French abbreviation, RASNAG, and is chaired by a delegate elected by its members.
RASNAG members enjoy a number of rights. As of October 20 of this year, only four of the 348 senators in the Senate were members of this administrative meeting. I would like to give you more information on the prerogatives of non‑affiliated senators, depending on whether they apply to the public session or the functioning of the Senate’s internal bodies, the Bureau and its committees.
In public sessions, firstly, with regard to the right of initiative and the possibility of placing texts on the agenda, RASNAG senators, unlike opposition and minority groups, have no reserved space for placing texts on the agenda. What’s more, they have little influence over the agenda, which is determined by the what we call the Chairpersons’ conference, in which the RASNAG delegate may take part without the right to participate in discussion and to vote. Those senators may, however, table amendments in committee and in session, as well as draft bills, as these are individual rights of each senator under the Constitution.
With regard to opportunities for participation and speaking time during sittings, as well as questions to the government, the Conference of Presidents decides how to distribute the number of questions between groups and the Réunion administrative des sénateurs not appearing on the list of any group. Taking into account their numerical importance, the Réunion administrative des sénateurs allocates a question to senators not on any group list for one sitting out of six. This question is always called in the last position, i.e., the fifteenth of the sitting.
During the general discussion of a text and when the overall time is equal to one hour, a period of three minutes is allocated to senators not appearing on the list of any group. Groups are granted a basic time of five minutes, to which time is added in proportion to the number of their members.
For procedural motions, legislation deemed out of order, preliminary questions and referrals to commissions, a non‑affiliated senator has three minutes, compared to ten minutes for senators representing a group.
Although a non-affiliated senator may submit a motion, like any other senator, they may not explain their vote on these motions. In the event of closure of the debate, if two speakers of opposing opinions have spoken, a representative of each group and a non-affiliated senator are invited to speak for a maximum of two minutes. During a formal vote on a text as a whole, unless the Conference of Presidents decides otherwise, speaking time is three minutes for non-affiliated senators and seven minutes for a group.
During the review of a text drafted by a joint parliamentary committee, unless the Conference of Presidents decides otherwise, a non-affiliated representative may not speak for more than three minutes, whereas a group representative gets five minutes. Throughout the committee’s legislative review of a text, a senator not appearing on the list of any group may speak for no more than three minutes, as opposed to five minutes for a group representative.
Finally, individual senators may not speak for more than two minutes during a sitting. This common law rule also applies to each non-affiliated senator.
There are no restrictions on candidacy for the office of President of the Senate, as the President of the Senate is elected by all senators. Regarding the composition of the Bureau of the Senate, a non-affiliated senatorial delegate only meets with group presidents to draw up the list of candidates for the position of secretary. Only group presidents meet to decide on the role of vice-president or quaestor. As for the distribution of non-affiliated senators within standing commissions, the Rules of the Senate provide that group presidents and the non-affiliated senator’s delegate consult each other and submit to the President of the Senate the list of candidates selected in accordance with the rule of proportionality. The conditions of transferability of commission seats apply in the same way to the groups and to RASNAG, by means of the intervention of their delegate, who may propose the name of a senator for the vacant seat.
To appoint members of commissions of inquiry and special commissions, a list of candidates is drawn up by the group presidents and, where applicable, by the delegate of senators not appearing on the list of any group, in accordance with the rule of proportionality. For commissions of inquiry resulting from a drawing right, the number of members is 23 and non-affiliated senators are excluded.
Ultimately, non-affiliated senators are in a structurally disadvantageous position compared to senators who are members of groups. It explains why, out of 348 current senators, only four retain this status. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize the flexibility of the Senate’s political groups when they integrate senators unaffiliated with a national-level political party. This is, in fact, in the best interests of the political groups, since it enables them to gain members and thus have a greater influence on how the Senate’s bodies function. Furthermore, senators benefit from administrative and logistical support and gain prerogatives while simply being either allied with a political group by being administratively attached to them. Intractable individualists, if I may put it that way, may still retain all their independence, if they so wish, with this status of senator not belonging to any group.
