THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 10, 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), for consideration of possible amendments to the Rules; and in camera for consideration of drafting instructions.
Senator Michèle Audette (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Kuei. Good morning. Our witness is with us this morning.
Just a friendly reminder for our interpreter colleagues. When you get close to the microphone, please make sure that your mobile phone or earpiece does not interfere. Dear interpreters, we thank you for the work you do alongside us.
Welcome to everyone around the table.
[English]
I wish to welcome all the senators as well as the people across Canada who are watching us this morning on sencanada.ca. My name is Michèle Audette, and I am Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. I now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator McPhedran: Good morning. Marilou McPhedran, independent senator from Manitoba.
Senator Ataullahjan: Good morning. Salma Ataullahjan from Ontario.
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Busson: Bev Busson from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
The Chair: Today, we are pleased to welcome our colleague the Honourable Senator Yonah Martin, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Thank you for accepting our invitation to testify before our committee.
[English]
For the record, Senator Martin has served as Deputy Government Whip and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. She is currently Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, having held this role since November 4, 2015.
[Translation]
I invite you to make your presentation, and we will proceed to questions afterwards.
[English]
Hon. Yonah Martin, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate: Thank you, colleagues, for inviting me today. I see you every day in the chamber on our sitting days, but it does definitely feel a little bit different sitting at this end of the committee table. I am happy to have a small part in the study you are doing on the role of non-affiliated senators.
Colleagues, I have had the opportunity to serve as Deputy Government Whip from June 2011 to September 2013, as well as Deputy Leader of the Government from October 2013 to November 2015. Then, after the 2015 election, I was elected as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I’m here in that position to this day.
I strongly believe in the Senate of Canada as an important institution within our bicameral parliamentary system. I have the utmost respect for the Rules of the Senate that serve each and every senator and our Senate Chamber well. They allow us to get through the long Orders of the Day — sometimes longer, sometimes shorter.
Having worked in leadership for 13 years, I’ve experienced first-hand the importance, malleability and adaptability of our Rules, regardless of the changes we have faced, particularly in this past decade.
When I became Deputy Leader of the Government, I studied the Rules and learned through our Companion to the Rules of the Senate and meeting with Chamber Operations and Procedure Office, or COPO, which is often seen as the keeper of the Rules. I also made a phone call to the late Gerald Comeau, who was the deputy leader at the time of my appointment, to ask for his sage advice on how to be in the new role that I was given as deputy leader. I remember his words to this day.
As Deputy Leader of the Government, learning the rules and procedures for the Senate Chamber was only part of my duties. I also attended daily scroll meetings, which we continue to have to this day. At the time, the meeting included only the government and opposition deputy leaders, along with the Clerk of the Senate. It was just the three of us. When I was in government, the three of us would meet in my office. Then when I became the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, we met up in Joan Fraser’s office, just one floor below. She was above and I was below, and then we switched.
Following these daily meetings, my office and I were in contact with the non-affiliated senators to inform them of the legislative agenda for the day. But also in those days — I don’t know if you recall — the scroll used to be printed for every senator. You had a little booklet on your desk every day. In fact, those notes were even more fulsome than the notes that I had where I just had the motion listed. But in those booklets that we received, the full motion, the full wording of bills — not the full bill — but especially motions and questions were printed in those booklets. I think they were very helpful, especially to the new senators and to all senators.
If independent senators or non-affiliated senators had questions or requests for statements or speeches, they would contact my office as Deputy Leader of the Government. I am sure some of you will remember our former colleague the Honourable Anne Cools who was a truly independent senator in every right and a stickler for the Rules. She would come to my office in Centre Block, or I would often go down to her office, to discuss the legislative agenda for the day. She would quote the Rules to me and remind me of the way that we should be governed in the Senate. We talked about many other topics as well, but I think I saw her every day. That’s not an exaggeration. Sometimes it was more than once a day.
As Deputy Leader of the Government, I was the liaison to the independent senators who ensured that they were informed of our government’s legislative priorities and any procedural items that required leave of the Senate for the sitting.
My staff and the staff of the non-affiliated senators interacted multiple times a day on an ongoing basis. This committee heard from former senator James Cowan who spoke about his experience as leader of the Senate Liberal caucus following the 2015 election and establishment of the Senate Government Representative Office in March 2016, which consisted of Senators Harder, Bellemare and Mitchell.
There have been various changes since then with the creation of several parliamentary groups and daily scroll with a growing number of attendees via Teams, not in person. But my core role as Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Chamber has been strangely similar then and now. So non-affiliated senators have been part of the Senate Chamber prior to March 2016, and they continue to play a role in the Senate Chamber to this day.
