THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 19, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:35 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), for consideration of possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Michèle Audette (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Kwei. Welcome to the senators who are with us today, and to the people listening to us on sencanada.ca. There are people who will be transmitting our voices in French and English, so let’s try to be careful with our microphones to facilitate their work. Getting too close the microphone can cause feedback. This is just a friendly reminder; you know what to do. My name is Michèle Audette, I’m a senator from Quebec and I’m chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
I’d like to go around the table and ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator Black: Good morning. Rob Black, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Good morning. Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Busson: Good morning. I’m Bev Busson from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Woo: Good morning. Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Good morning. Marilou McPhedran, independent senator for Manitoba.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. Today, honourable senators, we’re resuming our study of the role of non-affiliated senators. We are pleased to welcome by video conference Jean-Éric Gicquel, Professor of Constitutional Law and Parliamentary Law at University of Rennes 1. I will now yield the floor to our guest.
Jean-Éric Gicquel, Professor of Constitutional Law and Parliamentary Law, University of Rennes 1, as an individual: Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a great honour for me to take part in your committee work and, more broadly, that of the Canadian Senate. The purpose of my introductory remarks is to explain how non-affiliated members work in the Senate. There are also non-affiliated members in the National Assembly, but there are a few particularities that exist only in the Senate and not in the National Assembly.
The freedom of not belonging to a group is established by the Règlement du Sénat in Article 5, which reads: “No one may belong to several groups or be forced to belong to a group.”
The only prohibition is against belonging to two groups simultaneously. Life in the Senate, as in the National Assembly, is structured around political groups. This can be observed in many areas, notably in the makeup of the bureau, which is the Senate’s governing body, as well as at the National Assembly. The life of the groups structures the organization of commissions, particularly legislative commissions of inquiry. This structures the general discussion when a text is debated before the senators. Speaking time is allotted for each group. We’ll see later that in France, opposition and minority groups have specific rights, notably the right to set up commissions of inquiry, and that these groups are the only beneficiaries of such mechanisms.
To quote a French deputy:
…We are all equal in that we each have one vote, but membership in a parliamentary group confers additional rights.
However, membership of a parliamentary group confers additional rights, including material rights enjoyed by groups, and financial rights. A minimum number of members is required to form a group. In the Senate, the threshold is very low, since all you need to form a group is 10 senators. There are currently eight. In France, the number of groups is increasing. We’ll have a chance to see — and perhaps I’ll have to elaborate on certain points — that there’s a peculiarity in the case of the French Senate, i.e., you can be part of a group, but you can also simply be related to it or administratively attached to it — although the differences between relatedness and attachment are quite subtle, if not at times artificial.
As far as non-affiliated members are concerned, this is a right. It currently pertains to 4 out of 348 senators. For a long time, the following joke was used to describe a non-affiliated senator in France: A senator who sits in the centre, votes on the left and has the reputation of being right-wing.
This no longer exists, but there was a time when you could have a group made up of non-affiliated senators and still meet the minimum threshold of 10 senators. The non-affiliated senators would decide to get together and form a group whose members were quite independent of each other. That situation may have existed in the past. This is no longer the case, since there are now very few non-affiliated senators. There are currently four. That’s a long way from the minimum threshold of 10 senators.
By way of compensation, as these non-affiliated senators cannot form a group, there is something unique to the Senate that is completely absent from the National Assembly. Non-affiliated senators can meet in a body called the Réunion administrative des sénateurs ne figurant sur la liste d’aucun groupe (Administrative Meeting of Non-affiliated Senators), known as RASNAG in French political vocabulary. It is not a group; it’s a meeting chaired not by a group president, but by a delegate. The existence of this meeting can be taken into account in the composition of legislative and inquiry commissions. Consideration could also be given to including RASNAG members in the bureau. On the other hand, all groups are guaranteed representation at the bureau. This is not the case for RASNAG. It can be taken into account when the number of members is higher. When you have eight or nine senators, it’s more feasible than at present, when there are only four.