That, Madam Chair, senators, ladies and gentlemen, is all I can say by way of introduction, even if I was a little long and my presentation was very detailed, not to say, “hodgepodge.”
Thank you, Madam Vice-Chair and colleagues.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: That is fine. Thank you very much for the insightful commentary you provided with your opening remarks. I know it will spur lots of questions. I have a few of my own, but we’ll first go to Senator Saint-Germain.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Frassa. I’m Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec. I have a principal question and a supplementary question. You defined very well the status of each group, which determines privileges and benefits. You explained the principle of senators being attached to a recognized group. You also told us that there is a minority of unaffiliated senators. There are four of them. You described them as intractable. Without naming names, of course, can you give us the reasons why these four people are intractable in terms of their association with a party?
Mr. Frassa: I can name names, because all you have to do is go to the Senate website and they are listed. Without advertising for a well-known search engine, all you have to do is “google” them to see which political family they belong to.
Today, three of the four senators belong to a political party called Rassemblement National, which is on the extreme right of the political spectrum. The fourth is a former member of the Rassemblement National. If they are in the assembly of senators who don’t belong to any group, it’s because there simply aren’t enough of them to form a group. And I may have forgotten to mention one thing, which is that you need at least 10 senators to form a political group. In fact, they may not be so intractable; rather, there are not yet enough of them to establish a political group. They are therefore in part of the assembly of senators who do not belong to any group, because there are not enough of them to form one. That’s the administrative option the Senate offers to colleagues who belong to a political party who aren’t formally represented by a political group, and they can gather today under this administrative form.
In addition, in the previous term, we had nearly 10 colleagues in the administrative meeting of non-affiliated senators, including some from the far right and others who were not from the far right, but who had chosen to cohabit either because they were unable to form a political group or because they did not wish, or no longer wished, to be part of a recognized political group.
While we may refer to them amongst ourselves as the non‑affiliated senators group, the RASNAG allows for near limitless flexibility.
[English]
Senator Saint-Germain: In order to give a chance for my colleagues to ask a question, I will be back in a second round.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Frassa, I have a couple of questions for you.
As you were stating, there are right now just four unaffiliated senators in the Senate of France. Over the last 10 or 20 years, is that a typical number, or is it quite a bit less or more than has existed in the last decade or two in the Senate of France? Right now, we have 14 non-affiliated senators in the Senate of Canada, noted on the Senate website this morning. That number is dropping because another recently appointed senator affiliated himself this morning, so I’m not sure if that’s included in the 14. That’s a higher number than we typically have, but there have been a number of recent appointments. I’m wondering about the number of four and whether that is typical or an increase or decrease from the norm.
[Translation]
Mr. Frassa: I was elected to the Senate 16 years ago. When I was first elected in 2008, the non-affiliated group had roughly 15 members from various political backgrounds. There were senators from the centre-right and the centre-left, as well as members of political parties who did not wish to be part of a recognized political group. The makeup of the non-affiliated group fluctuates significantly with each renewal of the Senate.
Today, it has four members, who are more or less on the same wavelength politically. That said, following the second-last renewal, there was a fairly broad political spectrum represented in the RASNAG, from the left to the right, including one far‑right senator.
It really fluctuates depending on who is elected, and what is more, it is very often tied to the local circumstances in the departments of elected senators. Some senators may have fallen out with their party and opted not to join a recognized political group, while others have always maintained a certain independence from political parties.
There was one iconic, long-standing figure in the Senate, Senator Philippe Adnot. At the time I was elected, he was serving as the delegate of the non-affiliated senators. He remained in this role for almost ten years, from the time I was elected until his departure from the Senate. At the local level, in his department, he had chosen to remain genuinely independent from political parties. In the Senate, he preserved this independence by never joining a recognized or recognizable political group.
Sometimes, then, it really has as much to do with local circumstances as it does with the senators’ personalities.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
There is something else I noticed in your opening remarks, Senator Frassa. As you described, the time limits are always less for those senators who are non-affiliated in the Senate of France. You described a number of those. Non-affiliated senators are allocated only 3 minutes to speak on certain topics whereas senators who are affiliated get 5. I wrote down that non-affiliated senators have 5 minutes on certain types of interventions, and affiliated senators have 10 minutes. I believe you described another type of category as well. That’s definitely a downfall of being non-affiliated, potentially, because you don’t have as much time to express yourself. It’s not like those are 15- or 20-minute interventions; those are quite limited ones. What is the reasoning?
