THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 23, 2025
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:32 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-13 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Maxime Fortin, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: I would like to nominate Senator Harder as the chair of this committee.
Ms. Fortin: Thank you, Senator.
Are there any other nominations?
[English]
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Ringuette that the Honourable Senator Harder do take the chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Fortin: Motion carried.
I invite Senator Harder to take the chair.
Senator Peter Harder (Chair), in the chair.
The Chair: Let me begin by thanking you, colleagues, for giving me this opportunity, which I neither sought nor expected. I do wish to and look forward to working with you to ensure that this committee is able to perform its function in an effective fashion and move the will of the committee forward as appropriate.
My first task as chair, I understand, is to remind everybody after the long summer how to appropriately utilize your devices. I would ask senators and other people participating to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Make sure to keep your earpiece away from the microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone. It will be turned 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 on the table. We thank you for your cooperation. That is the least substantive part of my role, but I welcome your participation in observing this requirement.
In moving forward today, I would propose — now that the chair has been elected — that we take advantage of this meeting and move in camera to discuss our work plan. If that is agreeable to you, I would move that we —
Senator Batters: Chair, I don’t believe there would be any reason to have that discussion in camera. I think it’s important that the public see that. I don’t see any reason to have it in camera. Especially since we haven’t been here for three months, I think it would be valuable to have that discussion in public.
The Chair: Are there other views?
Senators, do you wish to proceed in open session to discuss the work plan?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. If we, at some point, need to move in camera, I will entertain a motion to do so.
Before we get to the work plan, I do have one item of housekeeping, if I could put it that way. As this is the first meeting of the committee, I would need to discuss the catering of the committee. I note that this is a proactively disclosed expense, and my suggestion would be that we continue with the practice of coffee and tea only for this committee. With your agreement, I would have the clerk note that this committee is willing to have coffee and tea at its future meetings. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Let’s move forward into a discussion with respect to the work plan. I know there is a work plan outline that has been circulated. I would make two points: One is that I think it is important that our first item of business be the reference that is before the committee with respect to Question Period. If that is the case, I think it is important for us — at least at this meeting — to come to some understanding of what we would like to start with at our next meeting in terms of witnesses. There are proposals in the document. I will not review them at this point except to open the floor for conversation around the pacing of and the hearing of witnesses. As you know, we will not be meeting next week because the Senate will not be sitting next week, so it will be for two weeks hence. It would give time for our staff to put forward and fill in the recommended witness list for that study.
I would open up the floor to those who would wish to comment on how we should proceed, recognizing that the order of reference does have a time limit for reporting back and we could have some sense of how many meetings we would like to devote to this reference.
Senator Batters: First of all, chair, I would note that this entire discussion that we are having today about all of the inner workings, including even whether to order coffee and tea for the committee, is happening at this committee. We were not able to do any work over the summer with our steering committee because of the amended motion, which I voiced strong concern about and which was passed at our June organizational meeting. That amended motion took away all power of the steering committee to provide our work plan, which we could have been already engaged with today about witnesses, future meetings and all of that sort of thing. It, in fact, took that exact wording away. Instead, the full committee, which is not able to meet in any way other than in person, has to deal with all of it. We were not able to have any steering meetings all summer because of that, because our primary focus would have been to deal with these types of things and go through these work plans that are prepared by the Library of Parliament analysts and the clerk. Instead, we have to now go through this.
I will make some comments. When I went through the work plan myself to see in this particular one the witnesses that were proposed for a study into the Senate’s ministerial Question Period, there are very few witnesses who would seem to have useful evidence to impart about Question Period in the Senate in this proposed work plan. I wonder how many of them have actually even seen that proceeding of ministerial Question Period in the Senate.
It is important to note as far as an historical thing why ministerial Question Period in this fashion started in the Senate. That was because the Trudeau government did not name a government leader in the Senate for about four months prior to you being named leader in, I believe, March or April of 2016, so we had no ability to question the government in Question Period in any way in the Senate. We did not have a government leader, we had no one to ask questions to, and we had no way to hold the government to account. Because of that, this was adopted for the first time as a sessional order, and it has continued like that as a bit of a temporary measure to provide some level of government accountability to the Senate. That’s why it started.