Those are the few introductory remarks that will enable you to ask me many questions about the way non-affiliated senators work in France.
The Chair: Thank you for your introduction, which is very clear. Mr. Gicquel, I’m going to give the floor to my colleagues. Questions will be asked in French or English. I hope you have the translation system with you, or that you are able to hear my colleagues well.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you very much to the witness.
As you were saying in your opening remarks, you need 10 senators to form a group. What I was wondering about, is there any stated requirements aside from just simply having the number of 10 to form a group? For example, stating a common purpose that somebody delves into? Or is it really just having the number of 10 that’s required, and that’s the only certain requirement and nothing really further than that?
[Translation]
Mr. Gicquel: Yes, there’s a membership of 10 and then, they are required to share a common political philosophy. In some situations, this is not a problem, since they are right-wing or left-wing parties, for example socialist or centrist. As I said in my opening remarks, there have been times in the history of the Senate when people’s political philosophies varied widely, but they decided to form a group because of the many advantages. There was a group of non-affiliated senators, and in this case, indeed, the political philosophy shared by the senators could be extremely different. Generally speaking, they are united by a political vision. It’s not just 10 people so it’s feasible, but it’s rare in the French system. Above all, you need a shared political vision. It is possible to have non-affiliated senators who, for lack of anything better, decide to form a group, but that’s rare.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you. So stating that they adhere to the same political philosophy, that sort of thing, is it broader than a party affiliation, then? Would political philosophy or something like that be the only type of requirement that they would need to state as their common purpose, not something like having a very general way of defining themselves?
Does it also need to be specifically tied to perhaps an existing political party in France or anything like that? Or would it be more of a broader sort of thing, like libertarian or a certain type of political philosophy, like socialist, things that may or may not be adhered to by a political party but more of just a general political philosophy? Could it be even something like people in the Senate who like green trees? Could it be something very broad just basically to make sure they could form a group and have 10?
[Translation]
Mr. Gicquel: In fact, under the French system, though it’s not mandatory, group members belong to the same political party. So, the problem is solved in this way, even if it’s not a legal obligation. In fact, people who share the same economic, social or environmental philosophy all belong to the same political party. The problem is solved.
That question arises in practical terms when there are non-affiliated senators; in reality, these are small parties that aren’t large enough and end up with a few isolated people or people who dissent from other political parties. Although the legal texts, the National Assembly Rules of Procedure and the Senate Rules of Procedure are silent on political parties, in reality, life is also structured around political parties. In France, the group is the expression of the political party within each chamber. We have a Socialist Party, so we’ll have a Socialist group in the National Assembly and the Senate; we have a right-wing party called the Republicans, so we’ll have a Republican group. At times, there can be schisms; dissidents leave the group, because they’ve left the party, and end up as non-affiliated members. That’s how we can try to get a better idea of how people come together. They form a group because they’re already part of the same political party.
[English]
Senator Batters: Who determines whether that group has met the requirement? Is it an administrative function related to the institution? Who makes that determination? Is it more of a self-determination and there’s no way to challenge whether that requirement has been met or not?
[Translation]
Mr. Gicquel: Who determines that? In reality, as I said, the parliamentary group, generally speaking, is simply the offshoot of the political party. They have the same political stripe. It’s only natural. They belong to the same party. It’s natural for them to get together. They will form a group, because they subscribe to the same logic, to the same party. There’s no particular problem, no one makes that decision. It’s just that political parties have gradually been superimposed on groups. In fact, when we talk about parliamentary groups in France, we could be talking about parliamentary parties, even if no one says so. Those are the parties represented in each chamber.
[English]
Senator Batters: Right, but what if it’s something not as specific as a political party but a broader type of a group? Who makes that determination whether the group has enough cohesion to be classified as a group, or perhaps whether they’re just trying to satisfy the number of 10 to make sure they receive the privileges of that group?
