THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, September 22, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 4:01 p.m. [ET] to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Paulette Senior (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to everyone. I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin nation. I am Paulette Senior, a senator from Ontario and chair of this committee.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent any sort of unintended audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. We ask that you do not touch the microphones. They will be turned on and off by the console operator. Please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. You may either keep it on your ear or place it on the designated sticker.
With that out of the way, I will now invite my honourable colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Bernard: Thank you, chair. Wanda Thomas Bernard, senator from Nova Scotia, Mi’kmaq territory, and deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Mi’kmaqi, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Robinson: Mary Robinson, Prince Edward Island.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory in Edmonton.
The Chair: Great. Thank you. Welcome to all our senators. Welcome to all who are following our deliberations. Welcome also to our staff who are here today. We’re meeting to discuss future business, and I suggest we focus on two main items. The first is the role of RIDR’s steering committee, and the second is consideration of study proposals and future business.
Just some comments before we delve into those topics. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, or RIDR, held its organization meeting in June, where it adopted a series of motions. For those who weren’t present, let me summarize our discussions on the motion that address the RIDR Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. The original motion proposed was the following:
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.
When this motion was before the committee, Senator Coyle suggested that the motion be amended to the following:
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 responsible for considering and consulting with the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings.
This amended version of the motion was adopted by the committee, and I would suggest that we take some time now to clarify what this motion means in practical terms for the operations of the committee and the steering committee.
Perhaps, Senator Coyle, you would like to elaborate on what the intention was for this amendment, and then we can proceed into discussion.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s lovely to see everybody. Welcome back. As you know, we had a rather fulsome discussion of this matter at the committee meeting in June — I believe it was in June. It feels like a year ago now.
The wording in Motion 3, which was unamended, we felt could lead to confusion. It could appear to imply a complete delegation of powers without any specific reporting obligation. That’s really where it comes from. And the proposed solution was to amend Motion 3 to avoid any misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
It will not in any way delay the committee’s work. We’ve continued the way a committee would normally operate. The steering committee is a subcommittee of the main committee. This motion is not a waiver of the steering committee’s responsibility to report to the main committee.
If Motion 3 remained unamended — well, I’m not sure what that says, actually. Let me go to what I had said here.
To reiterate, what was discussed at the meeting, when perhaps not everybody was able to attend, intention of the amendment, which we passed, is to encourage consultation and consideration of other members’ perspectives. The reason I and others at other committees — this is not just at this committee. This is an amendment that was brought forward at other committees as well. We agreed that, generally, there have been times where it hasn’t worked ideally in some committees where there hasn’t been sufficient consultation. It was brought forward to make sure that was done as a matter of practice and that consultation and consideration do happen.
It is not to take away at all from the authority of the steering committee, because at any point, as I understand it — and I have experienced it on other committees — the chair of the committee, with the deputy chair, can ask the committee at any point, “Would you agree to allowing the steering committee to do X, Y or Z?” That can still happen, even with this amendment having passed, once that consultation or consideration has happened.
It is just a safeguard, frankly, for the rights of all committee members so that we can all be considered. I do not have any sense that it would in any way be abused. I have never seen it be abused in other situations, nor would it take away from the efficiency of the committee. We need to be efficient in our work, and we need to respect our steering committee members in their roles as steering committee members. All this does is add that consideration and that consideration to be done. It has been tried and used in other committees, including the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, or SOCI.
With that, I won’t go into all of the discussion that we had, but I just want to ensure that it is meant to enhance, really, how we work. It’s not in any way to make us any less efficient but to ensure that there is a process in place that people are consulted and their perspectives are considered.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Coyle. Any comments, questions regarding the motion, or the amended motion?
Senator Bernard: Thank you, senator. I wasn’t here in June, and I am really unclear. There is intent and then there is implementation, and perhaps there has been some misunderstanding or different interpretations in terms of what the motion means. My understanding of what it has meant and how it has impacted so far is that steering hasn’t met. Steering hasn’t been able to meet. Steering wasn’t able to meet to even plan the agenda for today’s meeting.
So the experience of it sounds very different than what you’ve presented in terms of the intent of the motion. I think we definitely need to have some clarity, because, at this point, the interpretation is that it’s not just about power but the ability to move forward with the work. This has not happened and it concerns me.