Here, in the Senate of Canada, if you are a non-affiliated senator or an affiliated senator, we have equal times. Simply by being a senator, you receive the same time for making speeches and those types of things. If you’re a senator, you have a certain allocated ability to speak for a certain length of time, and you don’t have a lesser time because you’re non-affiliated.
Also, in France, do they have a less prioritized speaking slot? I think you said that, for certain topics, they are fifteenth in speaking slot. I’m wondering whether it is very common as well that they have a less prioritized speaking slot in addition to less speaking time.
[Translation]
Mr. Frassa: To be precise, the groups are allocated speaking time, and the speaking time allocated to the political groups, including the non-affiliated members, is divided by the number of senators who wish to speak.
At the start of a discussion on a piece of legislation, if the speaking time for the group as a whole is one hour, the speaking time is divided in proportion to the number of members in each group. Obviously, the non-affiliated members will have very little speaking time, since there are four of them. The Republicans will have the most speaking time, since there are 131 of them. The speaking time is divided by the number of people wishing to speak.
For example, if the Republicans are granted 15 minutes and 3 of them wish to speak, they will each be entitled to 5 minutes. Obviously, this generally means that the non-affiliated members will be able to have only one speaker.
However, speaking order is determined by registration. It’s quite possible that the non-affiliated senators will go before all the others, because there’s a draw for speaking time based on registration with the body responsible for session services. The division of speaking time is the only reason you have less time. After that, when you speak, it’s really when you register that determines whether you go before or after someone else. It’s not related to the size of the group, but rather to the speed of registration.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Okay, that’s very helpful. Thank you for explaining all of that.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Mr. Frassa, thank you for that clarification regarding non-affiliated members. In your presentation, you said that RASNAG members do not benefit from having their text included on the agenda. Does this mean that they don’t have the opportunity to place a bill or other item on the agenda?
If so, how can information be passed on to the RASNAG group so that they know which items will be on the agenda? When will they receive this information?
Mr. Frassa: There are two things. The Constitution, since the last constitutional review in 2008, states that from now on, the agenda is shared between the government and Parliament, which means that there are parliamentary weeks and government weeks.
As I was saying earlier, it is possible to place bills on the agenda, in other words, parliamentary bills. Our non-affiliated colleagues don’t have that option, unlike the political groups, since only political groups have the ability to place items on the agenda when we’re in a parliamentary week. This possibility is left to the political groups, not to individual parliamentarians, to place the text they wish on the agenda.
However, everyone is aware of the agenda. The agenda is decided at the chairpersons’ conference and is sent out in various forms, including paper format. Even though the Senate and the National Assembly are making enormous efforts to ensure that everything is paperless, we still receive the agenda in both paper and paperless form. After each chairpersons’ conference, it is posted online on the Senate website and we receive it by email on the intranet. You have to really not want to be in the know to not be aware of the agenda.
These are really two different things. It’s the political groups that have priority and the opportunity to place texts on the agenda. Information on the agenda is available to all parliamentarians.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for appearing before us today.
As I’m listening to you, I was wondering, do most of these unaffiliated senators, with their voting records, generally support government legislation?
[Translation]
Mr. Frassa: That’s a very good question, but it depends on their political stripes. Since it can vary, we’ve seen non-affiliated senators in the past who were close to the government when they were among its members and who passed bills brought forward by that government.
Today, the four unaffiliated senators, who are members of the National Rally or who were close to the party, are in political opposition to the President of the Republic and to the current government. Therefore, they don’t vote.
You have to consider it on a case-by-case basis. Every time the Senate is renewed, you practically have to examine every single member of the administrative meeting of senators not appearing on the list of any group. You have to take a close look to see what their political background is, because it can be quite varied. There are people from the left, the centre, the right, the far right and the far left. In this case, they all have the same political leanings and are all part of the opposition, both to the President of the Republic and to Prime Minister Michel Barnier’s government. Generally speaking, they oppose the legislation or, in the best-case scenario, they abstain.