I will conclude my opening remarks here, and I’m prepared to answer your questions. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Martin. A number of senators have questions for you.
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, Senator Martin, for appearing. With regard to the non-aligned or non-affiliated senators, how does it work in practical terms when they reach out to you — or if you’re aware of them reaching out to other caucuses — to get speaking time and that sort of thing? Do you think they actually need to do this, or should they be going to the Speaker for the privileges that we all enjoy?
Senator Martin: Yes, I did read the Hansard about the suggestion for non-affiliated senators to reach out to the Speaker’s office. I think all leaders and senators in the past have that open door, and the Speaker is available to speak to everyone.
In terms of speaking times for the non-affiliated senators, it has been almost 10 years. I’m trying to think back to whether or not every request was met, but, like I said, I did have daily communication and more than once-a-day communication with the non-affiliated senators.
If they needed speaking spots, we probably would have had a discussion. In those days, it was simpler in that we had the government and the opposition caucuses, so we each had almost an equal number of spaces. I believe we did accommodate those requests when we could.
I know we still do that. Senator Plett sometimes mentions communication he had with Senator McPhedran or others, and sometimes within our Question Period, or QP, list, or even with ministerial QP, we’ve had those slots offered to non-affiliated senators.
The Speaker, in essence, doesn’t have more power than any other individual senator, but I think the key is communication. That’s what I’ve learned in my position. The communication lines that need to be there may be different between each senator’s office, because each senator has a different system within his or her office.
I’m not doing that as much now. I have very friendly relations with all of the non-affiliated senators and my colleagues across the floor in various places, but it’s not formalized. There isn’t a system that we necessarily use, but I would say that, as government deputy leader at the time, I was the one who had the most communication with the non-affiliated senators.
It may have been different, depending on the request, but it was not even that they had to come and ask. We just had an open line of communication, and I think we operated on that sense of mutual respect.
Senator D. M. Wells: You had mentioned the flexibility of the Rules of the Senate. Do you see a danger in hardening that flexibility? We have conventions, we have practices and we also have the ability to change by session or by agreement. Do you see a danger in hardening that practice?
Senator Martin: In short, yes, because I have witnessed the impact of the most recent changes, and I think some of those rules where shortsighted. With the dinner break, it’s not just a break. We used to have two hours, and that was for a reason. There are many important events that do happen outside of the chamber. Even if someone wanted to leave Parliament Hill for dinner, that one hour goes very quickly, and it’s a real hindrance, in my opinion, to how we conduct ourselves on the Hill, so I hope we can revisit that rule at some point.
When I talk about the malleability of the Rules, it is more that the Rules were well thought out, and with leave, we can pretty much agree to any change for that time. When I think about the leave, it stretches. The framework, if these are the rules, we can stretch them, sometimes we think, “Oh, we are really pushing the boundaries,” but it just keeps stretching, and then for that one moment, we ask leave, we get it, and then it comes right back. It is very malleable.
In one example I have cited in the chamber during one of our earlier debates about rule changes, I explained how, as Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, I had come up with the great idea; actually, I was deputy whip at the time, because I was in charge of committees and committee attendance. In those days we, literally, had to take a form — a piece of paper — down to each committee if there were any changes of senators for that particular meeting.
I thought, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just make the change somehow and do it electronically,” but I was told that this was the way it was done, because it preserved the right of that senator substituting for the session to have every right of every other senator that would normally sit on that committee. A substitute is not a substitute in the way it’s described, but that senator, going into a committee meeting, has all the rights and privileges of a sitting senator who is regularly sitting at the committee and has the right to vote.
It is just for that one sitting, but the rights and privileges for that senator, alongside all the other committee members, are the same. You are not a substitute. You don’t go in thinking, “Oh, I’m just substituting,” but you are there to serve on the committee for the day.
It was a rule change I wanted to make as deputy whip to make my job a little bit easier, rather than having to literally go down with a physical piece of paper for every change.
Senator Cools did not like that change, and she explained why. So did the Clerk. The table officers explained the intention behind the rule.
It was adopted unanimously the Rules Committee, and we took the report back to the chamber. But we knew that Senator Cools and some others did not like that rule change, and they felt it would diminish the role of a senator going into a meeting and “substituting” for the day.
We had the majority at that time. We could have easily called for the question, majority vote, and passed that rule, but we did not, because we knew the opposition of Senator Cools.
Number one, I respected the fact that she had such experience, and we knew that if we forced this when she was not yet ready, that we could pay a certain price. Yes, there is the power of “no” that every senator has, but we also know that if you abuse that power, you may need leave one day, and we may remember that abuse of power.
