THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 26, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 11 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-13 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Caroline Woodward, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as the clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I’m ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Senator Sorensen: I’d like to nominate Senator Senior as chair.
Ms. Woodward: Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Sorensen that the Honourable Senator Senior do take the chair of this committee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Paulette Senior (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you, and welcome, everyone.
Just a note about the chair role. I just want to let you know that Senator Coyle and I have decided to chair this committee, so we will be alternating annually. At this time next year, she will be taking the chair, and we will move forward in that way.
Senator Batters: Congratulations on your election as chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Batters: I can see how you might want it to work that way, but of course, it would have to go through the committee to actually have the chair change. I think that your Independent Senators Group may have done similar things on other committees, but we didn’t get to know as a committee what your inner group dynamics were in that respect. If there’s a need for a new chair in the future, then it would go through this same process.
The Chair: — as we did today.
Senator Batters: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you for saying that.
We will now proceed to the election of the deputy chair. I’m ready to receive a motion to that effect. Are there any nominations?
Senator Sorensen: I’d like to nominate Senator Bernard as deputy chair.
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Sorensen has moved that the Honourable Senator Bernard be deputy chair of this committee. Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
We now have some routine motions to adopt. Do I have a mover for motion 3, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure? Maybe I’ll read the motion first and then I’ll go with the amendment.
The motion reads:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair and two other members of the committee, to be designated after the usual consultations; and
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings.
Senator Coyle: I move:
That the motion be amended by replacing the words “empowered to make decisions on behalf of” with “responsible for considering and consulting with.”
The Chair: You have heard the motion.
Senator Batters: I just came out of a Rules Committee meeting where, for the first time in my 12 and a half years in the Senate, a similar motion was moved there. I’ve sat on the Rules Committee for my entire time in the Senate, as well as the Legal Committee and a few other committees — Internal Economy and other committees — and this morning was the very first time I had ever been part of a committee that had this motion attempted to be amended. I’m going to make some of the same points I made there.
First of all, it should just be recalled. I know a few other committees in the Senate have used this type of motion before, but it can have unintended consequences, I think. This particular part of the motion sets up the steering committee, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, and it gives those members of that steering committee, as the motion stands unamended, empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses and to schedule hearings. When you take out the words “empowered to make decisions on behalf of,” then you’re basically completely taking away those substantial powers from the steering committee. It’s not adding to the situation by saying that they’re responsible for considering and consulting with.
I’ve been on steering committees for many years, and it already happens that steering committee members — everyone is very busy here; everyone has certain committee responsibilities that they have, and the members of your caucus or group generally rely on the people who are at those steering committees to make those decisions and have those smaller meetings to determine the agenda for upcoming meetings. I’m new to this committee, but this committee has undertaken substantial trips before, had many international witnesses and other types of witnesses during substantial studies that they’ve had, and if you have that power taken away from the steering committee, then you’re basically kind of neutering the steering committee. They no longer have the ability to make those decisions about the agenda, to invite witnesses and schedule hearings; instead, the full committee must make all of those decisions. Potentially, we’re going into the summer break period for two and a half months where the Senate doesn’t have any hybrid capability for full committee meetings. However, steering committees could meet virtually if they choose to during the summertime and set up upcoming committee meetings. However, if you have the full committee needing to be part of all of these different decisions about who to invite — especially when you often have international witnesses and things that are difficult to set up — then it can become extremely onerous and inefficient, because you’re having to involve the entire committee. This one is a smaller committee of nine members, but to have that volume of emails that goes into steering committee decisions have to go to the entire committee to sign off on witness preparation, invitation and agenda setting — that could be very onerous.
I know, for my group, when I’m a member of a steering committee, I take it upon myself to do that consultation and tell the members of my group what’s happening in our upcoming meetings, especially the members who are on that committee, so they know and have input. Also, of course, any time that a steering committee is either unable to come to a decision, there’s not consensus or they want to involve the full committee in a larger consultation about who to invite and what to do for upcoming studies, then that’s commonly brought forward to the full committee. That is certainly not precluded in any way.
But if you have it in this kind of space, I frankly have to say I wonder why the chair and deputy chair would be receiving additional taxpayer money for those positions, because you’re taking away all power from the steering committee to do those kinds of extra duties. Instead, the full committee is doing them.
When we’re talking about taxpayer money, we have to be very concerned to make sure that we’re making sure that those duties are done properly. I don’t think the full committee is ever precluded — I know discussions are commonly held with the full committee for these types of situations — about upcoming studies, what to be done, who to invite and when hearings should be scheduled — those types of things — but I think it can work in a very efficient way.