[English]
Senator Busson: Thank you very much, Senator Frassa. It’s a real honour to have you here today to inform us about the way your Senate operates.
I noticed when you talked — and I’m reading the briefing notes beforehand — that your Senate is elected and that there are a number of parties in both the National Assembly and the Senate. Do the parties in the Senate mirror the parties in the National Assembly, and are you elected running through a party? You also said that there was some independence to the Senate. Could you explain how that operates, please?
[Translation]
Mr. Frassa: I’d be happy to explain all that to you as clearly as I can. The French Parliament has two assemblies, both of which are elected, but each with a difference. The National Assembly is elected by direct universal suffrage, which means that members are elected in constituencies on a first-past-the-post basis. In the Senate, we are elected by indirect universal suffrage, with majority constituencies where there are one or two senators to elect; as soon as there are three senators to elect, it’s a proportional ballot.
Our electors are the mayors, departmental representatives, regional representatives and what are known as municipal council delegates, making up a total of 162,000 electors throughout France who elect representatives in constituencies the size of French departments.
We are elected for a six-year term, while members are elected for a five-year term. Generally speaking, the 577 members are renewed all at once, and the senators are renewed by half. Half the Senate is renewed every three years, which makes the Senate a permanent assembly, since it is never completely renewed. Some groups had exactly the same number of members. For example, the party I belong to, the Republicans — which is on the right and which, to use an example that may make sense in Canada and North America, corresponds to the conservative right — had the same name in the National Assembly and in the Senate until the last renewal of the National Assembly, and it has the same name as the party to which we belong. The party is called the Republicans and the political group is called the Republicans, and in the National Assembly, it was also called the Republicans. In the National Assembly, since the last parliamentary election, the political group has changed its name. It’s now called the Republican Right, but it’s the same thing.
In the National Assembly, the Socialist party is called the Socialist, Ecologist and Republican group, and in the Senate, it’s called the Socialist, Ecologist and Republican group. There are variations. There are eight political groups in the Senate. I believe there are 11, as I said in my opening remarks, in the National Assembly. However, this is not necessarily a reflection of the political parties and it’s not the same in each of the assemblies; we don’t have the same thing. There are two parties that are not represented in the Senate but exist in the National Assembly. There are two extremist parties, the National Rally, which is the extreme right, and France Unbowed, which is the extreme left. These two parties have no elected members in the Senate, whereas they do have elected members in the National Assembly.
I’ve tried to be as concise as possible, without going into details that could lead us down more complicated paths.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Busson: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I’m delighted to have you here. I’d like to get back to a point you raised about the non-affiliated group. I understand that it can elect a delegate. Does this delegate automatically attend all chairpersons’ meetings? If I understand correctly, they have the right to speak, but not necessarily the right to vote? Could you tell us more?
Mr. Frassa: The non-affiliated senators’ delegate is not part of the chairpersons’ conference, where the agenda is set. Rather, the delegate is consulted as the non-affiliated senators’ representative only when committee membership is determined for all committees. The rule of proportionality prevails. There are only four of them now, but when there any more than ten, the delegate has to be able to say which committee each senator wishes to join, since it is compulsory for each senator to sit on a committee. As for speaking time, it’s set out by the Standing Orders of the Senate, so it’s up to the delegate to put forward the names of RASNAG members who wish to take part in debates and indicate which debate they wish to join and on what subject.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, Senator Frassa, for being with us today.
I want to make sure that I understand two issues clearly. The first issue is that the unaffiliated senators have made a personal choice to be unaffiliated. Do I understand that correctly?
[Translation]
Mr. Frassa: My answer to the first question is yes, since each senator makes a personal choice by joining a political group or deciding to remain non-affiliated. It’s a personal choice for the senator and that may change over the course of his or her term as a senator.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: There is a second thing I want to make sure I understand exactly. You gave us many details, and I thank you for that. The essence of the question is that unaffiliated senators do not have exactly the same priorities and privileges that other senators enjoy. You gave us four or five different examples. If they’re unaffiliated, they do not have exactly the same priorities and privileges. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Frassa: As a parliamentarian, yes, meaning the same right to amend, the same right to propose legislation and to question the government. All the constitutional rights of parliamentarians, whatever their group affiliation, are personal.