Senator Coyle: Do you want me to reread the motion?
The Chair: We do have copies that we can hand out and then you can reread. We do have copies of the original that we can compare as we engage in the amendment so we can see what the different wording is.
Senator Coyle: The motion was to amend Motion 3 by replacing the words, “be empowered to make decisions on behalf of” with “responsible for considering and consulting with.”
That is not in any way to say that steering would not then take the results of that consideration and consultation and say, “okay, here’s what we have heard, now will you entrust us to carry this forward?” So that’s what that was.
Where this comes from is that there have been some situations, not in this committee, I believe, but in other committees where there has been concern about members of the committee not being consulted and their perspectives not being considered by steering. This just to ensure that, and where it comes from.
The Chair: I think it’s important that the point that Senator Bernard raised has really been the reality of the committee since that meeting. So moving from the wording that says that the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee, to the current wording of the amended language, that the subcommittee be responsible for considering and consulting with the committee. So the interpretation of that, from others, has been that it means that steering doesn’t have the right to meet without the approval of the committee. That’s the interpretation. We have been unable to have a meeting to even create an agenda, and so forth.
That’s why we are having this on the future business, this discussion today, so that we can go through some clarification so the clerk and the staff will be able to carry on with preparing for each meeting so it is not held up. That’s the purpose why it’s back here for further discussion.
Senator Bernard: Just wanting to clarify in terms of consultation, because my understanding of the way things have worked in prior sessions is that members of steering who are representative from each of the recognized groups in the Senate would be consulting with each of those groups. So each member of steering would be consulting with their groups as the work is unfolding in the committee. Is this something different than that? Is the expectation something different than that?
Senator Coyle: Yes. This amendment that we passed is in the whole to have those conversations.
Senator Bernard: In the committee, not within the individual groups?
Senator Coyle: No. Because I think perhaps that has broken down, in some cases, and that’s where this is coming from. And it doesn’t mean to say that should not happen. Of course that should happen, but it’s a chance for the whole committee to have that conversation.
The Chair: Any other points to raise or comments to make, by my honourable colleagues?
Senator K. Wells: This amendment was passed at the last meeting with the majority of members present. So looking for clarification for the administration to enable agendas to be set and be able to move forward. Is there particular language that we need to move, or is there enough information that has been shared that would allow that to happen?
Obviously, we want the work of the committee to move forward as expeditiously as possible, being mindful that there’s appropriate consultation, when deemed necessary, as opposed to every little decision that steering would make. Am I hearing that?
The Chair: Yes, you are. I do have a number of suggested questions for the committee to get your approval. So seeing that that is the amended motion that was passed, and Senator Coyle has outlined, particularly for those who weren’t here, what the intent was for the motion, then I do need agreement on some of the things that, under this amended motion, we’re able to do as a committee, but also that the clerk will be able to carry out the work of the committee as well.
So the first one is, what does “considering” and “consulting” mean in practice? For example, does the full committee need to make all decisions concerning agenda, inviting witnesses and scheduling hearings? So what would that look like? Does the full committee need to approve work plans, including witness lists; Approve changes and panels due to availability of witnesses? Approve all meetings, times and dates? So those are some of the things we have been hung up on, which is why it’s so specific here.
We do need to have clarification in terms of what the steering committee or the subcommittee is able to move forward with in order to work and be fully engaged with the whole committee.
We’ve heard from Senator Coyle with respect to what “considering” and “consulting” would mean, but what does it mean in practice? Can we elaborate a bit further there?
Senator Coyle: Well, I think you’ve done exactly what the intention is. You’ve put the request out to everybody to come forward with proposals for studies, and this is the business we’re talking about today. Let’s work through it example by example. We will be having a collective discussion on those proposals and that it would be the committee that would just make some decisions on that.
The next step is if we say, okay, let’s do one or two or three of these studies and let’s allocate this much time to this one, this much time to this one and do them in this kind of a sequence, my sense is that the next step would be for steering to take the recommendations, because some are a little more fleshed out than others, and just invite any senator that wants to add to any one of those studies any suggestions that people might have in terms of witnesses, et cetera. Then the steering would sit down and see how that is going to work. And work with our support on whether any of them might cost something and come back with budgets, and that sort of thing. That kind of workup would be happening at the steering committee, having had the full consultation at the full committee.