The power of “no” is there for everyone, and I think it keeps us all in check. Changing the rules so dramatically really did concern me. Once certain rules are applied, we will see whether or not those rules needed to be changed. I would have preferred to have kept them as they were, because with one-off items, with leave, we can all agree, and then it comes right back to where the rules need to be.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. I have many colleagues with questions. About eight senators have questions for you.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Wells already asked my question. It was going to be: As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, do you interact often with the non-affiliated senators? I think you answered it, unless you want to add something more.
Our former colleague Senator Cowan, when he was here before us last week, said that the Senate is a political place, and make no mistake, it is a political place.
Would you agree with that?
Senator Martin: To the latter question, of course, this is politics. We’re part of a parliamentary system, so I do absolutely agree. What we are doing, and what we are engaging in is politics every day. Yes, I agree with Senator Cowan’s remarks on that.
In terms of further comments related to interactions, the interactions I do have are often in the chamber on the Senate floor. I’ve had non-affiliated senators talk about a bill on the Order Paper and whether we would be ready for the question anytime soon, so I’ve had those types of conversations.
When it comes to QP spots for both ministerial and regular QP, I think Senator Plett generally has those interactions. But at scroll, we do, on a fairly regular basis, talk about the non-affiliated senators.
Someone may have spoken to Senator LaBoucane-Benson, who is now the government deputy, so to speak, so she will bring up a request, and we talk about the bills and such.
We do still talk about them, but I would say less than when I was Deputy Leader of the Government, where it was a daily undertaking.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: I wanted to explore a little more based on your extensive experience, Senator Martin, the phrase that is often repeated about “all senators are equal,” and how that informs how you do your work. When I ask that question, I really want to acknowledge the significant number of kindnesses and consideration that you have shown to those of us who choose to be unaffiliated. It quite stands out, in my experience.
I would invite you to reflect on the overall fairness of the system as you understand it and as you see it operating, and whether there are any ways in which you think that the current way of operating, the current way of applying the rules could, in fact, be fairer to unaffiliated senators.
Senator Martin: Thank you. That’s a very thoughtful question that requires reflection and thought. I do believe all senators are equal in terms of our status as senators of Canada. We represent our provinces and often constituencies across Canada that will be national or regional, say, Western Canada. Senator Black is a champion of the agricultural sector, the farmers. We know that from the speeches that he has done. You would know that the constituency that has top priority for me is our veterans of the Korean War. That is because they are in their eighties and nineties, and time is off the essence, so I will do what we need to do to advocate for them.
We each have privileges as senators to be able to put forward inquiries, motions and bills. I know everyone around this table has done that. I do believe that.
Certain advantages and benefits come when you are part of a caucus. In my case, I am part of the Conservative caucus, and we are part of a national caucus. There are some incredible advantages of being at the table every week with your fellow members who are part of your political affiliation. We get to hear conversations. In this case, it is shadow ministers, but in the past, when we were in government — and I know Senator Batters has spoken about this too — we would go to a weekly national caucus, and we would have the opportunity to speak to ministers, hear the presentations of ideas before they even become bills. There are a lot of advantages in that sense, and, of course, there is the camaraderie you have every day when you are part of a group. I can understand why we naturally gravitate to being part of a group.
I have great respect for those who have chosen to be non-affiliated, and I understand the challenges you face when it comes to not having that group, the camaraderie that you would share being around the table at meetings where you are discussing policy and talking about various issues.
For you to sit as a non-affiliated senator, this is where I think it is even more difficult today than it was when I was in government. In the days when we had two clear caucuses and a division of whatever we had, it was a lot easier for the Deputy Leader of the Government to interface and, in some respects, be able to provide those spots for the non-affiliated senators, because I know I have a caucus that I can speak to. When I present my report on a weekly basis, my caucus and I have a trusted relationship. If I said, “Senator Cools really wants to see this bill, and this is the spot that she would request,” we would discuss it, and it would be something that would be guaranteed. Senator LaBoucane-Benson, on the other hand, does not have a caucus. She can interface with the non-affiliated senators, but may not necessarily be able to take that anywhere else other than to scroll. We would then discuss it at scroll, but everybody then has to go back to their respective groups.
It is an added step or two. The communication is slower, so I do feel it is more difficult now.
What will happen if and when there is a change? According to the polls, no one knows exactly what will happen. What will happen to the current groups? Will there be a coalescing of groups? Will there eventually be a government and an opposition? This is all to be determined.
In the meantime, I do empathize with you, Senator McPhedran, and other non-affiliated senators, where the communication is a challenge. The leaders meet before our first scroll meeting, so I don’t always know exactly what will be discussed and potentially agreed upon at the leaders’ meeting. It is only after my first scroll that I sometimes hear, “Oh, this is a change.” So we have to communicate that with each other.
