THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 26, 2025
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:30 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-13 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Vincent Labrosse, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of the committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I am ready to receive nominations to that effect.
Senator Ringuette: I move that Senator Dalphond be chair of this committee.
Mr. Labrosse: Are there any other nominations?
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Ringuette that the Honourable Senator Dalphond do take the chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Labrosse: I declare the motion carried, and I invite Senator Dalphond to take the chair.
Senator Pierre J. Dalphond (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much for the trust you have put in me. I hope I will meet your expectations.
[Translation]
Thank you for that trust. It is a pleasure to chair this committee. Without further ado, we will move on to the other items on the agenda.
Item 2 deals with the election of a deputy chair. Pursuant to the motion adopted by the Senate on June 17, the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedure and the Rights of Parliament is empowered to elect up to three deputy chairs. We will now proceed to the election of the deputy chairs. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect, starting with the Conservatives.
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: I would like to nominate Senator Batters as deputy chair.
The Chair: Are there any other nominations for the Conservative position? Seeing none, I declare Senator Batters by acclamation. Welcome.
I now move to the Canadian Senators Group.
Senator Tannas: I nominate Senator Downe for deputy chair.
The Chair: Are there any other nominations for the Canadian Senators Group? I see none. I declare Senator Downe elected by acclamation. Welcome.
Now for the ISG?
[Translation]
I move that Senator Pierrette Ringuette be deputy chair for the Independent Senators Group.
The Chair: Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, I declare Senator Ringuette elected by acclamation. Hear, hear.
That concludes the creation of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. We will now move on to regular motions and resolutions:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair and the three deputy chairs; 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 Petitclerc: Mr. Chair, I would like to move a fairly straightforward amendment to paragraph 2 of motion 3. I have the amendment here to distribute.
[English]
It’s a very simple amendment that will provide that the motion be amended by replacing the words “be empowered to make decisions on behalf of” with “responsible for considering and consulting with.” I will wait for everyone to have a copy of the amendment.
I’m proposing that we change that language to provide language that will align with the rules on subcommittees. Basically, this language now about “be empowered to make decisions on behalf of” could give the impression that steering has the power to make all of these decisions, so it’s a very broad mandate. When we look at the rules on subcommittees, rule 12-12(6) says:
A subcommittee shall report to the committee that appointed it.
It really aligns both. This is something that we had done in SOCI when I was chair of SOCI and when Senator Omidvar was also chairing SOCI, so I wanted to propose this in this committee.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Petitclerc.
[Translation]
Are there any questions or comments?
[English]
Senator Batters: I have been on the Rules Committee since I started in the Senate 12 and a half years ago. I know some other committees have potentially had this amendment included in their initial motions, but we never have. This is the Rules Committee, and we actually have situations where we have had to have the steering committee be able to make decisions on behalf of the committee. Without that wording in any fashion in it, that takes away the primary function, in some ways, of the steering committee.
Of course, if there were ever uncertainty or no consensus with the steering committee, then matters are brought back to the full Rules Committee for discussion, debate and decision with the full committee. In particular, with this committee, every single member of steering is actually a deputy chair as compared to other committees where certain members are chair or deputy chair and others are just steering members. That actually empowers every single member of steering at a deputy chair level, at least.
I just think of the number of times we have had to make decisions at steering to ensure that we get meetings properly set up and witnesses invited. Sometimes we have witnesses from overseas that we have to make special accommodation for, as we did just last fall.
If we take out those words “make decisions on behalf of,” then it doesn’t really give the subcommittee any ability to make decisions, which is the purpose of it. It’s been well used. We haven’t had any issues at this committee with steering not acting in the best interests of the committee. Of course, any disputes can always go to the full committee as a whole.
Senator Tannas: I don’t have very much to add. I do have the same concerns as Senator Batters. One of the reasons why many of us advocated to have three deputy chairs was that we were expecting that these management committees would delegate the work — and there is a lot of work — to the steering committee.
I understand the provenance of this. It seems quite elegant, actually, that it would be at Social Affairs that they would strive for a wide-consensus-consultative kind of a thing. This is a business committee where we are delegating that authority to the steering committee to help us with the agenda. If we don’t like it, we can always, on a case-by-case basis, pull that authority back and make the decision for ourselves.
I’m new to the Rules Committee, but I’m not new to some of the other administrative committees that have a lot of work, and I anticipate this committee is going to have a lot of work. One of the reasons why I was interested in being here is that there is a lot of work that needs to be done over the next while in the examination, fine-tuning and even heavy tuning of our rules.