Particularly because you’re not just adding words but taking away “empowered to make decisions on behalf of” and you’re not replacing that power with anything for the steering committee, so steering is effectively pretty ineffectual.
Senator Coyle: I want to thank Senator Batters, because you have deep and extensive experience in this area. I’m heartened to hear your experiences which are that, generally, this actually happens.
The intention of this amendment is to encourage consultation and consideration of other members’ perspectives. The reason I and others are bringing it forward is that we agree that, generally, that is the case, but there have been cases where that hasn’t worked ideally in certain committees. This amendment is brought forward to make sure that it is done — that consultation and consideration happen.
It’s not to take away from the authority of the steering committee because at any point, as I understand it — and I’ve experienced it on committees — the chair of the committee with the deputy chair or whomever can ask the committee at any point, “would you agree to allowing the steering committee to do X, Y or Z?” Once that consultation or consideration has happened.
It doesn’t mean it won’t happen. I’ve seen it happen and work really well. This is just a safeguard, frankly, for the rights of all committee members to be considered. I doubt in any way it will be abused or will take away from the efficiency of the committee. I agree with you, we need to be efficient in our work. We need to respect our steering committee members in their roles as steering committee members. This just adds, as you say, that consideration must be done. That’s my perspective on it, and that’s why I’m bringing it forward today.
The Chair: Any other comments?
Senator Batters: Thank you. I guess my main concern about this is — and perhaps this has been — like I say, I haven’t seen this motion before a committee before. I know it’s been tagged onto a couple of other committees previously, but it’s not well worded because it totally takes out those words. You have a portion of this overall motion that deals with the steering committee, but then that amendment purports to take away the words, “empowered to make decisions on behalf of.” Therefore, what is the role of the steering committee if that’s basically — is it just an email inbox kind of thing that other committee members send their suggestions to or something like that?
Also, I do not understand how that would work during this two and a half months that we’re soon going to be back in our home provinces and not here in Ottawa. Would there have to be full in‑person meetings done sometime this summer, bring everyone back to Ottawa so we can have a proper plan going forward this summer, to be able to start this committee in earnest in the fall with ongoing studies and witnesses and things like that? I just don’t understand.
What would the additional duties of those people who serve on steering and for this committee, two paid people who serve on steering, the chair and deputy chair, why would they be receiving additional money if the full committee members basically have the same duties as the people on the steering committee?
The Chair: Well, I think we’ve heard all the points and perhaps it’s time to make a decision about this. Unless there are any other perspectives to bring.
Senator Coyle: My experience of committees is we are professionals. All of us have many years of experience, some more in the Senate. All of us have experience in the Senate but also professional experience outside of the Senate. I have confidence in our senators that we will find ways to make this work and make it work well. So I am fine to go forward with this. There are a lot of ways of accomplishing this.
The Chair: This is to go along with the motion?
Senator Coyle: Yes, I am.
The Chair: Any comments, Senator Sorensen? No. Maybe a little bit from me, then. I take your points; I think they’re valid. I value the depth of experience that you bring, the years. I have heard from some of my colleagues from other committees about perhaps the current wording being somewhat misused in some committees. Committee members have had issues with the way that the current wording is interpreted, possibly misinterpreted. Because of that, it’s been a concern that came forward, at least to us on the ISG, that perhaps wording that would demonstrate and embrace collaboration and consultation would go over much better.
Similar to Senator Coyle, I have faith that we will work through this and we’ll figure it out. I think we’re going to have a subcommittee, a steering committee, that will consult. I think that it’s about interpretation in the past. Perhaps this just clarifies how the committee should work.
Senator Batters: Thank you, chair. I wonder, is this just because I’m only hearing about this now and these amendments, as far as I know, just being brought to committee by ISG members, is it an issue within your own group perhaps where different steering committee members have not satisfied what members of your group have thought might happen? I just haven’t heard this kind of thing happening before. Of course, there’s always a situation where if any member of a committee is unsatisfied with something that steering has decided or is proposing, they can bring that issue to the full committee at any point, always. I’ve done that before as a regular member of committee, and I’ve also been on the other side where I’ve been a steering committee member and another member has brought forward an issue where sometimes the decision is overturned and sometimes it’s sustained depending on what the full committee wants. That’s always open for that to happen, but to take away the words “empowered to make decisions on behalf of,” how will this work this summer for the steering committee? How will we make decisions, being that the Senate will probably not sit until probably mid-September?
The Chair: I would assume we will meet virtually to look at some of the things that we want to move forward in September, and we will consult with the wider committee and get their input on some of the things, whether that be agenda or other things that would be on the docket that we’d want to bring forward in the fall.