That’s how I would imagine it would happen.
The Chair: Any other “imaginations”?
Senator Robinson: It seems to me we have introduced a chasing our tail kind of situation here, and we seem to be hog-tied, to use as many clichés as I can.
Senator Coyle, you have stated that the experience of the committee not being consulted was not one that has happened at this committee —
Senator Coyle: I don’t know. I’m new to this committee. This is something around which there is an effort to try to bring in at as many committees as possible because of experiences at other committees.
Senator Robinson: I think the experience we have all had with what this amendment has done on the ground has been counterproductive to where we are trying to get.
I wasn’t part of bringing the amendment. Could we, as a committee today, go back and say that we would like to start the clock back to before we had this amendment to reverse it entirely and to agree within this committee that we will do what you are asking us to do, which is to represent all the committee members in these decisions? If that means I would have to make a motion to bring an amendment to that — hopefully the clerk could help me with what that might look like — but I would be willing to do that.
This is a very collegial committee, so I think we can have a conversation about that to see what the appetite is. I feel that we have set ourselves up to be stalled. I came back to work this month hoping that we would actually get to work.
Senator Coyle: I don’t think it is as complicated as we’re making it. I think we could very easily consult with leadership in another committee that has actually been functioning well following exactly what this amendment has proposed and set in place. This is not unprecedented. It came in for a reason at other committees, and it is, in no way, a reflection on steering committee and the individuals here. It is more of a safeguard for members. In fact, that was one of the arguments we discussed. It is too bad we have a completely different group of people here than the group who were here in June. I guess only two of us were the only two who were here at both committees. But if you haven’t, you might want to read the transcript of that meeting where arguments were made on both sides.
As I said, it is not, in any way, to take away from the authority of the steering committee. At any point — and I have experienced this in other committees — the chair of the committee, along with the deputy chair or whomever, can ask the committee at any time if they would agree to allowing the steering committee to do X, Y or Z? Once that consultation or consideration has happened, then go for it. That should not be a difficult thing.
Perhaps the reason we got a little hung up — and I wasn’t aware that there was that situation — was because we didn’t ask or weren’t asked that question at the end of that first meeting. But hindsight is always much easier, being 20/20. Knowing that summer is coming, it is a fairly simple thing to say that the steering committee would like to undertake X and Y — full transparency. “All in favour?” “Yes, please; go and do it.” It doesn’t have to be what has happened here.
I think it is probably growing pains. It is new and requires getting used to. Now that we’re into it, there is no reason it should be tying anybody’s hands.
Senator Bernard: I just want to make a few observations. One, there were actually eight members on the committee when that decision was made in June, but only four members were present. You are saying that —
Senator Coyle: No, I know. And there are only — how many of us are here today?
Senator Bernard: There are only five at this meeting. That concerns me.
I know there are intention and reality. The reality is that we have been hamstrung. We haven’t been able to move forward. Even tonight, we have already spent a considerable amount of time on this, and I don’t feel we are making any progress with coming to a decision that would allow us to move forward.
I have been on this committee since I joined the Senate nine years ago. I have been on steering for most of that time, and I have not experienced any barriers like I experienced this summer in terms of not being able to move forward at all.
From my perspective, this motion has made things worse for this committee, because we have not been able to move forward with our work.
The Chair: Thank you for your input on this. I’m going back to Senator Robinson, who queried whether there is an ability to make a motion. You do have that ability, but I also want to get a sense from all of you. I am hearing there is concern about the consternation of not being able to move forward, and we do want to make progress. There are several things we want to get through today, but we do have several meetings we need to get through.
If there are no further comments — Senator Robinson, did you want to speak?
Senator Robinson: I would just make a motion and see what the reactions of the committee members are. I have a motion that I could read, if that’s all right with everyone.
I move:
That motion 3 be amended to read:
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.
We can add, “be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee after consulting with the full committee.”
I propose that. I would like to see if we can have a discussion on it. Did you want me to read it again?
The Chair: No, unless someone else would like that.
Senator Coyle: Yes, I want to hear it. You are trying to blend the two.
Senator Robinson: I move:
That motion 3 be amended to read:
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.