Those are my initial thoughts. I think that historical part should be noted in this. I would also like to see a number of witnesses that actually have some knowledge of the Canadian Senate and have seen this proceeding in the Senate rather than witnesses that may have many different interesting and historical perspectives to provide but don’t have any Senate experience.
The Chair: Do you have any specific names to suggest?
Senator Batters: These are comments I made about six weeks ago to the steering committee, including the clerk and the Library of Parliament, so I’m wondering if they perhaps have come up with those types of names as far as academics or parliamentarians, because included in here are people who have substantial experience with the House of Commons but, of course, don’t have the Senate experience. That might also be interesting to hear. I’m not sure if the clerk or the Library of Parliament analysts have come up with additional names.
Senator Ringuette: I’d like to share my two cents worth, which is about the work of the 105 senators who have witnessed the last nine years and agreed to how Question Period moves forward.
In regard to witnesses, as I look at the list here, I find it is quite extensive notwithstanding the fact that each and every one of us have lived with ministerial Question Period and have agreed to it. I do hope that we will be well ahead of the deadline to submit our recommendation to the Senate on this issue. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: If I could pose a question to you, senator: I agree with your suggestion that we finish this inquiry well in advance. Would it be reasonable, colleagues, to plan for three or four hearings as a priority and get to a report as quickly as possible?
Senator Ringuette: I would certainly move that, if need be. We could have a panel of the leaders and the deputy leaders. I think we can achieve that within our two-hour-per-meeting time frame.
The Chair: My suggestion would be that we begin with that in two weeks’ time. That would fill out the agenda for the first meeting. I would be keen on hearing from senators. Other than those senators who are or who have been in leadership roles, who would you like to hear from? Are there experts?
Senator Downe: I think it might be advisable to send out a survey, if you will, to the senators who are not on this committee in case they have particular positions they would like to advocate for, as opposed to having everybody in.
Senator Batters: One that immediately comes to mind is Senator Carignan, who was opposition leader in the Senate at the time. In fact, I believe it was his initial idea. Since we had no Question Period in the Senate for four months, he came up with the idea to have some accountability from the Government of Canada to the Senate. He would be one.
I also note in the proposed work plan, it just says, “. . . any other senator that the committee members deem appropriate.” I think there would be many past senators who potentially could be appropriate witnesses to call and it shouldn’t necessarily just be senators who are currently sitting. Those are some of the ones I would suggest, people who were in here in those kinds of roles, especially ones who actually questioned those ministers.
The Chair: Or government representatives.
Senator Batters: But they don’t answer in ministerial Question Period. That’s what the study is about. It’s just ministerial Question Period; it’s not about Question Period as a whole.
Senator Yussuff: I haven’t been here as long as others, so I’m not going to speak about that experience. Clearly in the context of this period we are in and having experienced ministerial Question Period from the last session and going forward, and given that we are not in the other place, from my perspective and my observation, I think it would be more valuable having ministers come to the Senate to engage with senators on whatever the respective question we choose to ask them. It has been invaluable because it gives the institution more of a feel for their responsibility for and ownership of the legislation and national interest that we are talking about.
In the context of the day-to-day Question Period with government leaders, sometimes I wonder about the practicality of that. I’m being totally transparent in my observation. My point is obviously we are going to conduct the study. I don’t want to prejudice what the outcome might be.
I think it is really important for us to reflect going forward not just on what the past might have looked at and how fortunate and good it might have been. I’m hoping we can improve on this and the witnesses can shed light on how we can make this institution relevant so the Canadian public recognizes that, in the context of what we do, we are also in tune with what the other place is engaged in and the ministers who have responsibility in how they interact with the Senate as a relevant institution of Parliament.
The Chair: Are there other comments?
Senator Ringuette: I would like Senator Downe to expand on or maybe accept an alternative to the issue of conducting a survey per se. We represent all the different groups, and we have two weeks before we have our first meeting on this issue, so maybe we can consult openly with our group in regard to their feelings about ministerial Question Period.
Senator Downe: I assume that would be done as well. What I’m suggesting is that there are always some senators, particularly the non-aligned, who will not in all likelihood be consulted. It’s an opportunity for people to reflect on what they like and dislike about Question Period. It can be anonymous, if they want, or they can put their names to it. I think it would give us a broader perspective on what with our colleagues are thinking and would enrich this committee in a better report.