I do have a chat group with my respective counterparts. We try and communicate. Communication is the key.
For you, you have many places, many individuals, with whom you may have to communicate, but hopefully, those lines of communication are still open for you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I thank our witness for agreeing to share her experience of her roles in the Senate.
Most of my colleagues have already asked the questions I wanted to put to you, but I’ll come back to the testimony of former senator Cowan. According to him, you can’t decide not to be part of a group and at the same time claim the benefits of membership in that group. Do you agree with that?
[English]
Senator Martin: In my earlier response to Senator McPhedran, I said there are certain advantages and benefits to being part of a parliamentary group or a caucus. I already listed what those were.
It is a choice that every non-affiliated senator makes, sitting alone versus being part of a group, where you are part of discussions and allotted spots for statements and questions and whatnot. In that regard, the non-affiliated senators make that decision, and there are certain consequences or lack of opportunities that come by being non-affiliated.
As one person, and now with the many lines of communication, you may need to communicate with the leader, potentially with the deputy leader, with the Speaker’s office, with COPO and the Clerk. You can do that, but there is more to do and not necessarily benefit from the membership of being in parliamentary group or a caucus.
In essence, I do agree with the comment that there are certain consequences. Everyone can’t have everything, so to speak. Being in government, there are certain tools that only the government caucus can use, such as time allocation. In opposition, we may not necessarily agree, but just sometimes for the sake of being in opposition, because we want to hold the government to account, we can vote against something, whereas in government, you have to really weigh those decisions even more so because you have the members of Parliament in your national caucus that you need to be accountable to as people of the same caucus. There are those responsibilities that come with being in a group and in a caucus. As a non-affiliated senator, you have the full reign of whatever it is you choose to do, but there are some advantages you will lose because of not being in a group. Senator Cowan and I do agree on that.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: You said in your testimony that, at that time, when you were Deputy Leader of Government, printed information was distributed to everyone; today, that practice no longer exists. Group members receive that information via Teams or by email. Do you think non-affiliated senators should be included in that information sharing?
[English]
Senator Martin: I believe all non-affiliated senators receive scroll notes from COPO every day, but those notes are very sparse, as Senator McPhedran said. It just lists the items which will be acted on once they are called. But in the days of old, we used to have printed scroll booklets, and right now we have quite a few pages in our scroll, so they would be thicker. Sometimes they were very thin, and other times they were thicker. It was a lot of paper that was used, so being more environmentally conscious, we made the decision to go electronic.
But those notes that were more extensive could be sent electronically if senators wanted them. They would be pages upon pages, but perhaps that’s one of the suggestions that could come out of the Rules Committee — what we used to print and send out — especially for the non-affiliated senators, and for all senators.
Sometimes I forget what the full motion was — they’re long motions — but on my scroll notes that are printed, it lists all of the items, but the motion only up to a certain length. The rest are not printed. So even for myself, I have to ask my staff to go back and get me the full wording of the motions.
In the old scroll notes we used to get, the full wording of every motion was in that booklet. That might be a good suggestion for us moving forward, but it’s a lot of reading if you wanted to find something. On the paper, you can quickly scroll, but if you’re on a device, you have to scroll forever. There would have to be some kind of an index added. It would be a little more work for COPO, but perhaps that’s a suggestion that could be made for those who want it. But if they make it, then it would be available to everyone.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much, Senator Martin, for being here. It’s always a pleasure to see you.
I have three questions, which hopefully will be relatively short, but if I run out of time I’ll go on second round. The first one is a follow-up from Senator Wells and Senator McPhedran, but may be more specifically nuanced.
We understand that at times, unaffiliated senators approach your caucus requesting time to speak at Question Period or in statements, and that time is often provided to them. All of us appreciate that.
My question is more of a data question. Would you have any idea what percentage of these requests are fulfilled? Out of all the questions that come for Question Period, what proportion of them are fulfilled if an unaffiliated senator makes that request? Do you have a ballpark idea?
Senator Martin: I’m not sure if the non-affiliated senators only approach Senator Plett or myself or if they’ve approached others. They don’t approach us often. It’s quite seldom. Because they are rare requests, we often try to accommodate, so I would say it would be very high.
Senator Kutcher: This one goes back to your long history in a positive way. Over time, things change, of course, back and forth. Overall, with your understanding of what has happened in the past and what is happening now, are there any rules or specific practices, either past or present, that would deny an unaffiliated senator the option of requesting a membership in a Senate group? Is there anything procedurally or historically that would deny them from making the request? It doesn’t mean that the group would necessarily accept.