We could include in there “be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee after consulting with the full committee.” That seems to be what we are trying to achieve here.
Senator Coyle: We have some words in the middle there that are not the amendment. Could somebody read out what we would actually be voting on?
The Chair: How about we suspend for a few minutes and get some proper wording that would make sense so it is not dangling? Okay, done.
I’m going to go back to Senator Robinson to read into the record what you are proposing.
Senator Robinson: Thank you.
That notwithstanding the motion adopted on June 26, 2025, 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; and
That the committee be kept informed.
Senator Coyle: “Be kept informed,” is very different from being consulted. That’s not what you said before, is what I’m saying.
The Chair: Okay. Any further discussion?
Senator Coyle: To me, there is a significant difference between being informed and being consulted. That’s not what you had actually said before. I’m wondering if there could be a friendly amendment?
The Chair: Any other comments about the proposed amendment?
Senator Bernard: I have a question. What would be an alternative to being kept informed? Is it being kept updated?
Senator Coyle: We’re a little free form here and if I had known we were going to deal with this today, I might have been more thoughtful in coming back with a different amendment. It just feels kind of slapdash to me.
The Chair: Unfortunately, Senator Coyle, and all senators, we have to iron this out today in order for us to be able to move forward with the work of the committee. So I understand it is haphazard but —
Senator Coyle: It is also not what we just discussed. May I have a couple of minutes to think and suggest a friendly amendment for my colleague?
The Chair: Let me first go to Senator Wells and then we can entertain that.
Senator K. Wells: A potential amendment here at the end could be, “kept informed and have the opportunity for input.” That’s really what we’re talking about, consultation is that the committee has opportunity for input. But at the same time, I would look back to the clerk; does that get us back to where we are where things are not able to move forward because the committee hasn’t been consulted? I guess input is a form of consultation. Maybe that’s the issue we’re getting at is that consultation can mean many different things depending on who is looking at that, and we don’t want it to not empower the steering committee to do the work that they are appointed to do.
Senator Coyle: What are you saying —
Senator K. Wells: Adding the words, “kept informed and have opportunity for input.”
Senator Coyle: Kept informed and?
Senator K. Wells: Have opportunity for input, period.
Senator Coyle: Maybe have opportunity for input and be kept informed?
The Chair: Just switching the order?
Senator Coyle: Yes.
Senator K. Wells: I’m fine if that satisfies the consultation intent.
Senator Coyle: Have opportunity for input and be kept informed. That’s reasonable, although it is your motion.
Senator Robinson: Yes. I would like to hear from Senator Bernard.
Senator Bernard: I would support that.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Bernard: I think that could allow us to move forward. My goal is to have us move forward with the work.
Senator Robinson: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. It sounds like it is a reasonable way forward. The only question that lingers is we probably at some point need to be clear what input looks like in practice.
Senator K. Wells: I would suggest e-mailing committee members and providing that opportunity with a deadline. That would then allow steering to move forward, because we can’t wait until each time we have a meeting, and depending on who is there, to be able to provide input on all of the business that needs to happen behind the scenes to keep the committee moving appropriately in the work plan that we’re going to establish.
The Chair: Okay. Is that reasonable? We continue to be reasonable. This is great.
I think the clerk is comfortable with that.
Perhaps really being clear what input is required on. Is it everything? Sometimes it could be the minutia of things.
Senator K. Wells: I read it as for this paragraph, the second paragraph:
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; and
That the committee have the opportunity for input and be kept informed.
I would relate that to those pieces specifically: the agenda, inviting witnesses and scheduling hearings. Specifically what is identified in that paragraph.
The Chair: We need to walk through how we approve this now. The amendment on the floor from Senator Robinson has been amended by Senator Wells. Let’s read in full what it looks like now. Can we have the wording of that? I’m going to read it as I understand it and then we can agree.
That notwithstanding the motion adopted on June 26, 2025, 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; and
That the committee have opportunity for input and be kept informed.
Are we good to go? That’s the motion. Do we have agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed. Excellent. Thank you, folks, for engaging in that roundabout, circular discussion that has led us to a conclusion. That’s very helpful.
I did have a bunch of questions that I don’t need to now go through because this has been resolved. That’s great.
I am going to recommend that we move in camera briefly for the next discussion. It will be a very short discussion. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)