[Translation]
Mr. Gicquel: Who ensures the group’s strength? In reality, you could say it’s the political party.
If there are internal tensions within the party or visible schisms within the party, gradually there will be consultations within the group and some senators or members will leave the group to form another. The peculiarity of the Senate — and this is much more complex and less marked than at the National Assembly — is that you can have groups that are not offshoots of a political party. Nowadays — though this is happening less and less — you have people who don’t belong to political parties and who will form a group because they are not members of this or that political party. They don’t belong to traditional parties and are telling themselves: “We share a common philosophy and we’re going to come together even if there’s no party behind us.”
It’s important to understand that in France, it depends on whether you sit in the National Assembly or the Senate. Very often, you have a party and a group that are strongly united, and sometimes — this is especially true in the Senate — you can have one or two groups that are not the offshoots of political parties. These are simply senators who prefer to work together because they don’t belong to other political parties, and they prefer to join forces to benefit from the advantages of being in a group. There may well be 20 or 30 of them. They’re generally small groups, because the large groups are offshoots of the political parties.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to our expert for joining us and informing us more about the situation in France.
I would very much appreciate more information on the RASNAG. You mentioned that it was an administrative structure. You mentioned that it was not a political group and there was no chair but a delegate.
Could you tell us more about the administrative structure? In particular, is there a budget for this structure? What is the role of the delegate? What, if any, support do the members of the RASNAG receive? Is it similar to what they would receive if they were in a regular group? I’m sorry, there are many questions but our time is limited.
[Translation]
Mr. Gicquel: The first difference, as I’ve already said, is that these mechanisms are completely non-existent in the National Assembly. Non-affiliated members are totally isolated and are not entitled to any support.
The Senate operates differently. It considers that even senators who are completely isolated, who cannot be attached to a political group…. I’ll give you a clear illustration to help you understand the situation. The four non-affiliated senators belong to an extreme right-wing party, the Rassemblement National (National Rally). These four senators cannot, for obvious political reasons, be attached to any other group, because those groups would not welcome the presence of these four senators. They are members of the Rassemblement National.
The Senate does not wish to exclude a senator based on their political affiliation. So, the compensation was to allow these non-affiliated senators to meet as a body referred to as a meeting — the RASNAG. That meeting has financial support; the senators receive a small sum of around €100,000, which enables them to recruit staff. They have a small team — I don’t know the exact number, because you’d have to go into the details and sometimes it’s a bit opaque — and this sum enables them to recruit two or three collaborators for the meeting. This small technical team will assist these four isolated senators.
Those four senators elect a delegate and that delegate — that’s the term — is not a group chairperson. There are separate terms: We have the group chairpersons and the RASNAG delegate.
There is an important body in the Senate: the Chairpersons’ Conference. This conference sets the main principles for debating texts. The Chairpersons’ Conference brings together the committee chairs and the group chairpersons, and also invites the RASNAG delegate to take part in these meetings. Non-affiliated senators have a small say, because at least the delegate can take part in this Chairpersons’ Conference, which plays an important role in the day-to-day running of the Senate, whereas at the National Assembly, non-affiliated members are entitled to absolutely nothing and receive no specific assistance.
It should also be borne in mind that individually, whatever their political affiliation, whether they belong to a group or not, senators have protected constitutional rights and financial rights that are all equivalent. They receive the same parliamentary allowance, but there are some advantages in belonging to a group for a senator or member. For example, a group will receive millions of euros to function, whereas RASNAG has only €100,000. On the other hand, millions of euros will be given to groups according to their size; large groups have more resources than small groups. So, with these millions of euros, you can recruit many employees and a huge technical team. As part of a group, you can benefit from all of the groups’ financial advantages, i.e., all the resources that the group makes available to its members. RASNAG has a bit of funding, and we don’t want to eliminate it: It has €100,000 and can recruit two or three employees; that makes a big difference.