Access to speaking time, however, is determined by the Standing Orders of the Senate or the National Assembly and is the prerogative of the political groups.
Obviously, as the non-affiliated members are the smallest political group, their speaking time is extremely limited, and it follows that they have very limited time to speak in debates.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that. That’s exactly what I was getting at, the rights are the same but the privileges and priorities are not necessarily the same. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Thank you, Senator Frassa, for joining us this morning.
It seems to me you have the same principle of proportionality that we do. For the non-affiliated, they’re in a group for the purposes of determining ratios.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you mentioned time limits of an hour to discuss legislation, and that hour is allocated proportionally, in accordance with the numbers of non-affiliated group members and political group members.
If I’m not mistaken, the key difference for us to understand is that you have very specific time limits to discuss legislation, which is not the case in the Senate of Canada. Do I have that right?
Mr. Frassa: In fact, there are two things, senator. When texts are discussed in either the National Assembly or the Senate, there are two things to bear in mind. First, there’s what’s known as the general discussion, which is when members take the floor. To give you a general idea of what happens with a text on any subject, a bill comes up for discussion.
If it’s a parliamentary bill, the sponsor appears to explain its origins and why it should be adopted. Next, the rapporteur of the committee to which the bill was referred explains the work done by the committee. This stems from the fact that, since the 2008 constitutional review, the Senate and National Assembly debate the text resulting from the committee’s work, rather than the original text. Whether it’s a government bill or a parliamentary bill, it’s only the text resulting from the committee’s work that Parliament will debate and vote on.
The minister responsible for the text will then state the government’s position, if it’s a parliamentary bill. Then comes the general discussion, with the chairpersons’ conference deciding on the duration. It’s either 45 minutes or one hour — it rarely goes beyond that — with a minimum speaking time of five minutes for the groups, which increases in proportion to the number of group members, and a speaking time of three minutes for non-affiliated members. That speaking time does not increase, since there are only four of them.
Finally, we have the discussion on the articles of the bill itself, with the various amendments tabled by everyone, be it the government, the rapporteur of the text, any senator on the committee or any senator in the Senate, including non-affiliated members. At that point, they all have equal speaking time, two minutes, to present their points. The committee and the government then respond, after which we have a further two minutes, in light of the decision issued by the rapporteur and the government, to explain our vote or to say whether or not we withdraw it, if the government and the committee have said they are against it.
That’s how it works. There’s no time, however…. Depending on the length of the text we’re discussing, we can estimate that it will take one, two or three sessions to study, but it’s the general discussion that has a time limit.
Have I made myself somewhat clear?
Senator Ringuette: Yes, very clear. Your system imposes, either directly or indirectly through the chairpersons’ conference, time limits on the various subjects on the agenda, and specifically for the purposes of today’s discussion, on legislation.
Mr. Frassa: Only at the general discussion stage for speakers, what we would generally call group speakers.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, Senator Frassa, for helping us out here today.
My question is about the relationship with the parties in the European Union. Are there official relationships between the parties that are represented in the French Senate and the parties that are represented in the pan-European institutions? I’m thinking specifically of when I go to the Council of Europe, which I’ve been going to for eight or ten years. There is the European Conservatives, there is the EPP, the Social Democrats and the Greens. Are there any formal alliances, or is it more unofficial?
[Translation]
Mr. Frassa: National parties are grouped together within broader alliances. The party to which I belong, the Republicans, is part of what’s known as the EPP Group, the Group of the European People’s Party. It encompasses all parties of the right and centre at the European level, is represented under this banner in the European Parliament, in Strasbourg, and runs under this name in the European elections.
The Council of Europe is an assembly that is not directly elected but emanates from national parliaments, since national parliamentary delegations sit on the Council of Europe.