The Chair: Colleagues, if we wish to proceed in that fashion, my suggestion would be that this letter go out as quickly as possible so that we have a reasonable response, if not two weeks hence at least within the early period of our review.
Senator Downe: I totally agree with that. We don’t want to delay. It should be as soon as possible. It meets the deadline you talked about earlier.
The Chair: Is the committee comfortable with me working with our staff to draft such a letter and share it with the deputy chairs in anticipation of that going forward as soon as we possibly can?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I hear a consensus on that. Thank you.
I would invite the Library of Parliament to respond to the questions that have been put so far.
François Delisle, Library of Parliament Analyst: Good morning, senators.
Just to respond to the points mentioned by Senator Batters, what was circulated in the summer was a draft work plan with the intent to bonify the content, including the witnesses. One of our concerns was to have witnesses who are knowledgeable about the practice. If you look at the motion, one aspect of this motion is to codify a practice. That is why we had the intent to ensure that the witnesses are capable of providing you with concrete information about the way the practice is done. However, if you wish to go in a theoretical approach, we can also provide you with witnesses who have a more theoretical approach. We were preoccupied by the importance of a pragmatic approach in terms of witnesses.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much.
In response to that, there are not that many of those witnesses that I saw on that draft work plan who actually have any experience with the Senate itself. This is a very particular procedure that has developed over the last nearly 10 years. If we are going to have experts, sure, it is interesting to have some that may not be as familiar so we can hear about other aspects, but I think we should also have some from the procedural part, some practical people, and some academics who do have familiarity with that, or for sure at least have watched our Senate ministerial Question Period before.
Senator Ringuette: Maybe I’m the dinosaur around this committee, but I would like to remind senators that the Senate has not always had Question Period in whichever form. It is a relatively new item in the last 20 years, and it was the Senate that adopted this process of Question Period. I doubt that we will have more expertise than the expertise that we have developed within. We have been having ministerial Question Period, thank God, for nine years now.
Chair, I really hope that by including the survey proposed by Senator Downe, that we proceed expeditiously and have a mature reflection around this table on this issue and how to codify it in our rules and make it a permanent item not only in our rules but in our Senate Order Paper.
The Chair: Can I suggest, then, we can achieve a consensus for today on having, at our next meeting on October 7, the Government Representative or somebody from the GRO, the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Opposition — I like Senator Batters’ suggestion of Senator Carignan as well. I hope that we could have at least two, the present leader and/or the deputy leader, but also Senator Carignan because of his background — the facilitators or deputy facilitators of each of the groups, for them to determine; and that we have that hearing at our next meeting. Prior to that, if we can get this letter out, we can ask for a response by let’s say October 10 so that before the subsequent meeting we have at least the input from our colleagues. It might be best to hold off until we have had that hearing as to whether or not we feel we need more “expert witnesses” or are we, in light of our collective experience and the views that have come to us in that hearing itself and the questionnaire, ready to have an engaged conversation around what conclusions we might wish to draw and what recommendations we might wish to make.
Senator Batters: I would just make one comment about the Government Representative Office. The brand new government leader is going to have his first day today, so he has not actually — he has been here for one year, but he has not asked or answered questions in Senate Question Period or ministerial Question Period in the Senate during this last brief session that we had. It has just been a very brief time, so it might be helpful to see — I guess that would be up to the Government Representative — who they would like to have come answer questions about that. Since we would want to know, I think, from the Government Representative Office what the procedure is, how they determine who would be appropriate witnesses or ministers to bring to Senate Question Period, maybe Senator Gold could be somebody who would be helpful — former Senator Gold now. They might want to ask if he would be willing to testify, or that might be something we would look at for the future.
The Chair: I think that’s a very valuable contribution. I would suggest that we leave it to them to determine who — not just one, but who they might wish to have part of this conversation. It may be that the new Government Representative has ideas that he would like to bring to this table. It may well be that Senator Gold would be an added witness to the discussion. I may have views myself.
Can I call a consensus, then, that we meet on October 7, hearing from the witnesses as we have discussed; that we send a letter to colleagues, the draft of which I will circulate to the deputy chairs, and, with their agreement, then we would get it out; that we will review to the conclusion of our meeting on October 7 whether and who other witnesses might be; and that we move forward expeditiously?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is there any other business to come before the committee at this time? Hearing none, I call the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)