I am very much in favour, at this point, of delegating the authority to help shape our agenda and get on with it rather than consulting on every single decision. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator D. M. Wells: Senator Petitclerc, thank you for bringing this to the floor for discussion because it’s the kind of thing that the Rules Committee should be discussing as part of the regular business as well. It’s entirely appropriate for us to have this discussion now.
I’m in agreement with Senator Batters and Senator Tannas. All parties are represented on steering, so there is an assumption within our system that if a party is represented somewhere, that there’s some level of consultation or agreement among their caucus, whether it’s formal or informal. That’s why we break it down by caucus or group rather than seniority, gender or some other categorization.
The Senate is different from the House in that we can challenge our Speaker. We make that parallel here. On the floor, if the Speaker makes a ruling, the chamber can challenge that and it can be overturned. I’ve seen that. I would think it would be the same way here in committee — or in any committee — where the committee can overturn any ruling, decision or granted empowerment by the steering committee. It’s almost like a consultation after the fact. If steering makes a decision to have a witness or to have a visit somewhere or some decision they make, that can always be overturned via the consultative process and vote by the full committee. Having that consultative approach before, I think, it adds process and time.
I am not on steering. I nominated Senator Batters, and I was happy to do so. She’s far better than I would be. If steering is making a decision on a study, location to visit or witnesses to have, then it’s never a decision by steering until it comes back to the committee. That adds process, that adds time, and that’s why we have the rule to empower, so we can get on with our business, and it can always be challenged after the fact.
Having been in business most of my life, any time there is a process where a decision by committee is established, it takes time, and we are here to get things done. That’s the hope, and I think this will be counter to that. Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: I want to thank Senator Petitclerc, Senator Batters, Senator Tannas and Senator Wells for their input.
However, in regard to the argument of adding a process and time, it should be a normal function of steering — i.e. the chair and the three deputy chairs — to consult with the members. It becomes a collaboration issue, and it also becomes a transparency issue that I very much would like for us to engage in.
I’ve been on this committee for many years, and I certainly hope that, in at least the next year, we do engage in collaboration and transparency and making things happen instead of delaying and delaying and delaying. We have to change the culture of how we do or not do things in this committee, and I believe that this is part of it. We should seek to be collaborating and being transparent about how we do it.
God forbid — and excuse my language — but what is wrong with consulting with the members of this committee in regard to witnesses, agenda and hearings? It’s all part of being more collaborative and more transparent. I do hope, chair, that if we vote on this, that senators around this table will understand that this is not a delaying process. This is moving forward into a modern way for this committee to undertake its work.
[Translation]
The Chair: For those colleagues who have just joined us, we are discussing an amendment to the motion regarding the steering committee’s power to prepare the witness list and the committee’s work plan. Senator Petitclerc moved an amendment that has just been shared with you. You are now up to date. That is where we were in our discussion.
[English]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you, colleagues, for your comments and input. I want to add a few things.
Language is important. The language in the rules is clear that a subcommittee — and steering is a subcommittee — shall report to the committee that appointed it. So there is responsibility, and we all agree with that.
I want to go back because, Senator Tannas, you talked about SOCI and its experience. I know that many other committees are also adopting and amending motion 3 with that same wording, and I want to share a little bit of that experience in SOCI, which, as we all know, is a very demanding committee.
At the time when we had this motion amended and that way of functioning, we had some very heavy and difficult legislation and studies — we had COVID-19 — and we figured out that it’s about being collaborative — which we are already, I agree with that. It was simple to find ways to make quick turnaround decisions by communicating with the members via memos, emails or simply saying, “If you do not have an issue, this is what we propose, this is the work plan and this is the witness list.” In fact, I dare say that it was very much appreciated by the steering members and by all members of the committee.
I just wanted to put that on the floor and emphasize again that this reflects the rules that we have now. I understand the nature of this committee might be a little bit different, but I think the role and responsibility to consult, report and communicate is the same for all committees.
Senator Busson: To add to the discussion around this item, for the information of this group, the POFO committee adopted this motion yesterday. It was not to take any power away from steering; it was, indeed, to recognize the fact that everyone on a committee in the Senate should have a voice. We talk all the time about committees being one of the most important parts of our work, and we wanted to recognize the fact that everyone on the committee should have a voice. Ultimately, steering does the planning and is in charge of setting the agenda but, with the consultation of the group, it makes it a viable and empowered committee.