Senator Martin: The only thing I can think of is that we are a Conservative caucus. We have party affiliation. We have members of Parliament with whom we meet each week. If we were in government, that would include cabinet ministers. So if there was a senator who consistently was opposing the policies and ideology of the party, if we were in government, I would think as a caucus we’d have to talk about it. That’s not to say people can’t change party affiliation, but I’m saying if they’re consistently on record as always voting against whatever we voted on 99% of the time, then as a caucus, we’d have to discuss that, because it wouldn’t be just automatic that they could come into our caucus.
Senator Kutcher: This is an important nuance. The caucus or the group that a membership is being requested in doesn’t necessarily mean it will be given.
Senator Martin: That goes for all — but is there anything that prevents?
Senator Kutcher: Is there anything that prevents people from making the request?
Senator Martin: No, I don’t know what would prevent a non-affiliated senator from making such a request. If a senator held a party membership for most of his or her life and decided to just not renew the past year, this is something we’d have to look at as a Conservative caucus.
I think Senator Saint-Germain would be able to answer questions regarding what happens with parliamentary groups. I can’t think of anything that would prevent them from requesting to join a group or caucus.
Senator Kutcher: Then I’m just a little bit confused — you know how that is with me — about the routes they have input into scrolls. Please help me; an unaffiliated senator who wishes to have input into scrolls could approach you if they wished to do so or they could approach Senator LaBoucane-Benson with that request?
Senator Martin: Or any of the senators who are in that role of the deputy. We meet every morning on the sitting days, knowing that these scrolls take place every day of our sitting days. It’s at 9:30 a.m., and there are a number of others on the call from COPO; there are several individuals, and then there are staff from each of our offices, so there are quite a few people on the call at 9:30 a.m. every day.
Prior to the scroll meeting, if there is an item or a request that a non-affiliated senator has, he or she can speak to any one of us. But I would think that most would speak to Senator LaBoucane-Benson, because she is part of the government.
The Chair: Your time is up. We have other colleagues who wish to speak.
[Translation]
I’m sorry, five senators still want to ask questions.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: I will get to the crux of the issue in regards to non-affiliated senators and what kinds of rules we should be changing. On our Order Paper, there are three different bulk issues; one is time limited, which is taken in Question Period, and the other one has no time limit, except for exceptions in regards to putting forth bills, amendments, motion inquiries, voting and debating on all of these, there’s no time limit. That’s another slate.
For me, it’s clear in my mind, proportionality in regards to statement and QP in regards to time restraint. There’s no restraint at all in regards to the second items I just stated.
I guess the crux for me is how we can better deal, if needed, with non-affiliated in regards to them being able to participate in committee as a full-fledged member. I find it’s not fixed. I’ve heard that sometimes it has been the government leader that takes care of that. I’ve heard sometimes it is an agreement among all party and group leadership.
On this very specific question, what would your caucus like to see in regard to this? Does it need to be a rule change?
Senator Martin: I have not dealt with this particular issue of committee membership in my role as deputy leader. My focus is largely what happens in the chamber. This is something that could be asked of the leaders, I believe, because they often look at the committee membership. Each member of a caucus or group would submit their priority list, their preferences of which committees they wish to serve on.
I know we have had non-affiliated senators assigned to committees, taking one of our seats. That has happened. So this is a good question, but I’m not the one to answer it. Do we create a rule? I feel like the Rules are fine as they are. When it comes to committees, we know that they’re proportional, to a certain extent, to the groups. We don’t know what will happen in the future. If we were to make a rule change about committees and dictate that to committees, we would have to change it again down the road.
For now, I think that if this is the crux of the issue for — well, one of the issues for the non-affiliated senators — this is something that all groups should discuss. Maybe the leaders need to meet first to say there’s a real desire for non-affiliated senators to serve on committees; how can we make this accommodation? I believe as a chamber, we will be able to do that.
We also know that any senator can attend any committee meeting. They just cannot vote if they’re not a member, so that opens it up to anyone attending committees.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you. Welcome, Senator Martin. Based on your long experience in the Senate, for an ideal Senate, how many groups would there have to be in the chamber for it to remain effective? And what would be the consequences of having more non-affiliated senators, right from the start of the session?
[English]
Senator Martin: On the question of how many to make it ideal and efficient, for me, I have been in government and in opposition with two groups. I was the Deputy Leader of the Government and we had an official opposition — the Liberals — during which time they were removed from caucus. I have also been Deputy Leader of the Opposition, also with an opposition caucus, the Senate Liberals. That system was definitely more efficient.
Now with our recent rule changes, we have designated senators for every bill. Thankfully, not everyone has decided to appoint designated senators because each designated senator for a bill gets 45 minutes, like the sponsor and the critic. We haven’t seen how that has ballooned, but there is the potential for that to happen if we have designated senators.