It’s easy to understand why the four non-affiliated senators are non-affiliated. It’s a peculiar political configuration in France.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Could I please ask about committees? I recognize that it’s not exactly the same between our Senates, but is there a right for a senator, even a non-affiliated senator, to be a member of a committee that is part of your process of studying issues and studying bills and reporting back to the Senate?
[Translation]
Mr. Gicquel: Every senator must belong to one of the standing committees that deals with legislative activities. In the Senate, there are seven standing committees and all senators must belong to one of the seven committees. So all four non-affiliated senators belong to a standing committee. That is an obligation. Since there are four of them and seven committees, there are three committees with no non-affiliated members.
Senator Saint-Germain: Good afternoon, Mr. Gicquel. You said — correctly, of course — that each senator has constitutional rights which must be respected. One of those rights is that of being a legislator and speaking to bills. Under the current system, where only four senators are unaffiliated, are there circumstances under which one of those unaffiliated senators would be unable to speak to a bill?
Mr. Gicquel: Because they have constitutional rights, all of them can take part in the debate.
In France, a general debate is held, then a clause-by-clause debate. When it comes to the general debate, the Conference of Presidents can decide to set it for two hours, for example. Those two hours are shared out based on the groups, and then the unaffiliated senators get the few minutes remaining. They may speak, but they will, of course, have less time than members of a group.
They also have constitutional rights, particularly that of tabling amendments. They therefore have the opportunity to take the floor in order to table an amendment. Their amendment has very little chance of passing, since a vote will be held afterwards. Furthermore, in the current political context, the unaffiliated senators belong to a far-right party. That means their amendment has no likelihood of passing. They can indeed take the floor and table amendments, but then, as I said, the majority votes, so they have very little weight in the current legislative debate.
Senator Saint-Germain: On the other hand, are there any advantages? We talked a lot about the inconveniences of being unaffiliated, but that’s by choice, or lack of choice in some cases. Regardless, are there advantages to being unaffiliated in the French senatorial system?
Mr. Gicquel: They are in fact weaker than at the National Assembly. That is because National Assembly groups are often extremely disciplined. Given how senators are elected, discipline in the Senate is not as strong and prominent as in the National Assembly.
The advantage for unaffiliated MNAs is total freedom when voting, but the Senate offers it as well when one is part of a group, since group discipline is not as pronounced in the Senate as in the National Assembly. Given that group discipline is weaker in the Senate than the National Assembly, in the end, being unaffiliated in the Senate offers relatively few advantages, because they don’t benefit from the advantages available at the National Assembly.
At the National Assembly, group discipline is very visible. So, you have more opportunities to vote the way you want when you are an MNA. At the Senate, it’s somewhat like that. Even if groups are increasingly trying to discipline their members, it is clearly more complicated to impose strict voting discipline in the Senate than the National Assembly.
[English]
Senator Woo: Do senators have the right to choose which of the four commissions they sit on? And if not, what is the process by which senators are assigned to each of the four commissions?
[Translation]
Mr. Gicquel: Under the French system, the choice to belong to a committee is not entirely free. You have to be part of a committee. Then, it’s imperative that the committee’s political physiognomy be identical to the assembly’s political philosophy as a whole. That means if one party is more powerful within the chamber, all the committees must reflect it. In other words, the majority must be the majority on all the committees, and the opposition must be a minority on all the committees as well. No committee does otherwise. Political considerations are therefore what comes into play.
You then have technical considerations. For example, if you are a doctor, you will probably work at the Social Affairs Committee rather than the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Senate also places an emphasis on seniority. That means an older senator has a sort of right of priority over a senator who is a newcomer.
Once the groups assign their men and women to committees, a few small gaps remain to be filled. That’s where the four unaffiliated senators can be found. They will be told by the group that four spots are left at such or such a committee, and they must sort out who will be taking one of them. The groups tell the unaffiliated senators what’s left over; in other words, the crumbs.