Senator Batters: To respond to a few things on this, first of all, certainly we always do consult. I’ve been the deputy chair on the Conservative side of this committee for the last three years, and I’ve always taken it upon myself to ensure that I discuss things that are coming forward that they need to know about with my colleagues in my group and with my entire caucus as well. Certainly, I can say that everyone in our group does have a voice that is part of the Rules Committee, and even the larger Conservative team has a voice. I think that’s usually the responsibility of the person that’s been assigned to be the steering member for that committee. Everyone has very busy schedules, and they might have other committees that they take that role with, but for the Rules Committee, that’s the responsibility of the person that sits at steering.
As well, let’s remember that this committee has 15 members. It’s one of the biggest committees we have. If you had a small committee, like perhaps one of the committees that has nine members, that would be difficult enough, but then to involve 15 members, especially when we do not have any hybrid meeting capacity for a full committee meeting — steering has that ability, because it’s not a full committee hearing, but we don’t have any ability.
For example, when we go away for the summer, we’re going to have the situation where, all summer long, I imagine, as steering, we might actually need to have a couple of meetings to determine the future agenda and the inviting of witnesses and getting committee meetings set up. If we had to wait to do all of that until we came back in the fall or, perhaps, have a full meeting where everyone in this committee had to come back during the summer just to have a meeting where people felt they were consulted with, that consultation can absolutely take place outside of things.
I want to remind members who might be new to this committee that last fall we had considerable witness testimony. We had a witness from the House of Lords. We had a witness from the French Senate. We were able to set all of those witnesses up, even with their demanding parliamentary schedules. They were able to attend by Zoom, but senators, even if they’re committee members, cannot attend by Zoom. We were able to get all of those things set up, even with their demanding parliamentary schedules, because of the speed that we were able to move by having steering meetings determine that.
Certainly, members of the committee were able to and did provide considerable input into who should be witnesses for those types of meetings, but it didn’t impede anything. Simply the fact that we didn’t have those six words in our motion didn’t mean that we didn’t already feel responsible in considering and consulting with.
The difference here in taking out the words “be empowered to make decisions on behalf of,” if you don’t have that in, then what power does your steering committee actually have? I think those are actually important words to have in there because then the committee does get to make decisions on behalf of the full committee. If you don’t have those words in, then everything has to be actually decided, potentially, by the full committee.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Batters.
Senator Burey: Good morning, everyone. It was not my intention to speak at my first meeting. I think Senator Dalphond would say, “Well, you were wrong on that, too.”
In any event, I’m just going by the process. Thank you for bringing this amendment and, as well, to all the speakers on it and for bringing up the issue of being inclusive and collaborative, which I think are foundational for the Senate.
I’m thinking about consistency, and I don’t think that we are wanting to go down a road where we do one-off things. I’ve been on three committees this morning, AGFO, SOCI, and this Rules Committee, and the wording is exactly the same. I know that may come up at our meeting, but why are we doing this one-off at every committee? If we are going to have consistency across the Senate, we really need to not just bring something — this is substantial. Let us look at it. This could be something that we would get in the package for every single committee, knowing that committees are the masters of their own fate, but we can’t be doing one-offs, is what I say.
That would be my addition to this discussion.
Senator Tannas: I just want to make clear that one of the reasons I wanted to join this committee was because there had been some stories that those of us who weren’t on the committee had heard about paralysis here because of lack of consensus. I would just say that one of the reasons why I supported the idea of multiple deputy chairs here was to give steering committee that atmosphere by which they could make difficult decisions.
This happens at CIBA a lot. It used to be a consensus thing at CIBA. It isn’t anymore. The chair, when they report to the full committee on decisions that they’ve made, they will say, “We were not in full agreement,” or, “There was a division within steering.” If this committee is operating properly, I expect that we will hear a lot about steering decisions that were difficult and contentious, and that’s what I want to see. That’s what I want to hear. That allows us to focus on what the issues are and discuss them when they come and when they’re contentious and not leave them paralyzed at steering.
We’ve agreed to the multiple deputies, not for added pay, just for fun, and we expect work out of this steering committee, and we expect decisions out of this steering committee, and we are free, then, to question them and revisit them at the committee on an as-needed basis.
I’ll leave it there, chair. Thank you for a second chance.
The Chair: I don’t want to interrupt the discussion — far from it — but I must inform you that we have to leave the room around 10:15 maximum because there is another organizing committee meeting at 10:30 in this very room.
Senator Dean: I’m supportive of this change of language. I’ve only ever sat at one or two Rules Committees. My own sense is that this is not designed or driven by anything in particular that’s happened at this committee. I think that there is a sense that at some committees at some time — without, perhaps, intention or any malice — the step of fully involving members on the committee is missed. I think that this proposal is intended as a reminder to steering but to also highlight this issue to members of committees that porosity between steering and members is really important.