For me, yes, two are ideal and efficient, based on my experience so far, but I know that the Senate is an amazing chamber. The Rules have been stretched to the max, and they’ve come right back as needed, and we have had the recent changes. Even with the changes, I do feel that the Senate is functioning.
I do look back on the past to those simpler days, and even scroll, how much simpler it was for just Senator Fraser and I to look each other in the eye and read between the lines of what she was actually saying. Those were very good days.
On the consequences of having a larger group of non-affiliated senators, I haven’t yet experienced that. The most I’ve seen would be what we have today. This is the largest number of non-affiliated senators, so for them, it would be more difficult in that there are more of them wanting to get certain spots. I can see that the challenge is increasing for them.
If there’s a large group in the future, whomever is in government and in opposition or in other groups, we’ll have to deal with that as it happens. We will, but it will definitely make it more challenging.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Busson: Thank you, Senator Martin, for sharing your time and the legacy of your experience and expertise on your observations over the years.
You had made a very good suggestion around scroll from your experience over the years. I’m wondering, seeing as we have you here today to pick your brain, if you could offer any other recommendations with what you’ve seen in the years that you’ve been in the Senate from your different roles. Are there any other recommendations that we might consider in order to make the non-affiliated issue more usery for the Senate, to allow for more participation and to get that perspective included?
Senator Martin: Yes. As I’m listening today and as I read over the Hansard of Senator Cowan’s testimony and the non-affiliated senators’ testimonies, I really felt great empathy for my colleagues. I didn’t realize how frustrated and isolated they were feeling.
I know for myself, I’ve decided that I will have more communication with each of them. Scroll happens. We receive these notes, but I’m imagining even for our new senators how confusing it would be just to receive a set of notes and not understand where any of these items belong.
Those longer scrolls that were printed in the past followed the order of the chamber, just as the notes do now, but it showed what sections were coming next. It was much more self-explanatory. I think that is a good idea that has come out of today, hopefully.
Just going back to what Senator Mégie asked, I know if there were a larger number of non-affiliated senators, for the task of getting leave of things, we’d have to ask every single one of them and inform every single one of them every single time. It would be very time-consuming and difficult for the government or the opposition that wanted that particular item adopted with leave, such as the bill that we have to give leave to be tabled and with second reading to happen. These things happen. Asking for leave is often a procedural task, and it happens quite often, so it’s important for us to have very clear communication.
With the fact that we’re shedding light on the situation, I think all of us are going to go back to our groups and think about what we want to do as a chamber for the non-affiliated senators. I don’t have anything earth-shatteringly new, but as I was reading the testimony, I just really empathized with Senator McPhedran and the others. It’s a good thing that the Rules Committee is studying this topic and as a chamber because I think it will require collective agreement and effort where we can address the issues together.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for being here, Senator Martin; your testimony is very enlightening. Your experience is very relevant to your testimony. I have some comments on the questions that were asked, but I would like to bring us back to the heart of our study: fairness for non-affiliated senators. I’d like to be very specific. There are currently four of them, as we have to exclude the Chair, the three members of the Independent Senators Group and all the senators awaiting affiliation. These are four very respectable senators. They are telling us about their frustrations and constraints, and we have to consider whether we are treating them as any senator should be treated, on an equal footing. Our findings are that, in the legislative function, they have the same equal treatment in terms of the right to speak on any bill at any time and in terms of the right to vote. I understand that they have access to information, as the scroll notes are sent to them every morning.
The problem is in the sharing of time, when we have government and ministerial question periods or committees of the whole or when we study other daily matters, such as the number of statements and the number of questions. It seems to me that the principle of proportionality, if we apply it to the four senators, should effectively mean that we could calculate that non-affiliated senators are entitled to X number of questions on a weekly basis. These questions could be shared as long as they agree among themselves. They are four people, four individuals. You and other witnesses also raised the issue of communication. For me, it really goes both ways. To what extent do non-affiliated senators formally communicate with the representative of the government scroll notes in a timely fashion to make their requests? I have in mind the very positive example of Senator Brazeau, who communicates with us regularly in advance; he even came to explain his bill to us so that we could understand it properly.
Isn’t it basically an improvement in our practices to ensure that there is fair, but not privileged, treatment of four non-affiliated senators? If communication were established more formally between the Deputy Leader of the Government and the four non-affiliated senators, would that be the simplest solution to this situation we want to resolve?
[English]
Senator Martin: Yes, I think communication is the key, and we’ve already established that in what we can improve. As you were talking about the limit on the time each senator may have, whether it’s Committee of the Whole or Question Period — every day, with statements, Question Period and Committee of the Whole, many senators do not have the opportunity to be a part of it. It’s the same for everyone in that sense.