[English]
Senator Woo: Do I understand correctly that the criteria of proportionality, expertise and seniority, and the allocation process is principally controlled by the political groups? They fill up the seats first, if I can put it that way, and then there are leftover seats made available to non-affiliated senators, is that a fair summary of the process?
[Translation]
Mr. Gicquel: Absolutely.
[English]
Senator Woo: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: I wonder if you could tell us, please, how the RASNAG delegate is chosen. And if there is a specific job description or any materials that relate to the RASNAG, if we haven’t received them, if you could please ensure that our committee receives them so we can understand this better?
[Translation]
Mr. Gicquel: I think because there are only four of them, they were unable to proceed with an election. They had to choose one of the four by deciding who would accept the position of delegate. Although I can’t know how they did it, with four of them, organizing an election is complicated.
When it comes to documentation, the RASNAG has very little means to be visible on the National Assembly website, which means there’s very little documentation. I think the best solution would be for the Canadian Senate to contact the French Senate directly. The relevant delegate could determine which documents they can share with you. From the outside, we don’t have much, really.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. I wonder if you could elaborate, picking up on the point from Senator Woo about proportionality among the groups. Is there a clear definition that there are certain rights that are only made available to the groups for positioning within, for example, if a particular witness were to come to the Senate, for questioning of guests to the Senate or any other rights that are held only by the groups?
[Translation]
Mr. Gicquel: Since 2008, new rights have been granted to groups. Mainly, there are what is referred to as opposition groups, and a variety of minority groups were also created in France. These groups are not opposition groups for political reasons, but they are too small in number to be the majority. We therefore have three types of groups: the majority group, which is the biggest in terms of numbers, then the minority groups and the opposition.
In 2008, groups were granted rights. To start, each group has the right to create commissions of inquiry once a year. Each group is also entitled to set the agenda once a month. Those rights are only recognized by the groups.
That means if you are unaffiliated, you benefit from none of those prerogatives, meaning the opportunity to call for the creation of a commission of inquiry or set the agenda. Those powers are important and have been systematically exercised in the Senate and National Assembly since 2008. But if you are not part of a group, it’s all over for you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We were wondering about the RASNAG, and information will be shared between both Senates.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you, Mr. Gicquel, for being with us this morning. I would like some clarification.
You said earlier that each political group gets millions of euros to have a kind of staffed resource centre. The unaffiliated group also gets a certain budget, even though it is minimal. On top of the funds allocated to groups and the unaffiliated group, does each senator also get funds to operate an individual office as a senator?
Mr. Gicquel: When it comes to financial assistance, each group and RASNAG are set up as an association which receives subsidies from the Senate; the same applies to the National Assembly. They therefore receive subsidies calculated according to their numbers. For example, if you have a group of 120 senators, they have a budget of millions of euros. Each year, the Senate pays them a subsidy, which enables them to recruit staff and assistants who can help senators. The RASNAG also receives some money from the Senate, but much less, since there are only four of them; we’re talking about €100,000 a year.
In addition, every MNA and senator enjoys financial benefits. Regardless of their status, they are entitled to the same budget of approximately €10,000 per month to recruit their own assistants, about two or three. There is a distinction to be made between assistants to MNAs and senators, whether or not they are members of a group, and the group’s joint assistants, who can do more. Each senator is therefore entitled to their own team, recruited with their own budget. Each senator, affiliated or not, also has a budget of around €6,000 per month to cover their professional expenses, such as funding a parliamentary office or means of transport. It makes no difference whether you are affiliated with a group or an unaffiliated senator; the financial benefits are exactly the same.
The Chair: Mr. Gicquel, thank you for this discussion on behalf of the committee and on behalf of my colleagues. I apologize for the technical issues. We have come to the end of the agenda. We will therefore bring this meeting to a close. I will ask members of the steering committee to stay after the meeting.
(The meeting is adjourned.)