We have senators and members of Parliament in the delegation sent to the Council of Europe, which is also in Strasbourg. They also regularly come together within political groups that resemble their original political family. Relationships are established in a way that is perhaps not formal, but natural. Within our political party, we have parliamentarians who interact as senators, members, members of the European Parliament and with the Council of Europe. Members of Parliament and senators are on it. They are the same, then.
That’s exactly how relations are established, that is, we belong to the same political party. I’ve been a regular member of the Group of the European People’s Party’s congress. I participate on behalf of my political party, not as a member of Parliament. I sit as a parliamentarian, but as a member of my party’s political bureau.
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you very much for that.
Senator MacDonald: Senator Frassa, thank you very much for being here with us this morning.
I want to speak to you about the role of the Speaker in your Senate. In Canada, the Speaker of the House is chosen by all the Members of Parliament, but the Speaker of the Senate is chosen by the government. The rules are somewhat different in terms of how the Speaker votes in the House, supposed to break ties, but the Speaker in the Senate can vote on any piece of legislation they feel like voting on. How do you choose your Speaker? Are they appointed by the governing party? Are they chosen by all the senators? How partisan is your Speaker?
[Translation]
Mr. Frassa: You asked a multipronged question. The President of the Senate is by default a senator, so he must be one of us. He’s elected like all of us and subject to the same renewal process. He must first campaign and be elected by his constituents before he can run for presidency of the Senate. He’s usually a member of the majority group. President Larcher, who has been President of the Senate since 2008, the year I was elected, with one break from 2011 to 2014, has always been elected with a senatorial majority from the right and centre. He still heads a coalition of the senatorial majority that has been running the Senate for 16 years now.
He is partisan in that he’s a member of a political party, but he also represents the institution and is responsible for its running smoothly. He is, you could say, the boss of the other 347 senators and must ensure that the institution runs smoothly on a daily basis.
At the same time, he has a constitutional role: He is the second-in-command of the state. In the event of a constitutional problem, if something were to happen to the President of the Republic, he would succeed him, albeit briefly, but with the responsibility of organizing the presidential election to designate the new President of the Republic.
He is both a politician and the guardian of an institution of Parliament, which itself is permanent. He is also a political leader with an eye on the conduct of state business who does not necessarily have to agree with the President of the Republic. He has said so on numerous occasions.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Just to clarify, the Speaker is chosen by all the members of the Senate directly?
[Translation]
Mr. Frassa: He is elected by all members of the Senate by secret ballot.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I have one further question, Senator Frassa, to finish off.
You were describing earlier how these unaffiliated senators can have an “administrative attachment” to a particular affiliated group. I’m wondering what would be the reasons that the group would accept a senator as just having that administrative attachment rather than requiring them to be strictly affiliated with that group. Is it simply to add to the numbers of the group so that they can have a larger number of senators affiliated with their group? Is that what the attraction would be for that?
[Translation]
Mr. Frassa: Madam Deputy Chair, you are touching on a critically strategic issue for an assembly like the Senate or the National Assembly in the French Parliament: numbers. The more members you have, the more you can aspire to institutional positions and the more likely you are to obtain committee chair, deputy chair or questeur positions within the Senate.
It is therefore in the interest of political groups to provide the option, apart from being a direct member, of being an allied member or an administratively attached member of the group. In this way, there’s enough latitude for members to feel comfortable, but also to swell the ranks of a political group, enabling it to stay ahead of the pack and be the largest. That is how groups can expect, since there are seven standing committees, to have five committee chairpersons, six secretaries, four chairpersons, deputy chairpersons, and so on. In fact, that’s the real issue.
All the major positions of responsibility in the National Assembly and Senate are distributed in proportion to the size of the groups. That’s the crux of the issue.
This means that members who join a group do not feel bound by party or group discipline, and yet groups can have many members in their ranks when positions of responsibility are distributed in proportion to group membership.
It’s a win-win situation.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Frassa, for attending today to give us your testimony despite the significant time change that you’re dealing with there. We very much appreciate your contribution to our study. You provided us with a lot of information and a lot of good answers to our questions. We feel like we have a much better understanding of the situation in the Senate of France today.
We have now reached the end of our agenda, so we will conclude our meeting. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)