Whether or not we allot some of that time for non-affiliated senators is a decision we’ll have to make together. It shouldn’t necessarily be a rule in that they’ve chosen to sit outside of the groups that have allotted time, but with communication, it’s something that I think we can all aim to improve. I hope that the non-affiliated senators, just by having the opportunity to come to the committee to have their opportunity to share their concerns and to be heard, that this is a step closer to addressing their frustration and the concerns that they have.
We all have to wait. Not everyone can speak at all times, but we all have the right to speak on debate on any one of those items — and there are multiple items — as well as to vote on every single item. I agree with you, senator.
Senator Saint-Germain: The power of “no,” isn’t it abusive? Aren’t there some limitations that we should give to the power of “no,” like a senator would have to explain why he or she denies?
Senator Martin: I think the power of “no” is there for every single person, and it also keeps the entire chamber, in essence, on alert and accountable to each other. We know that any one of us can say no. That’s why we communicate on a daily basis. We understand that power. When it comes to the time line of the chamber, whether we’ll rise a day or two earlier, or perhaps a week later, everyone knows the consequence of that “no.” I think it’s there for a reason and it serves us well.
I haven’t seen any one of us over the years abuse that power, and it is there so that it keeps us in check. Like I said, Senator Cools did not like the Rules report. We had the majority, we were in government, but we chose not to push it. We could have. Are senators ready for the question? “No.” She could have said no once, we would have overruled, and she loses her power to say no again. It’s there, and I think it serves us very well.
Senator Batters: That’s where I wanted to pick up, because I agree with you, I think the power of “no” is very important in the Senate. Thank you very much for being here today to explain how things were somewhat different during the time frame when we were in government and you were the government deputy leader. I was here for maybe just about a year before that happened. I was in the Senate for almost three years when we were government, and then the rest of the time, so far, in opposition.
What I’ve seen, and what you’ve been alluding to, is the equality of senators principle has now, with these very recent rule changes, changed to an equality of groups situation. I find that somewhat ironic to have such a group dynamic now in place when there are so many Independent Senators who call themselves that. Previously, when we were in government, Senator Cools, Senator McCoy and Senator Rivard are the three that come to my mind as very active independent senators at the time, who spoke frequently on many different topics and used that power of “no” every so often.
I’m wondering if you can speak a little bit more about that movement from equality of senators with this new rule change to more of an equality of groups.
Senator Martin: I don’t have a lot to say about that, other than the fact that in the massive rule changes we recently adopted — which I did vote against because, like I said, even one small rule change that made practical sense taught me the importance of the rules that we do have and how there’s a consequence for every single rule — it did not mention non-affiliated senators. That’s where it was concerning.
I’m not sure who was consulted in that process, to tell you the truth — I know we were not — or whether the non-affiliated senators had been considered or consulted in the process. Senator Lankin, I know, met with the senators, but it was more of a general meeting, I heard, than something very specific to the actual rule.
The only thing I will say is that in reading the Hansard of Senator McPhedran and the non-affiliated senators testifying at committee, I felt it in my heart, as Senator McPhedran asked us to really sort of listen with our heart. It is something we need to address as a chamber. We’re in this together. All of us are fellow senators, and whether we’re part of a group or not, we want to ensure that every senator has that sense of equality with one another and the respect that we hold for each other. I’m confident that there will be something good that comes out of this study. I thank all the members of the committee for the work that you are doing.
Senator Batters: There is something else, Senator Martin. When you were speaking about those lengthier paper scroll notes you used to receive and you were wondering how that could be made into a more workable solution, if it is provided electronically, rather than the written text of each motion, there could be a link so that people could follow the link if they wanted to see it. That keeps it briefer. That’s something that could be done.
Senator Martin: It could maybe be made more efficient. They were quite thick and, sometimes, as a new senator, I didn’t understand what that was, either. You have to understand the Orders of the Day — that it starts with Routine Proceedings, government business, et cetera.
But adding a link is a great idea versus the actual text. This is homework for COPO to look at how we can communicate the information to all senators, regardless of their group or party affiliation.
Senator Batters: There is one last thing that I would like to say. First of all, a brief point is that Senator McPhedran actually brought to my attention quite some time ago — maybe a year or two ago — just how, sometimes, there is very little information that’s provided to non-affiliated senators, such as a former senator having passed away. Then non-affiliated senators didn’t have any clue about when tributes would be. It was put upon them that they didn’t even have a chance to be involved in that. That was something I know that I relayed to you in your office. I think you’ve tried to provide that information to them. That’s a great example of something like that.