It’s a flag to all committee members, to committee chairs and to steering that this is an operating style that we would like to see and we should see, but at times there is unevenness. Evenness is good, and the expectation across all committees that there will be as much consultation as possible is useful. We’ve all had to do, as chairs, some consultation with members around tour dates and issues associated with road trips. We do that comfortably by email. It doesn’t require a digitized meeting. It’s a quick memo out stating the change of course, or it’s proposed that we’ll also go to Thunder Bay. It’s generally a good practice. As a matter of course, it’s a good thing to remind people of what best practices are in committee activities.
The Chair: After Senator Wells speaks, sensing that there will be no consensus, I will call a vote. I will have a question before the vote.
Senator D. M. Wells: You could always send it to steering for a decision.
The usual practice on any committee, when there’s a study or legislative review, is that you would make the call, and if anyone has any witnesses, line them up. I know, in our caucus, we do that through our steering member, because that’s where the decisions and organization is done. That’s an efficient way to do it. I don’t know what other caucuses or groups do. Again, like Senator Batters, I’ve been on this committee since I got here, and that seems to work.
To Senator Burey’s point that there should be consistency among all committees, that’s a great idea. I think that’s right. I sit on the steering committee of two other committees. I sit on two other committees, and I’m on steering of both, and we haven’t addressed this at all because the system works by not addressing it. I’ve sat on steering committees for years. That’s how we do things. In fact, I don’t think I’ve had any challenges from the committee on decisions of steering because the process is also in place where the committee can challenge.
I see this as a redundancy which causes that additional layer of work, question and time. If anyone wanted to delay things, this would be a great opportunity to do it, by challenging steering rulings all the time.
That’s my comment on it, thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: I’m going to let Senator Mégie ask a question, but I think we have to wrap this up because we won’t have time to get through the organization meeting.
Senator Mégie: I just have a question for Senator Petitclerc. Is that a change that would be made each time Parliament opens? If things are changed now, is it a definitive change that would apply to every session? Does it mean that we wouldn’t have to have this discussion again? Is that a definitive change?
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for the question, Senator Mégie. The change is an amendment to paragraph 2 of motion 3 on today’s agenda. Obviously, when the committee holds another organization meeting, unless the basic motion itself changes — which is a change that could be considered or even made through this committee…. Yes, the Social Affairs Committee has made the change twice, and a number of committees have made the change since yesterday. I don’t know whether that answers your question.
Senator Mégie: It does. Thank you.
The Chair: It is not a change to the Senate Rules; it is a change to the rules of this committee.
It was mentioned earlier that the Social Affairs Committee worked that way during the four years of the last session. Do I understand correctly that the steering committee would send out the list of witnesses and ask the committee members by email whether they approved the list or whether they had comments or suggestions, and if not, the list would be deemed approved? Alternatively, was it necessary to hold a formal committee meeting to approve the list?
Senator Petitclerc: No, not at all. To put it very simply, I would say that the practice Senator Wells explained earlier is exactly what is being sought with this amendment. If that is already being done, it is just a matter of aligning the language with the practice; each committee implements the practice differently.
The Social Affairs Committee decided to share the information and ask members whether they had any objections or any witnesses to propose. It was really just a communication mechanism. We also held a few extra in camera meetings to examine those issues together, which is an excellent practice, in my humble opinion. It did not make the experience on the Social Affairs Committee more annoying on either side; quite the opposite.
The Chair: If I understand your proposed amendment correctly, it would not be necessary to hold a full committee meeting with all the members to approve the list. Instead, the list could be sent to the committee members, who would get 24 or 48 hours, since sometimes deadlines are short, and sometimes there is more time. If it’s done in July, there is time because we meet in September, but if it’s done at the start of October, when the meeting is scheduled for three days later, we will have to move quickly. There is flexibility, and there is no need to hold a formal committee meeting to approve the list.
Senator Petitclerc: Absolutely. Again, I am referring to my own experience, and I am also looking at the wording of the amendment.
[English]
. . . “be responsible for considering and consulting” . . .
[Translation]
As I understand the amendment, it is not binding; quite the opposite.
The Chair: Thank you. I think I should call the vote. We may have a recorded vote because, from what I am seeing, I don’t believe there will be agreement. I will ask the clerk to proceed with a recorded vote.
Senator Saint-Germain: Could you please check who is and who is not a voting member of the committee?