I think it could work, and I think working together is how we’re going to figure it out. Without taking up any more time, I’d like to move forward. The motion has been moved. Is it your will, senators, to move forward with this motion? We’ll do that. Okay. Thank you, everyone.
Senator Batters: I ask for a recorded vote.
Ms. Woodward: The Honourable Senator Senior?
Senator Senior: Yes.
Ms. Woodward: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
Ms. Woodward: The Honourable Senator Coyle?
Senator Coyle: Yes.
Ms. Woodward: The Honourable Senator Sorensen?
Senator Sorensen: Yes.
Ms. Woodward: Yeas, 3; nays, 1. The motion is carried.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you. Is motion 3, as amended, carried?
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: On division. I declare the motion carried. The other two members appointed to the subcommittee will be revealed at a later date, I assume. I believe, Senator Batters, you’re on steering.
Do I have a mover for motion 4 to publish the committee’s proceedings? Motion to publish the committee’s proceedings. The Honourable Senator Coyle moved:
That the committee publish its proceedings.
Is it motion carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Do I have a mover for motion 5 relating to research staff? The Honourable Senator Sorensen moved:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries, and draft reports.
Is the motion carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. I’d like to now introduce the committee analysts, Robert Mason and Madalina Chesoi.
Robert Mason is an Ontario lawyer who has been with the Library of Parliament since 2018 and has been supporting this committee since 2019. His other assignments have included supporting the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group — that’s great — and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. He has contributed to Library of Parliament projects on a range of subjects, including environmental rights in the context of climate change, wrongful convictions and other criminal justice issues, and equality rights under the Charter and human rights legislation. Amazing. Looking forward to working with you.
Madalina Chesoi is an analyst supporting this committee and the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie since 2024. She has a master’s degree in public and international affairs from York University — my alma mater — and has worked at the Library of Parliament since 2016. Her previous assignments were on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, as well as the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association. She has also contributed to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. She’s a social policy generalist, with a focus on migration and integration questions. Welcome to you both.
Moving on to motion 6, do I have a mover for motion 6, authority to commit funds to certify accounts?
Senator Coyle: So moved.
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Coyle moved:
That, pursuant to section 6(1), chapter 3:05 of the Senate Administrative Rules authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk of the committee;
That, pursuant to section 7(1), chapter 3:05 of the Senate Administrative Rules authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee; and
That, notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases related to consultants and personnel services, the authority to commit funds and certify accounts be conferred jointly on the chair and deputy chair.
Is the motion carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. I declare the motion carried. Do I have a mover for motion 7?
Senator Sorensen: So moved.
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Sorensen moved:
That the committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and procedure to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
Is the motion carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. Do I have a mover for motion 8?
Senator Coyle: So moved.
The Chair: For the designation of members travelling on committee business, the Honourable Senator Coyle moved:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to:
1) determine whether any member of the committee is on “official business” for the purposes of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and
2) consider any member of the committee to be on “official business” if that member is: (a) attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the committee; and
That the subcommittee report at the earliest opportunity any decisions taken with respect to the designation of members of the committee travelling on committee business.
Is the motion carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. Do I have a mover for motion 9?
Senator Coyle: So moved.
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Coyle moved:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable expenses related to the appearance of one witness per organization upon application, but that the chair be authorized to approve expenses of a second witness from the same organization should there be exceptional circumstances.
Is the motion carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. Do I have a mover for motion 10?
Senator Sorensen: So moved.
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Sorensen moved:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to direct communications officer(s) assigned to the committee in the development of communications plans and products where appropriate and to request the services of the Senate Communications, Broadcasting and Publications Directorate for the purposes of the promotion of their work; and
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow coverage by electronic media of the committee’s public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its proceedings at its discretion.
Is the motion carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. Now we’re going to move forward to the communications officer who is assigned to the committee, Chelsea DeFazio. Ms. DeFazio, welcome.
Just a bit about Ms. DeFazio. She has been with the Senate Communication, Broadcasting, and Publications Directorate for two and a half years, starting on the Senate’s youth outreach team. In September 2024, she became a communications officer for the committee and will be rejoining as the communications officer for this committee this session. She looks forward to contributing to the promotion of the committee’s important work. Welcome.
Colleagues, this brings us to the final item before we adjourn, which is other business. Now we’re looking at the time slot for regular meetings. Our time slot for regular meetings is Mondays from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. You will be informed if there are any changes. I know this is what we did last year. I guess when we get together, the steering committee, we can also look at if we need to make any time changes.
Is there any other business? Seeing none, this brings us to the end of our meeting. I would like to thank you for your participation today, and I look forward to a productive session.
(The committee adjourned.)