But one last thing I wanted to ask you about, Senator Martin, was that you were noting earlier that when you were the Deputy Leader of the Government, you “spoke more about non-affiliated senators at scroll than we do now.” That’s surprising to me, because we have a greater number of non-affiliated senators at times. Could you talk more about that?
Senator Martin: I don’t remember saying that exactly. What I meant is that I spoke to the non-affiliated senators more than I do now.
Senator Batters: I thought you were saying, at scroll, as a general group — at the meetings — that there was more discussion there about a certain non-affiliated senator might want to do this.
Senator Martin: Senator Fraser and I often knew we wanted leave for something, so we would need to talk to Anne Cools. It was always my job as the government deputy leader. So we may have talked more in that sense.
The other challenge we have is that we were in a new building. We are not in Centre Block. Everybody was much closer — or it felt closer — being in the same building. The House was on the other end, and our reading room was much more frequently used. We had more interactions, it felt like, because all of the offices were closer together.
So being so separate from the House and being here, I don’t even know where all the senators’ offices are anymore. I used to know a lot more in the past. Maybe we just need to communicate more, in general.
That’s what I had meant. I talked to the non-affiliated senators more than I do at this time.
Senator Batters: That would make sense when you were government deputy leader for sure. I thought it was more of a comment that, at scroll, there were more discussions —
Senator Martin: Senator Cools was ever present in our conversations.
Senator Batters: Yes, I remember once in particular when everyone had agreed that a break was going to happen at a certain time, and Senator Cools said “no,” and then she left for the evening.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Martin, would you agree to answer one last question from a colleague? That way, we would respect your precious time. We could conclude with Senator McPhedran.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: I want to put on the record an overall appreciation for the thoughtfulness of the discussions and questions that have taken place today and at previous meetings.
As the committee proceeds to report stage, I would like to ask if we could focus a bit more on what was listed by we non-affiliated senators as key issues. Committee membership is one of those key issues. With great appreciation for the opportunity that I was given through the Conservative caucus to serve on the Social Affairs Committee, I think it is important to take it a bit further and make it clear that such is a form noblesse oblige; it is the option of the caucus to pull the committee member at any time. That happened to me recently; I was pulled from the Social Affairs Committee directly after doing something within the rules that displeased the leader.
I realize you can’t comment upon this, but I think, as a fact, it is worth sharing.
That raises an overall question — as just one example — for me as a senator in thinking about the principle of equality. I will frame this as a question. How does it make the Senate a more effective place to create an underclass — to have a ruling class that is defined by group membership and then to accept that ruling class distinction by saying to non-affiliated senators, “You choose not to be part of a group, so you therefore choose the consequences”? The consequences are often discriminatory and do not, in fact, honour the principle of all senators being equal.
I puzzle over that. How is it that perpetuating a system whereby if someone chooses to be non-affiliated, they are, in effect, choosing to be discriminated against? How does that make the Senate a more effective place?
Senator Martin: I share a very different view than you do, senator, so I don’t think of this chamber having an upper class or a lower class. We are all senators. We are all equal. You chose not to be part of a parliamentary group or a caucus. There are certain natural consequences and effects. You took the word “consequence” and turned it into “discrimination,” but there are many people who want to serve on the Social Affairs Committee or any committee, but only a few people can.
Whether you are in a group or not, there are limitations to what we can naturally do, because it’s about the numbers.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but I hope this discussion and study will carefully consider all of the concerns you have raised and that, as a chamber, we can work toward improving the overall functioning of the Senate where some of those feelings are diminished. I don’t know what that will be.
Today, I heard about the importance of communication for all of us, whether you are part of a group or not, to help you feel respected and understood as a senator that we are colleagues.
Some of us belong to caucuses, some of us belong to groups and some choose not to. That is a position you are taking, but that doesn’t make you any less of a senator than me or anyone around this table. That is my viewpoint, but I look forward to the report that will be published by this committee.
Thank you, colleagues.
[Translation]
The Chair: I’ll make a quick reminder. I think it’s important for everyone to be heard, even if we feel that it’s causing a reaction. This is a respectful space. I’m impressed. Do we agree or disagree? I think Senator Martin said it well. I see an opportunity to continue debating with my committee colleagues in the next hour. If that’s okay with you, I’d like to say a big thank you for the education and the recommendations.
You have received the document that shows what this study could look like. If we follow the culture or the usual way of doing things on this committee, should we go in camera?
Senator Saint-Germain: I was wondering the same thing, as I could see that we were in public.
The Chair: I am asking you the question: Do we go in camera or do we continue in public?
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: I think because it is a consideration of a draft report that we should go in camera.
[Translation]
The Chair: Therefore, we will continue the meeting in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)