[English]
Mr. Labrosse: I will read out the list of members who are present and eligible to vote: the Honourable Senator Batters, the Honourable Senator Burey, the Honourable Senator Busson, the Honourable Senator Dalphond, the Honourable Senator Dean, the Honourable Senator Downe, the Honourable Senator Mégie, the Honourable Senator Petitclerc, the Honourable Senator Ringuette, the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain, the Honourable Senator Surette, the Honourable Senator Tannas, the Honourable Senator Wells (Newfoundland and Labrador) and the Honourable Senator White.
[Translation]
The Chair: Let us vote. Go ahead, Mr. Labrosse.
[English]
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: Abstention.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Burey?
Senator Burey: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Busson?
Senator Busson: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Ringuette?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Surette?
Senator Surette: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator White?
Senator White: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas, 8; nays, 5; abstentions, 1.
[Translation]
The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.
We will now vote on the motion as amended. Is there consensus to adopt it as amended?
[English]
I declare the amendment adopted. We are now moving to the vote on the motion as amended.
Are we okay to adopt the motion on division?
Senator Batters: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Recorded vote.
Senator Batters: Well, it’s powerless. I don’t want to vote yes to it.
The Chair: This vote is about the motion on the subcommittee power, as amended.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Burey?
Senator Burey: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Busson?
Senator Busson: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Ringuette?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Surette?
Senator Surette: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator White?
Senator White: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas, 9; nays, 4; abstentions, 0.
[Translation]
The Chair: I declare the motion as amended carried.
On to motion 4.
[English]
Will someone move:
That the committee publish its proceedings.
Senator Busson moves the motion. Are we in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
The next motion is:
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.
Senator Ringuette moves. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
On to motion 6. You have the motions in front of you, don’t you? We are short on time, so —
Senator Batters: I think you should read it. It involves public funds, and the public would want to know what it is.
The Chair: Motion 6 reads:
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 chairs, 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 chairs, 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 chairs.
Do I have a mover for that motion? Senator Dean. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Motion 7 reads:
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.
Do I have a mover? Senator Wells moved. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Motion 8 reads:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to — may I dispense?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: I’m sorry, chair, but the public doesn’t get to hear it unless you read it.
[Translation]
The Chair: On to motion 8. Senator Mégie 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.
Shall Senator Mégie’s motion carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is adopted.
On to witness expenses. Senator Ringuette 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.
Shall the motion carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Motion 10 concerns communications. Senator Downe 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 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.
Shall the motion carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is adopted. That brings us to other business.
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like to speak on other business, and I will do so in English.
[English]
First, I want to congratulate the members of our steering committee. I’ve noticed that you have all agreed to be collegial, and I do believe that our members in every group will be very interested in contributing to this committee and making some proposals.
I want to insist on the importance for this committee to be very efficient, and I have in mind the considerable work that has been done, notably during the previous Parliament. I would invite the members of the steering committee to consider having a plan that would lead to conclude, as soon as possible, important work that has done and — I will use the words of Senator Batters — “the considerable amount of witnesses” that we heard during the previous Parliament.
Three important files died on the Order Paper. On updating the committee’s mandate, we’ve done a lot of work and heard expert witness from Canada and from other parliaments. While reviewing the committee schedule for efficiency, we had proposed a pilot project. The Clerk of the Senate was in agreement with that, and it has influenced the latest iteration of this plan. We should also conclude on the status and rights of the unaffiliated senators. That is very important.
I would invite you to ensure that this committee meets regularly, at least once every other week and, when necessary, every week. Once again, to be democratic, we need to meet and make decisions on a majority basis because consensus is giving the right to veto to only one person.
I trust that given your commitments for collegiality and efficiency, you will improve the reputation of this committee within the Senate, and then we will make sure that we are efficient and helpful rather than inefficient and, at the end of the day, useless. I hope that Canadians will be very happy with the results we will bring during this Parliament.
The Chair: On that note, I will have to bring the session to an end, but I want to mention two things before we close.
François Delisle is our assistant from the Library of Parliament, so I officially welcome him to the table.
The second thing is that I will mention that our meetings will be on Tuesdays from 9:30 to 11:30.
The third thing I want to mention — I said two, but it’s three — is that we already have an Order of Reference from the Senate that is about Question Period with ministers. Pursuant to that order, we have to report back to the Senate by December. That means that this summer, with the collaboration of my colleagues on steering, we will prepare a plan and a list of potential witnesses that we will share with all of you during the summer to ensure that we are ready to go when we meet again in September.
Our first meeting is the first step on our journey to work as collegially as possible, always hoping that consensus will build up from open discussions. We have to be respectful of that, but sometimes it’s impossible, and then, of course, the majority will decide.
Thank you very much. Thank you for your confidence. I wish you all a good summer, and we’ll see you in September.
(The committee adjourned.)